How Rockstar Screwed Us and Why Jack Thompson is Right - A CAG Editorial

Lemme put my two cents in here:

Videogames sometimes contain mature content that should not be seen without parental consent or permission. This is a fact. The problem is that videogames are still ‘juvinille’ in the eyes of the mainstream media (and by extension most of America).

The mindset goes something like this; Videogames are to be played by children as they are games… created exclusively for children. The fact that there are violent videogames in existance is grossly offensive to people of this mindset. It would be akin to putting nicotine in Blue Razz (Z’s added for effect) Bubblicious. Tainting something made only for kids.

All games aren’t for children… just like all movies aren’t for children. There NEEDS to be an enforced policy on what gets sold to those underage. I don’t know about you… but I had a hell of a time getting into a Rated-R movie when I was under 17 and without an adult. There were ways around it, like anything… but it was still at least mildly difficult to get it. I think it’s still to easy for those who shouldn’t be getting their hands on violent content to get it. We’re making steps towards this… as I know I’ve been to various larger stores out there and they actually made me pull out my ID to buy an M rated game. That being said… its the exception not the rule… that needs to change.

When it comes down to it though, the responsibility falls squarely on the parents to know what their kids are doing. Lets look at the huge task it is to get this whole “Hot Coffee” thing to work. If you’re getting it to work on your computer or your PS2… you’ve probably already SEEN some of the footage from the game. It’s difficult to access, and takes at least some technical know how.

Parents need to be able to KNOW what their kids are doing on the computer. Just like parents KNEW to look under the bed of young boys for the ‘girlie magazines’… parents need to learn how to ‘look under the bed’ of technology.Instead of making Rockstar reprint the game… they should make an effort to teach parents exactly how their kids are unlocking this content (if they even are).

Parents can be aided by the rating system... yes. But this entire "upgrade" form M to AO is complete BS. Best Buy has PLAYBOY MOVIES in the DVD aisle under "special interest"... but will not stock GTA:SA because its AO. The difference between an AO game and an M game is simply stigma. Officially M rated games can be bought by 17 years olds, and AO game cannot. One year difference? BULLSHIT.

If I'm a parent my kid is going nowhere NEAR an M rated game until he at least in his mid to upper teens ANYWAYS. AO vs. M is officially so “close” that all this controversy seems to suggest that “M” should be seen as OKAY for parent to buy their children. It just makes no sense whatsoever.

If we stop simply firing at each other from across the battles lines of this debate and actually try and figure out a solution to this problem… we can all just drink the coffee and stay up all night playing Smash Bros.
 
Very nice article... I'm glad that more and more people are seeing what Rockstar's actions are doing to do the industry.

Thank you Rockstar, hurt the industry that made you what are (or were).
 
[quote name='organicow']I don't want to be told that I can't play an ultraviolent game - I am almost 30 for god's sake - but I really would rather that 15 yr olds don't play games that further blur the line between reality and fantasy while at an age where such distinctions are harder to make.[/QUOTE]

15 year olds, wtf? Maybe 12 or 13 year olds....
 
censorship? c'mon everybody know GTA is marketed towards kids. If even half the kids didn't buy GTA , Rockstar would be bankrupt. Freedom of expression? You see the problem isn't freedom of expression it's that GTA should be a game that is ADULTS ONLY and that only adults should have access to them. But since they need to make MONEY they have to sell it to kids in innocuous ways. It's like cigarettes are for adults but kids smoke em and tobacco companies advertise to them winkingly. All this talk about amendment issues are moot. How can ROCKSTAR advocate a game that glorifies pimping, sex, killing, and drug use but not advocate a game that has incest, bestiality, and gang rape? I like GTA even though the graphics suck, but I can't respect a company that market's to children that should be strictly for the adult community. The old argument is that people aren't stupid enough to be conditioned but if that were true there wouldn't be advertisements and subliminal suggestions for coke, soap, and doritos. There is a reason why a company would pay 30 million dollars for a 30 minute commercial on the super bowl. It's like watching janet jackson at the superbowl, I think if you are an adult and watch porn that's fine but to sit next to your 6 year old sister and see janet's titty pop out. It's just wrong!!!!
 
[quote name='Revenantae']

Finally, onto the issue of GTA being given a rating of AO. I think that's absolute crap. The ESRB rating system is clearly modeled after the MPAA ratings system, and thus has the same general categories. Giving GTA the highes possible rating, the equivalent of an X, when it contains nothing worse than can be seen in an R rated late night movie is simply silly.

Rant mode off.[/QUOTE]


I agree with you on most of your points.

I also feel it is important there is a fair rating system, but the system that is used for movies will not work for games. The rating system needs to account for the interactivity of games. Movies are passive and non-interactive, therefore a persons experience will always be much less than actually playing a game/event. Games can be simulations, movies will never be simulations.

It is hard to tell how much of an impact electronic interactive entertainment has, but if one is to examine other forms of interactive entertainment they might give some insight on how the rating can be defined. I am thinking that some examples of interactive events might be sports or music concerts.

Ether way the AO rating was probably two things, punishment to R* for trying to cover up, and a safe way for the ESRB to cover its ass.
 
[quote name='sparklecopy']censorship? c'mon everybody know GTA is marketed towards kids. If even half the kids didn't buy GTA , Rockstar would be bankrupt. Freedom of expression? You see the problem isn't freedom of expression it's that GTA should be a game that is ADULTS ONLY and that only adults should have access to them. But since they need to make MONEY they have to sell it to kids in innocuous ways. It's like cigarettes are for adults but kids smoke em and tobacco companies advertise to them winkingly. All this talk about amendment issues are moot. How can ROCKSTAR advocate a game that glorifies pimping, sex, killing, and drug use but not advocate a game that has incest, bestiality, and gang rape? I like GTA even though the graphics suck, but I can't respect a company that market's to children that should be strictly for the adult community. The old argument is that people aren't stupid enough to be conditioned but if that were true there wouldn't be advertisements and subliminal suggestions for coke, soap, and doritos. There is a reason why a company would pay 30 million dollars for a 30 minute commercial on the super bowl. It's like watching janet jackson at the superbowl, I think if you are an adult and watch porn that's fine but to sit next to your 6 year old sister and see janet's titty pop out. It's just wrong!!!![/QUOTE]

There is just so much wrong with this post, I really don't know where to start.

I guess the most logical place would be your assertion that GTA is marketed to kids. How so? Was there an add run during saturday morning cartoons? Was is prominently placed in this months Highlights? A special version of "Go, Dog, Do" featuring CJ placed in the school library? I keep hearing the statements that most R rated movies and M rated games are marketed to children. How so? Where is the proof in the pudding? I've heard this a lot, but I've yet to say any PROOF. Just people quoting other people.

Second, your information about advertising is quite deficient. Yes, advertising is effective, however, it does not change one's basic beliefs. It is useful in persuding you to choose product A over product B, but that's it. It doesn't make you become a zombie that suddenly changes your world view every time a new commercial comes on with a different message. As to subliminal advertising, it's pretty much bunk. Search the net (avoiding the conspiracy theorists) and you'll see actual research that shows subliminal advertising is, at BEST, not even as effective as supraliminal advertising.

Third, I agree that you don't want Jackson's boob blatently displayed to your 6 year old child while you are watching the Superbowl. Playing a game that is clearly rate M, however, carries quite a different set of expectations from watching a show intended for all audiences.
 
Theres a years difference between AO and Mature, wow huge! difference :roll:, what they should do is just get rid of the damn Mature Rating and just keep adult mature content to 18+ . What really fucked over rock star wasn't the rating, it's the rating enforcement (and leaving the mini game code in the game, which was Moronic). Start ENFORCING the ESRB rules and we wouldn't have this problem and the government wouldn't have a scape goat. Do you guys see 14 year olds buying beer? The limit of the government in video games should be to pass laws that would fine stores for selling games to under aged people (Non legal adults), oh and before I get the "That's harsh" reply from under aged teens Look at it from the big picture, you wont be able to buy an adult only game but at least they (aka "The Man") wont band games due to there content and would get off the industry's back. Also, if your mature enough to play the game, your mature enough to ask your parents to buy it for you.

There are a lot things wrong with banning violent games or games that "shouldn't be in the hands of minors". One being, Games aren't just for minors, politicans think that games are 8 bit little cute characters running on a screen eating mushrooms and throwing fire, games are like movies, it's an expersion of art/speech, and like movies has it's wide spectrum of subject mater from the kiddy to the mature and should be treated the same way. Along with that, the government doesn't have the right to tell adults what to watch,listen or in this case play to. Why should we let politicans enforce there ideals on the people, As long as it's in the legal bounds of the law we as human beings/adult should have the free will to see hear say and play anything we please, even if it may seem wrong at least you have the freedom to think it's wrong. Also, forgot to mention if parents actually pay attention to what there childrens hobbies were and what they do with (Most of the time) there money there wouldn't be the need for any type of law for movies, games, books, music or any other form source of entertainment.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Seriously. This isn't gamefaqs. You just admitted that you haven't played or unlocked the minigame yet you continue to blab away. Shut up already.[/QUOTE]

Your gamefaqs comment has irony written all over it. That and you're obviously not reading.

What are you, 12? Oh wait, if you've played San Andreas, you must be 17+!

Even more irony.

*awaits a quote and response*
 
I'm sticking with my "loosen up america's ass for when the next GTA hits with full blown sex scenes that truly justify an AO rating" theory.
 
If the red state gov't gets it's way, here's the vision of future videogames:

Bart: "Billy Graham's Bible Blaster?"
Rod: Keep firing; convert the heathens!
[cut to a pixilated video screen. Heathens cross the street, as a Bible gun shoots the Holy Book at them. When a heathen gets hit, he turns into a conservatively dressed man with a halo]
Bart: Got him!
Rod: No, you just winged him and made him a Unitarian.
Todd: Look out, Bart! A gentle Baha'i!
[cut back to the video screen. A Baha'i, sitting cross-legged and wearing a turban, floats past. Bart zaps him, and turns him into another suit-wearing conservative]
Bart: All right! Full conversion!

TV: Second Coming! Reload, reload!
 
[quote name='sisco1986']Theres a years difference between AO and Mature, wow huge! difference :roll:, what they should do is just get rid of the damn Mature Rating and just keep adult mature content to 18+ . What really fucked over rock star wasn't the rating, it's the rating enforcement (and leaving the mini game code in the game, which was Moronic). Start ENFORCING the ESRB rules and we wouldn't have this problem and the government wouldn't have a scape goat. Do you guys see 14 year olds buying beer? The limit of the government in video games should be to pass laws that would fine stores for selling games to under aged people (Non legal adults), oh and before I get the "That's harsh" reply from under aged teens Look at it from the big picture, you wont be able to buy an adult only game but at least they (aka "The Man") wont band games due to there content and would get off the industry's back. Also, if your mature enough to play the game, your mature enough to ask your parents to buy it for you.

There are a lot things wrong with banning violent games or games that "shouldn't be in the hands of minors". One being, Games aren't just for minors, politicans think that games are 8 bit little cute characters running on a screen eating mushrooms and throwing fire, games are like movies, it's an expersion of art/speech, and like movies has it's wide spectrum of subject mater from the kiddy to the mature and should be treated the same way. Along with that, the government doesn't have the right to tell adults what to watch,listen or in this case play to. Why should we let politicans enforce there ideals on the people, As long as it's in the legal bounds of the law we as human beings/adult should have the free will to see hear say and play anything we please, even if it may seem wrong at least you have the freedom to think it's wrong. Also, forgot to mention if parents actually pay attention to what there childrens hobbies were and what they do with (Most of the time) there money there wouldn't be the need for any type of law for movies, games, books, music or any other form source of entertainment.[/QUOTE]

The inherent problem with this idea is that it is counterintuitive to capitalism. No game developer, no game publisher, and no retailer (alright, perhaps a *very* select few) wants to do anything to reduce sales (including garner an AO rating from the ESRB).

One way to reduce sales of games is to enforce the age limit listed on the boxes. So, do we take a alcohol/cigarette approach to it (gov't enforced, stiff fines for selling underage), or do we take a movie approach to it (it's not against the law, but it's kinda sorta occasionally common to get carded for - and only for - an 'R' rated movie)?

I don't have the answer to that; certainly the first approach will work far better, but some may argue, unnecessarily involves the government. The second keeps the burden on the industry and retailers, which, as I said, goes against the intuition to make as many sales as possible (which is the cornerstone of capitalism).
 
The Parental argument is moot.

The article is about R* putting highly sexual (albeit graphically weak) content into their game and then lying about it, that's all that needs to be said. The game deserves to be rebranded just for that and R* fined for their attempt to dodge the blame.

If they'd have just owned up to it and said "yeah, we put it in there as a joke and never expected anyone to ever be able to access it!" or "It was a joke the programers played around with and never intended for public consumption" either would have been better than saying "We didn't do it!" like Bart simpson standing next to graphetti and hiding a spray can. You screw up, you own up to it, apologize and make it right if possible.

Parent groups, Senators and watch dogs will ALWAYS find something to complain about, any one remember the supposed Mighty Mouse snorting cocaine issue from a few years ago? If they didn't nit pick everything they'd run out of things to do and actually have to TRY parenting. But regardless of how sickening these people can be it makes no sense to GIVE them ammo for the purpose of getting more air time so that can wave their "WE'RE RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING" banner.
 
The Parental argument is moot.

The article is about R* putting highly sexual (albeit graphically weak) content into their game and then lying about it, that's all that needs to be said. The game deserves to be rebranded just for that and R* fined for their attempt to dodge the blame.

If they'd have just owned up to it and said "yeah, we put it in there as a joke and never expected anyone to ever be able to access it!" or "It was a joke the programers played around with and never intended for public consumption" either would have been better than saying "We didn't do it!" like Bart simpson standing next to graphetti and hiding a spray can. You screw up, you own up to it, apologize and make it right if possible.

Parent groups, Senators and watch dogs will ALWAYS find something to complain about, any one remember the supposed Mighty Mouse snorting cocaine issue from a few years ago? If they didn't nit pick everything they'd run out of things to do and actually have to TRY parenting. But regardless of how sickening these people can be it makes no sense to GIVE them ammo for the purpose of getting more air time so that can wave their "WE'RE RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING" banner.
 
First of all great article Cheapy.
I think this whole situation is ridiculous. Rockstar should have just owned up to this from the start and it would have all blown over. Now the House of Reps is calling for an FTC investigation. What a moronic waste of time and money. Maybe other publishers will learn from this and not try to fool the public. I am firmly on the side that Rockstar should not be held accountable for the content being on the disk as it was inaccessible from an average player's view. Heck it wasn't even looked for on the PS2 or Xbox until someone found it on the PC version. Because R* did not own up to the mistake of not taking it out in the first place it comes across as if they had something to hide which reflects badly on the whole videogame industry.

I also agree with Scrubking about the ESRB screwing the industry as well by changing the rating. The statement about the ESRB and the industry not doing enough to keep mature games out of kids hands is a statement that I take issue with. It is the PARENTS responsibility to protect thier kids from things that they are not ready to deal with. We don't need laws with fines for store owners that sell the games. Parents need to be responsible and pay attention to what their kids are doing.

As far as "everyone is looking way too deep into this", Apossum. We don't think this is a big deal because we are in the know. People that don't have a clue about our videogame industry just believe what they are told by the media and don't bother to look for more information for themselves. This leads to thing like an FTC investigation which causes unnecessary headaches and could also keep future publishers from putting out games that push the envelope for fear of becoming another Rockstar.

Unless there is a massive education campaign about the videogame industry and about the specifics of this incident, the industry is going to feel this for a long time to come. Which means that we are going to feel it too.


-----------------------------------------------------
- Life is hard. It's even harder if you are stupid.
 
[quote name='stormtrooper94']

I also agree with Scrubking about the ESRB screwing the industry as well by changing the rating. The statement about the ESRB and the industry not doing enough to keep mature games out of kids hands is a statement that I take issue with. It is the PARENTS responsibility to protect thier kids from things that they are not ready to deal with. We don't need laws with fines for store owners that sell the games. Parents need to be responsible and pay attention to what their kids are doing.
[/QUOTE]

I'd have to disagree - I've seen some ignorant shop owners sell games to minors. If they are guilty of it - I see no problem fining them.
 
[quote name='SkyGheNe']I'd have to disagree - I've seen some ignorant shop owners sell games to minors. If they are guilty of it - I see no problem fining them.[/QUOTE]

I didn't look at it that way. :whistle2:k Maybe fines do have a purpose. Thanks for pointing that out to me.


-----------------------------------------------------
- Top bunk: Where one should never put a child wearing Superman jammies.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The inherent problem with this idea is that it is counterintuitive to capitalism. No game developer, no game publisher, and no retailer (alright, perhaps a *very* select few) wants to do anything to reduce sales (including garner an AO rating from the ESRB).

One way to reduce sales of games is to enforce the age limit listed on the boxes. So, do we take a alcohol/cigarette approach to it (gov't enforced, stiff fines for selling underage), or do we take a movie approach to it (it's not against the law, but it's kinda sorta occasionally common to get carded for - and only for - an 'R' rated movie)?

I don't have the answer to that; certainly the first approach will work far better, but some may argue, unnecessarily involves the government. The second keeps the burden on the industry and retailers, which, as I said, goes against the intuition to make as many sales as possible (which is the cornerstone of capitalism).[/QUOTE]

beer and fags are totally different things and I don't like cheapys analogy of cig's and gaming although they are similar the are two totally different products, but they do have a set age limit, that's my point. If the goverment sets an age of +18( AO or R in this case) for instance in a movie or game in order to see/play then that's fine in my book. It is very unnessary I agree, if parents would just keep tabs on what there children buy and if stores would enforce the ESRB with out the help of the government there wouldn't even be a need for this topic or the governments gruby little hands in this mess.

Yes a lot of the money is in the 13-16 (AO is 18 or lower) age group but if the game says M +17 or AO +18, then the game wasn't intended for them in the first place, it was ment for people above the stated age group. The video game industry needs to stop turning a blind and smell the coffee (no pun), if they love there games so much then ask the stores to enforce the rating system. The M rating to me is just a crock and a loop hole for developers, keep it at M then it looks apealing to teens but put an AO on it and it just reaks of something a teen under the age of 18 shouldn't have (Which are a lot of M rated games, not all but a lot), But since money rules of course they wont, not until some assinine politican in his crusade to ban everything he doesn't like gets in the way of making money.
 
The ESRB really is just a way to provide PARENTS with a way to know what type of game to expect.

Operating from this idea-

It is absolute garbage that R* has something like this in their game, even if it "isn't active" for regular players and only to modders (and a fairly easy mod too) ----- when you consider that it WAS NOT presented as part of the game when it was submitted for it's ESRB review tag.

For the ESRB rating system to work, they have to have ALL the facts presented to them when making their judgements. Period.

If R* would have included that little snippet in the information they provided to the ESRB, I wouldn't have any problem with the game being slapped with the AO rating. But it at least would be done with all the cards on the table.


I don't agree much with the gestapo beliefs in getting more gov't involved in our lives. I don't want to see gov't house "policing" who buys what games how.

The ESRB system shouldn't be about fining people, it should be about what it is-- providing a RATING. That gives potential buyers all the tools they need when deciding on a purchase.

Parents SHOULD be more involved in what their children are watching, playing, and doing. That's the bottom line and I would prefer if THAT responsiblity is left up to PARENTS and not the NANNY STATE.

I agree with CheapyD on this one- F*** R* for doing this because it provides the exact ammo that anti-videogaming nutballs are looking for when attempting to infringe on more of our freedom to be indviduals responsible for our own lives and decisions.
 
I haven't read the entire thread. Too many "Vs." posts in here. So sorry if this has been mentioned:

http://egm.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3142298



FTC Investigating Take-Two
House of Representatives open a 'hot coffee' investigation.
by Patrick Klepek, 07/25/2005 36 of 42 users recommend this story.
Just as Illinois officially passes their Safe Games Illinois Act, the nation's House of Representatives has finished voting on if the Federal Trade Commission should investigate whether or not Take-Two Interactive deceived the Entertainment Software Ratings Board when it submitted Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The resulting, almost unanimous vote of 355-21 evoked a 'holy crap' from John Davison and other editors. It appears the 'hot coffee' situation will become much, much more dangerous for game developers, modders and the industry at large before it reaches any safe resolutions. We'll be investigating further tomorrow. Stay tuned for more.



I am glad to see this turn of events. Hopefully it will bring out into the press that this problem is with Take Two and R*, not the whole industry. That's the realization that I hope for anyway...
 
[quote name='penmyst']It is absolute garbage that R* has something like this in their game, even if it "isn't active" for regular players and only to modders (and a fairly easy mod too) ----- when you consider that it WAS NOT presented as part of the game when it was submitted for it's ESRB review tag. [/QUOTE]

I disagree. If it is not playable out of the box without some sort of modification (not a hidden cheat code or something) then the game should not be rated based on the inaccessable content. Where do you draw the line? There are modders who have made Super Pimp Bros. and other stupid shit based off of Super Mario Bros or the nude skins in computer games, etc. that wouldn't be possible without the underlying code. Let's have a Congressional hearing!
 
[quote name='penmyst']The ESRB really is just a way to provide PARENTS with a way to know what type of game to expect.

Operating from this idea-

It is absolute garbage that R* has something like this in their game, even if it "isn't active" for regular players and only to modders (and a fairly easy mod too) ----- when you consider that it WAS NOT presented as part of the game when it was submitted for it's ESRB review tag.

For the ESRB rating system to work, they have to have ALL the facts presented to them when making their judgements. Period.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. People keep yelling "Parents' fault" but in this situation R* is sabotaging the rating system. Parents should be able to decide whether their kids should be able to play a game based on the rating on the box. If the incorrect rating is on the box, then how are the technology impaired to know what content is in the game. This point is a bit moot for this situation because no parent should be upset that their child saw a sex scene in GTA:SA when there are countless worse things going on in the game. But imagine the implications this could have for every other game. The point is we should be glad the ESRB is there, and if we want to keep the government out of video games, we should be upset when a company bucks the system by hiding content from the ESRB. R* may have changed the way that video games are rated and how they are controlled because of not removing some unused code. Whether it's laziness or on purpose, thanks a lot Rockstar.
 
[quote name='javeryh']I disagree. If it is not playable out of the box without some sort of modification (not a hidden cheat code or something) then the game should not be rated based on the inaccessable content. Where do you draw the line? There are modders who have made Super Pimp Bros. and other stupid shit based off of Super Mario Bros or the nude skins in computer games, etc. that wouldn't be possible without the underlying code. Let's have a Congressional hearing![/QUOTE]

Yes, but this isn't modified code (as all of the examples you gave are), this is in the game, the modification is just the ability to access it. Big difference.
 
[quote name='zzl365']Yes, but this isn't modified code (as all of the examples you gave are), this is in the game, the modification is just the ability to access it. Big difference.[/QUOTE]

I still disagree.
 
[quote name='javeryh']I still disagree.[/QUOTE]

Did you read someone's post a few pages up? It said something about a possible kids game that was rated E. When accessed with AR or some other device, you can play full blown porn mini games. Should this be allowed? Sure it's extreme, but not really that much different than what you want to allow.

Saying the stuff Rockstar did is ok will get you on a slippery slope very quickly.
 
[quote name='Revenantae']I find this opinion to be nonsense because it doesn't point out most of these problems ARE the parents' fault. No sarcasm here, and to head off any ridiculous argument, I'm in my mid 30's, not my teens. And while I'm at it, I might mention I have raised a child. I am not someone screaming at my team from the safety of my arm-chair, I've quarterbacked these plays.

The fact is, parents are the be all and end all of children. These days many people think parenting is, and should be, no more onerous that owning a pet. Feed it, shelter it, maybe play fetch with it for a half hour a day or so, and that's the end of your responsibility. I'm sorry to say, that ain't so. Parenting is an incredibly dfemanding job.

When you are actually PARENTING, your kids are no more than 10 feet away from you at all times (excepting when they are at school). They do their homework, you help. Thjey watch TV, you choose the channel and show. They use the computer, you are right there supervising. In my immediate neighborhood, there are many families with children. You can IMMEDIATELY tell the parents from the "caretakers".

Take the two first generation Vietnamese and one first generation Mexican families near me. There is no time when you see the kids, and not at least one parent. Ever. Not at the park. Not on the street. Not in the car. It simply doesn't happen. Their children are intelligent, do well at school, and unfailingly polite. They have never been in any sort of trouble, and likely never will be.

Now look at the "caretakers" who want their social lives. Not ONE if their children is as well behaved as even the MOST unruly child from the above families.

A lot of people, typically those who don;t want the burden of actually raising children, are quick to point out that children aren't under their control ALL the time, and that even if they DO do all the right things, children may still end up as criminals.

I'll concede that some people are just born with bad wiring. However, the odds of that happening are greatly reduced with good parenting. I'd be willing to bet in borderline kids the parenting makes ALL the difference.

In any event, just because a precaution doesn;t work deosn't obviate the need for it. Seatbelts MIGHT not save your life, but the probably will. Warning labels MIGHT not keep people from smoking, but they probably will. And good parenting practices MIGHT not prevent your kid from comitting heinous acts of violence, but it probably will.

No then, let's turn away from the issue of blame, at look more at what should change. Should we regulate the sales of games to minors? ABSOLUTELY. Should we be sure ratings are fairly, and strictly enforeced? ABSOLUTELY. Will that solve the problem? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Being cheapass gamers, we've all spent our share of time at B&Ms that sell games. Now I can't speak for everyone, but the following holds true for me and most people I've spoken with. For every time I've seen an underaged person buy a game they really should be allowed to, I've seen SEVERAL parents buy Death Simulator 500 (now with EXTRA dural matter(tm)) for little Johnny or Julia.

The fact is, all the regulation in the universe will have very little impact until we teach parents and politicians two simple things. 1: What the ESRB rating system is, and what it means. 2: That games are NOT just for children anymore, and there is thus no longer a reasonable expectation that any given game will be suitable for children.

Finally, onto the issue of GTA being given a rating of AO. I think that's absolute crap. The ESRB rating system is clearly modeled after the MPAA ratings system, and thus has the same general categories. Giving GTA the highes possible rating, the equivalent of an X, when it contains nothing worse than can be seen in an R rated late night movie is simply silly.

Rant mode off.[/QUOTE]


You hit the nail square on the head! :applause: :bow: :D
 
Also, having scanned most of this thread and not seeing it, I thought I'd bring it up. I was told that there was a fairly similar mini game in God of War that contained bare breasts. It sounds like the Hot Coffee mod is in the same vein but with full clothing (I haven't seen or played it, so correct me if I'm wrong). Assuming what I said above is true, how could GTA get a worse rating then God of War?
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']Also, having scanned most of this thread and not seeing it, I thought I'd bring it up. I was told that there was a fairly similar mini game in God of War that contained bare breasts. It sounds like the Hot Coffee mod is in the same vein but with full clothing (I haven't seen or played it, so correct me if I'm wrong). Assuming what I said above is true, how could GTA get a worse rating then God of War?[/QUOTE]

From what I remember, the God of War example does not show anything while the player is playing, only a bouncing bed, but there is a mini-cut-scene before and after.
 
[quote name='j-fever']From what I remember, the God of War example does not show anything while the player is playing, only a bouncing bed, but there is a mini-cut-scene before and after.[/QUOTE]

Ah alright well there goes that complaint. Even still I don't understand how clothed people simulating sex could be considered for the AO rating anyway.
 
[quote name='penmyst']I don't agree much with the gestapo beliefs in getting more gov't involved in our lives. I don't want to see gov't house "policing" who buys what games how.[/QUOTE]

Just want to point out that it's "onward christian soldier" beliefs and not Nazi beliefs that are pushing this censorship (although I see how you can mistake the two groups, given the tactics used)
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Seriously. This isn't gamefaqs. You just admitted that you haven't played or unlocked the minigame yet you continue to blab away. Shut up already.[/QUOTE]

As much as I'd hate to agree with scrub, he's right. You have no say, outside a guestimate and others words, as to how long it takes, unless that is you yourself goes through it. Persoanlly, I was able to start a new game and get in all down pat in less than 15 minutes (though I didn't time myself, so it coul've been shorter/longer)
 
The simulated sex act can still be concidered dirty by some people because it's still potentially showing and act that shouldn't be seen by underaged individuals.

I think the ESRB system is generally problematic because M is = to R, while AO is intended for = XXX content which is pretty pointless since actual XXX games dont submit themselves to the ratings board anyway. There's no middle ground between them, there's either mindless violence (which is far easily more acceptable) and mild suggestive themes (like bouncing boobies) or straight up hardcore sex. By this judgment R-rated teen sex comedies like American Pie of Road Trip would be X-rated movies.
 
[quote name='camoor']Just want to point out that it's "onward christian soldier" beliefs and not Nazi beliefs that are pushing this censorship (although I see how you can mistake the two groups, given the tactics used)[/QUOTE]

Uh, last I checked the main man pushing for video game censorship, Joe Lieberman, wasn't even christian and despite the faiths of people like the Gores, Hilary Clinton, Leland Yee, etc, etc, I doubt most would call them "christian soldiers" or even extreme christians or conservatives in general. In fact in all they've said the closest thing to a christianity reference they've made lately would maybe be the phrase "family values" or the like. Once again, you are just looking to bash christianity because you find it to your own liking. These people are looking to be the "censorship police" and I don't really think their faith is playing a big role.

Edit: Though to be fair, many christian conservatives push for censorship, yet christianity's clearly not the single driving force, especially in the video game uindustry's situation.
 
I'm far more offended that Rockstar keeps releasing new games with a few more bells and whistles on the same engine every time instead of coming up with more really high quality stuff. Uh, anyway...

While Rockstar looks moronic and "evil" for lying about the content (especially since anyone with a brain KNEW it was intentionally left in there even before Rockstar commented on it), it's annoying knowing that people like Hillary Clinton, Jack Thompson, et al likely haven't seen this content and likely wouldn't be able to access this content with a 5 page tutorial and a week to do it. As said in the original post, these people couldn't care less about our "freedoms." This has very little to do with being pushy, morally righteous Christians or abusive, neo-Nazi censorship proponents, they just want to have the sound bite that is quoted in the papers and on TV.

However, I think any upset parent who bought their kid GTA should be bent over and fucked with an Xbox controller for being such a clueless tool. What, the name alone isn't a clue enough to the content?

Giving GTA:SA an AO rating makes little sense at this point and is the proverbial "housefly with an elephant gun" solution. I've seen more graphic sex and violence in R rated movies. The sex in GTA:SA is more comical than it is arousing...I certainly HOPE that's the case for everyone, anyway. By MPAA standards, which as someone already mentioned is the inspiration for the ESRB (not to mention their own standards), GTA:SA is an M rated game. I don't see the problem, other than the fact that until recently no one has enforced the video game ratings, so the M has only recently started to mean something.

It's just the ESRB trying to save face by doing whatever they are pressured to do. As games become more and more accepted into the mainstream, we'll start seeing more stuff like this, and the ratings will likely be reevaluated and adjusted to truly reflect what we are. The people that got their parents to buy them an NES when they were in grade school are the ones with the money now, so marketing to them with more risque content is a no-brainer.

This isn't going to be doomsday for the gaming industry, and despite what the majority opinion here seems to be, in the long run this will only be a blip on the radar. It's hurting Rockstar in the short term, but I doubt they are losing sleep over it. It's just getting their name out there so when the next GTA comes out it has an even BIGGER impact - as if they needed any help.

This whole "video games are the root of evil" thing is bullshit anyway. 50 years from now we'll look back on it the same way we look back on the senate hearings on comic books decades ago where it was claimed they caused delinquincy (and homosexuality!). Imagine someone trying to cause a ruckus claiming Batman is causing the youth of America to go in the toilet now - they'd probably be profiled on The Daily Show with some interviewer dressing up as Robin making fun of him/her.
 
[quote name='Alpha2']
I think the ESRB system is generally problematic because M is = to R, while AO is intended for = XXX content which is pretty pointless since actual XXX games dont submit themselves to the ratings board anyway. There's no middle ground between them, there's either mindless violence (which is far easily more acceptable) and mild suggestive themes (like bouncing boobies) or straight up hardcore sex. By this judgment R-rated teen sex comedies like American Pie of Road Trip would be X-rated movies.[/QUOTE]

I don't think its really a proper comparison for the AO rating to be equivelent of XXX content. Actual XXX movies aren't submitted to the MPAA either, but you still see NC-17(X) rated movies released(however rarely) in theaters. The AO rating is the middle ground between the games involving hardcore sex and the mindless violence/mild suggestive themes found in M rated games just like the NC-17 is the middle ground between the an R rated film and your average porno. The games involving hardcore sex are in a category set apart entirely from the games that are submitted to the ESRB, like porn films are kept apart from mainstream movies submitted to the MPAA. I doubt anyone here who has seen some NC-17 rated films would consider them anything close to a XXX film. The AO rating, like the NC-17 rating is reserved strictly for the games cross that line between what would be acceptable for someone under 18 to be able to watch/play given proper supervision that the R and M ratings are meant for and what is obviously unacceptable for anyone under that age to be watching/playing no matter what the circumstances that the AO and NC-17 ratings are meant for. While XXX movies/games certainly can be included in these ratings if ithey were submitted, the fact that they aren't submitted and aren't made as readily available keeps them in their own seperate category.
 
[quote name='camoor']Just want to point out that it's "onward christian soldier" beliefs and not Nazi beliefs that are pushing this censorship (although I see how you can mistake the two groups, given the tactics used)[/QUOTE]

When it's straight sex, Liberals cry. When it's gay sex, Conservatives cry.

People are stupid, ladies and gentlemen.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Uh, last I checked the main man pushing for video game censorship, Joe Lieberman, wasn't even christian and despite the faiths of people like the Gores, Hilary Clinton, Leland Yee, etc, etc, I doubt most would call them "christian soldiers" or even extreme christians or conservatives in general. In fact in all they've said the closest thing to a christianity reference they've made lately would maybe be the phrase "family values" or the like. Once again, you are just looking to bash christianity because you find it to your own liking. These people are looking to be the "censorship police" and I don't really think their faith is playing a big role.

Edit: Though to be fair, many christian conservatives push for censorship, yet christianity's clearly not the single driving force, especially in the video game uindustry's situation.[/QUOTE]

Judeo-christian. That takes care of Lieberman.

And to suggest that Hilary Clinton is not positioning herself as a conservative is absurd.

Where does all this family values nonsense come from then? Which politician-coveted voting block cares more about shielding their kids from one accidental slip of the F-word or a left tit then sending them off to foreign countries to be killed for oil once they hit 18?

They did it to radio, they did it to TV, and now they're coming for videogames. The culture war is on, and the censors are winning. How far is it going to go, are you going to let them outlaw Maxim and put state-mandated burkas on women?
 
A lot more than violence and sex gets censored, my man. It's both sides fucking shit up.

It's not as black & white as most make it out to be. It all depends on which side is offended, which people are offended and to what side leaps to the aide of said-offended people.

If there's a gay kiss on, say, some dime-a-dozen teen FOX show, Conservatives go nuts. If a psycho-killer refers to somebody as a "fagg0t" in a slasher movie, Liberals shit their pants.

People. fucking. Suck. Especially people in power of decidind what's moral, what's art, what's acceptable, etc. All shades of gray. And that goes for both sides of the "political spectrum" -- even though there is more than two.
 
[quote name='Brak']A lot more than violence and sex gets censored, my man. It's both sides fucking shit up.

It's not as black & white as most make it out to be. It all depends on which side is offended, which people are offended and to what side leaps to the aide of said-offended people.

If there's a gay kiss on, say, some dime-a-dozen teen FOX show, Conservatives go nuts. If a psycho-killer refers to somebody as a "fagg0t" in a slasher movie, Liberals shit their pants.

People. fucking. Suck. Especially people in power of decidind what's moral, what's art, what's acceptable, etc. All shades of gray. And that goes for both sides of the "political spectrum" -- even though there is more than two.[/QUOTE]

Thing is, the slasher flick does not get censored since it's already so over the top it's restricted.

I'm talking about the normal slip-ups that occur on TV (like a quick slip of the f word or a short skirt), or the things that happen after 12PM, that rile up the "Hank Hill" crowd. It's nonsense that the kids (if parented and policed properly) won't see, and if they do will go right over their head (like a sex joke in the latest Shrek)

Of course, you get the christians who know how to spam the FTC with emails/form letters, taking advantage of poorly written legislation to ban otherwise acceptably labeled media and start a garbage movement towards more government control of my life.
 
I havn't read the rest of the thread but I jost got the e-mail about CheapyD's article bitching about Rockstar and I just wanted to say he is a ******* hypocrite for posting that and in the same e-mail providing information and links to devices to allow people to view the said content that was never intended for public view. Way to keep it real.
 
[quote name='Gek54']I havn't read the rest of the thread but I jost got the e-mail about CheapyD's article bitching about Rockstar and I just wanted to say he is a ******* hypocrite for posting that and in the same e-mail providing information and links to devices to allow people to view the said content that was never intended for public view. Way to keep it real.[/QUOTE]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those GOOGLE ads? That would mean it would take main terms, such as Hot Coffee, and use the search engine base to make targeted advertisements. If we started talking abou Democrats or Republicans enough the ads would change to political party donation sites. .....Or am I thinking of the ads in the forum threads?
 
Reality's Fringe said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those GOOGLE ads? That would mean it would take main terms, such as Hot Coffee, and use the search engine base to make targeted advertisements. If we started talking abou Democrats or Republicans enough the ads would change to political party donation sites. .....Or am I thinking of the ads in the forum threads?
Click to expand...

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/archives/001002.php

Perhaps this is what he speaks of.
 
heres my two cents.

The game had sex stuff in it allready! You can wear a nice leather suit and caryy a 12 foot purple dildo. you can have sex with hookers with your grilfriend....etc. Its not the games fault its the parents for not realizing what they are letting their cildren play. Come on what parent lets their kids play this game in the first place. nothhhing like teaching them that cusing, killing, drugs, stealing, gangs are ok ....but not sex.... the sex has taken it to far!
 
Anyone noticed that the controversy about video games haven't been talked about lately until this came up? Talking about the government being morons since they always deak about the little things like this and when they can't even deal with the bigger things, such as high gas prices and the war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top