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

[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]

Can we keep the radical Christian hatred on the VS. forum?

Where does all this family values nonsense come from then?
Click to expand...

Your right. Wanting "Family values" is pure nonsense that only radical Christians want. Everyone else is just a lawless beast wanting anarchy and they don't care about their families. :roll:

You see people, this is the shit that infests the VS board. So if you never go in there be happy that you don't.
 
[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]I think he is talking about the bloglet front page email digest.

Where do I say that there is anything wrong with sex or violence in video games? I love blowing the heads off people and having sex with virtual whores. If I can do both in the same game, even better. That's value!

I don't think you actually read the article. It sounds like you skimmed the first two paragraphs. My beef is with Rockstar and ESRB for making it too easy to for gaming opponents to go after us.

Regarding the Action Replay Max posting... As far as I know, most children do not have credit cards and/or the ability to order from Amazon.com. Additionaly, this is a video game deal website. We post video game deals here. An AR MAX for $15 shipped free is video game deal. The fact that its a deal and relates to a major news item in the gaming industry makes it even more relevant.

And obviously Hot Coffee was intended for public view. Last time I checked, game companies do not program content which is not intended to be part of the game (public view). Sure, it may not be finished, but clearly Rockstar intended Hot Coffee to part of the game at some point. Otherwise, they might as well just throw money out the window.

Contrary to what I wrote in the article, I guess with the pending government investigation, we will learn the whole story. Won't that be some great publicity for the gaming industry!
 
[quote name='camoor']If the red state gov't gets it's way, here's the vision of future videogames:

Bart: "Billy Graham's Bible Blaster?"

TV: Second Coming! Reload, reload![/QUOTE]
I hate to burst your political bubble, but the charge to censor video games is being led by Senator Clinton, and other Democrats. True conservatives want absolutely nothing to do with government regulation.

Now, I've heard a lot of people whining that "R* left Hot Coffee in!!!!1!1!" and therefore deserve to be castigated. Let me point out a few things, and give you an analogy that illustrates the absurdity of this.

I happen to be a programmer by trade, and I know a thing or two about adding and removing code. Depending on where a piece of code lies, and what things it ties into, snipping it out is not necessarily as easy as it sounds. In some cases, disabling a function is far easier than removing it, and when deadlines loom, you do what you need to do to hit the deadline.

Second, were not arguing about something left in that was obviously intended for use. Look at the MASSIVE number of codes left in every GTA since 3. If they give you codes for everything from tire size, to pedestrian weapon carrying, don't you think there would be a code for Hot Coffee if they REALLY wanted it to be accessible? There isn't, they didn't.

So now we have to look at the liability of Rock*. Let's say I film a movie (for direct to DVD of course) with some "questionable content" in it. When I take my film to the MPAA for rating, they tell me I'm getting an X, the kiss of death. So the MPAA and I work together to identify cuts and edits that could be made to achieve an R rating. (As an aside, this is exactly what happens in the movie industry). I modify my film, and ship it that way. Now, someone else gets hold of the footage I cut, and adds it back to the film, shows it to a lawyer and the lawsuits begin.

Is it really fair to go back and retroactively rate my film as an X? Yes, I did film the original footage, but I took steps to remove it from view. I did what was reasonable to be sure the average joe wouldn't see the stuff that would have earned my film an X.

Rock* did the same thing. It isn't, despite many people's claims here, reasonable to assume your code will be reverse engineered, put back into a state that changes it's rating, disseminated, and then screamed about so loudly that it's universal dissemination is unavoidable.

IMHO the press has a LOT to answer for in this one. If it weren't for all the "front page" coverage, I'd never have known the MOD existed. Neither would most of you. Neither would the precious children that Clinton and her ilk are working so hard to protect from it.
 
[quote name='brodiemash']Ahhh, yes....memories of Night Trap come flooding back. RIP Chick from Different Strokes, RIP.[/QUOTE]

Dano Plato. And if by "memories" you mean "nightmares," then yes. What a horrible game. Still, it was a bit titillating (or would have been with less grainy graphics) for me at age 14 :)
 
The best move for Rockstar right now is to take advantage of the situation.
They have been forced to relabel the game 'AO', so re-release it as 'AO'.

Take this time to add the 'hot coffee' content back into the actual game, and any other items that had originally been cut to get an 'M' rating. If they embrace this re-rating fiasco to re-release the game with even more content than before, there is nothing that can be done since the game has already been rated 'AO'. The worst that would happen is that they would sell more copies to people that already bought the 'M' rated version. The PS2 version has been out for almost a year. How many people that bought the original version would re-buy an 'AO' version for the extra content and simply for the novelty of having an 'AO' game on the console.

The Grand Theft Auto series will be a hit seller regardless of an 'AO' rating and Rockstar knows this. If they make the game available at specialty markets only, or even through their website, people will go out of their way to get it. Wal-Mart is a huge videogame supplier because there is one in every town. People go there for convenience.

The hard-core GTA fans will find a way to get the game, regardless if it isn't availalbe in Wal-Mart or K-Mart or Lowe's or wherever.
 
[quote name='youbastards']The hard-core GTA fans will find a way to get the game, regardless if it isn't availalbe in Wal-Mart or K-Mart or Lowe's or wherever.[/QUOTE]

Big business wants the casual gamers' sales, so the hardcore fans alone won't provide enough money to satisfy Take 2. To reach the widest casual gamer audience, you have to sell at Walmart, KMart, etc., so Take 2 will sell out its content to get the necessary rating to sell at these stores, sad but true. :cry:
 
There's a difference in removing footage from a film from the theater or DVD and someone else showing it versus you including it on your DVD that could be 'found' by someone through a set of clicks or a code. If you included X-rated items (or NC-17 material -- that's 'X" with a plot, lol) to be found, you are deceiving your consumers. I'm not sure what the MPAA could do, but I'm sure they have provisions for that. Of course, you could choose to include it as part of a bonus for an "Unrated" version -OR- you can argue that the bonus features were to be viewed as "Unrated" as well. Not all DVDs have to have a rating, correct? It's odd that some places will sell an unrated item versus an NC-17 item. Is there a rule that a game must be rated, either? Maybe there can be disclaimers that using a cheat device or a code may render the ESRB rating void.

I definitely think the mini game should not garner an AO rating. The M is already beyond sufficient for what content is has. Maybe people just don't understand that M really means for 17+, not "for older kids." That goes back to the arguement that the industry is still seen as that for children and teens. Some need to realize that adults are an ever-growing market and that content appropriate for adults would be inevitable. The ESRB needs to get a good foothold of what level of sexual content really is deserving an AO rating versus an M. Otherwise, their ratings really become much more meaningless if they make PG-13 sex be AO but almost NC-17 violence just an M.

Anyone still have that blood code for Mortal Kombat on the Genesis? ^__^
 
[quote name='Revenantae']I hate to burst your political bubble, but the charge to censor video games is being led by Senator Clinton, and other Democrats. True conservatives want absolutely nothing to do with government regulation.[/QUOTE]

OT...your second sentence is terribly incorrect due to the immense amount of idealism and spin necessary to render it correct. Gay marriage? Partiot Act? Other forms of embracing federalism and minimizing statism? Government regulation, sho 'nuff. Democrats aren't sacred, but "true conservatives" died with Goldwater. If they mattered at all, they'd have some in power, which they don't.

Back on topic, I fully believe that the reason Clinton is grabbing onto this is to find common ground with "values voters" (a constituency that probably won't grab onto this bait anyway) as she looks towards 2008. I'm very liberal, but I'm willing to admit what's obvious (that this is a presidential tool for Clinton).

The involvement of the government is because of the lack of regulation; at the developer level, at the retailer level, and at the parental level, all for various reasons. The short argument is this: any person of any age can go and purchase a copy of GTA, with few exceptions. This is a problem that is not regulating itself; furthermore, as the first generation of gamers get older, more and more games will feature "adult" content (violence as well as sex). Culturally, video games are considered by people in power (old people, mainly white and mainly male) to be strictly for children, which is why they are so appalled. So, with an industry becoming more and more 'adult,' something needs to happen to make certain that kids aren't buying or playing inappropriate games.

Can you place the liability on parents? Of course, to some extent. On the other hand, it's political suicide for any politician to say "you parents suck, and you need to get in line and watch your goddamned shitty brats!" (or any more polite version of that). That is one major reason why certain targets are not chosen; industries don't vote, families do (although the corollary is that industries lobby, families don't ;)).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']OT...your second sentence is terribly incorrect due to the immense amount of idealism and spin necessary to render it correct. Gay marriage? Partiot Act? Other forms of embracing federalism and minimizing statism? Government regulation, sho 'nuff. Democrats aren't sacred, but "true conservatives" died with Goldwater. If they mattered at all, they'd have some in power, which they don't.[/QUOTE]
You've confused conservatives with neo-cons. A mistake I knew would happen, and attempted to head off with "true". We still exist, we're just being crowded out by Democrats in Republican clothing :( While we're listing the sins of the current administration, lets not forget medicare ENTITLEMENTS.....

You are right that Clinton is indeed trying to appeal to the "family values" crowd. No doubt about it. However, there is also the addition of government control, a basic tenent of most Democratic views and pursuits. Democrats love them the government, and anything that makes it bigger, or gives it more control is a good thing. If Hillary can whack two balls out of the park (a new form of government regulation, and appealing to moderates) with one swing, she'll be right there (with Leland Yee and friends in tow) swinging.
 
[quote name='Revenantae']You've confused conservatives with neo-cons. A mistake I knew would happen, and attempted to head off with "true". We still exist, we're just being crowded out by Democrats in Republican clothing :( While we're listing the sins of the current administration, lets not forget medicare ENTITLEMENTS.....

You are right that Clinton is indeed trying to appeal to the "family values" crowd. No doubt about it. However, there is also the addition of government control, a basic tenent of most Democratic views and pursuits. Democrats love them the government, and anything that makes it bigger, or gives it more control is a good thing. If Hillary can whack two balls out of the park (a new form of government regulation, and appealing to moderates) with one swing, she'll be right there (with Leland Yee and friends in tow) swinging.[/QUOTE]

I certainly didn't want to develop a laundry list of the current administration's faults. ;)

I stand by my statement; small government conservatism is dead. I will add that I do think these people still exist, but more and more have declared themselves as "libertarians" instead.

To stay on topic (and god, am I trying), what do you recommend, if not government intervention? A few pages back, I suggested the "cigarette/alcohol" approach to regulation, or the "film" approach to regulation. One involves the government and works much better than industry regulation, while the other is industry regulated, and the line separating sacred and profane more frequently permeated. Would either of these, in your opinion, work? How about another approach?

I'm not trying to start a vs. forum squabble, but, if people are going to be against government intervention, I'd like to see more ideas on how to make sure that this doesn't happen. Many of us, myself included, can giggle and titter (well, maybe not titter) about "saving the children" and what a crock that is. However, that is a meaningful goal for politicians and many parents alike (parents who aren't going to admit faults in their approach to child rearing). So, how do we solve this problem?

EDIT to change my accidental overgeneralization of gov't regulation to say what it should.
 
There, should be more AO ratings for games to shut the politicians up, however I think that Wal-Mart and Blockbuster and EB and Gamestop need to chill the fuck out and sell AO games, treat em like cigs if you got to and make it an ask only for the product. And as for advertising there could very god damn well be all ages trailers, as if they aren't for all ages anyway, at the end of the commercial show the AO and let it be done with. This whole fear of AO is bullshit, I can buy AO games so gimme AO games.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
To stay on topic (and god, am I trying), what do you recommend, if not government intervention? I'm not trying to start a vs. forum squabble, but, if people are going to be against government intervention, I'd like to see more ideas on how to make sure that this doesn't happen.[/QUOTE]
IMHO the rating system has worked perfectly well, and absolutely nothing needs to change with it at all. There are two things that DO need to change.

The first, as I pointed out a few pages back, is that parents NEED to be educated. The perception amongst older parents, and most politicians is that games are for kids. This was true 25 years ago, when I first started gaming. But the Atari generation has grown up, as has the Nintendo generation, and they're still gaming. Like television and movies, games now appeal to a very wide demographic. Parents absolutely, positively NEED to know that games vary as widely as movies do; some are for children, some are for adults. There is, and should be, no assumption that any particular game will be kid-safe.

Beyond, that parents and legislators also need to be educated about the ESRB, it's ratings, and the meanings behind them. Let's face it, all the furor over GTA:SA has more to do with media than anything. It says, right on the box, in bigger letters than any DVD's movie rating, MATURE 17+: Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs. Is there ANY part of that not clear? Would anyone who bothered to look at the package they were buying have ANY doubt whether this content was suitable for kids?

My guess is that people look at this through the filter of "games are for kids", and thus "intense violence" becomes "Mo pokes Curly in the eyes with forked fingers.... man is that guy funny".

The other change is that retailers need to enforce these ratings, and ask for ID.

Now, as I pointed out a few pages ago, all the regulation in the world isn't going to make a dent. Not even a little one. Why? According to the ESA, the VAST majority of M rated games are bought by (gasp) adults. Little Johnny got a copy of GTA because Mommy bought it for him.

In the end, there is only one successful direction government regulation could take. Make sure no games HAVE any adult content. Force games to fit into the "for kids" mold they imagine them to be in.
 
Sorry but this editorial is mostly garbage. Comparing the tobacco to videogames? Please...

EDIT:

Also, the key IS the parents. I knoew several parents who let their children 14-16 buy M-rated videos games including GTA:SA. I am a parent of a one and two year-old and I sacrifice my gaming time so they don't see the violence and language of games such as GTA:SA and Halo 2. Parents need to educated and other need to learn to give a crap. Whether or not you believe it, studies have shown that constant exposure to violent videogames, even at teenage years, can affect their mind. Their brains are just not fully developed at that point. They won't go out killing prostitutes, but will show violent tendencies when angry or upset.
 
This whole thing doesn't come down to censorship. It's principle. Like the janet jackson superbowl case. Sure it isn't harmful to see tiitties. Just a little embarassing. But how come she gets to show her titties penalty free. everybody knows sex sells. But if janet gets off scott free then the next thing you know, avril lavigne will flash her bush to sell her new record or Kid rock will wear a american flag thong. It won't stop until you draw the line. That's why fines were leveled at CBS and it's affiliates. That's what they are doing to rockstar. They want to stop people taking it to the next smut level before it gets out of hand. This whole "common decency" angle is pretty absurd coming from politicians who tell each other to "go F themselves" on the senate floor or have affairs with interns -You know who I'm talkiing about. If we allow this "hidden but unlockable" shit from rockstar we'll pretty soon get gang rape hidden codes and "Big PENIS HEAD MODE" or "One nIght in Paris" bonus secret level. Do you think rockstar wants to sell to ADULTS ONLY? NO way. KIDS are the biggest market in the world. they love it when kids buy GRAND THEFT AUTO. I calll bullshit if they say "but we only want responsible Adults to buy GTA". The only way you got SAN ANDREAS is cause enough kids bought VICE CITY and contributed to the coffers of rockstar to fund the R and D for SAN ANDREAS. If only RESPONSIBLE ADULTS had bought VICE CITY. ROCKSTAR would be bankrupt.
 
[quote name='sparklecopy']This whole thing doesn't come down to censorship. It's principle. Like the janet jackson superbowl case. [/QUOTE]
There is a HUGE difference between Janet's knob popping out at the superbowl, and GTA:SA. The superbowl is a sporting event, rated for everyone to see (yes, TV shows have ratings). No one could have predicted or forseen nudity in it. No parent, no matter how conscientious, could have kept their children from seeing it, as it was completel unexpected, untelegraphed, and out of place.

Let's look at GTA:SA. Right on the box: 17+. Right on the box: strong sexual content. That description is equally accurate with or without the Hot Coffee mod. There is NO WAY you could be a conscientious parent and NOT know out the gate, mod or no mod, that his game is inappropriate for children.

[quote name='sparklecopy']They want to stop people taking it to the next smut level before it gets out of hand. [/QUOTE]
If the smut in question is meant for adults, and clearly marked so, let it go tio whetever level the consumer wants.

[quote name='sparklecopy']If we allow this "hidden but unlockable" shit from rockstar [/QUOTE]
Thjere is a HUGE difference between "hidden but unlockable" and "disabled but hackable". If a parent buys a gun, leaves it on the shelf, and a kid shoots himself with it.... blame the parent. But, if the parent buys a guns, locks it in a gun safe, destroys the key, the kid goes out, hires a locksmith, gets the gun cabinet open, and THEN shoots himself, well, the parent isn't so much to blame.


[quote name='sparklecopy']I calll bullshit if they say "but we only want responsible Adults to buy GTA". The only way you got SAN ANDREAS is cause enough kids bought VICE CITY and contributed to the coffers of rockstar to fund the R and D for SAN ANDREAS. If only RESPONSIBLE ADULTS had bought VICE CITY. ROCKSTAR would be bankrupt.[/QUOTE]
I wonder what you have to back this up. According to the ESA, which did actual research, the average buyer IS an adult. The averade gamer IS in the late 20's to early 30's and the biggest single gaming group is 18-34 year old males.
 
[quote name='Revenantae']I hate to burst your political bubble, but the charge to censor video games is being led by Senator Clinton, and other Democrats. True conservatives want absolutely nothing to do with government regulation.[/QUOTE]

Afraid I gotta go here again. While Clinton is the most outspoken politician about this, for reasons we agree upon, this website shows information about a bill passed yesterday to have the FTC investigate Take-2 and Rockstar:

Click for the Gub'ment

355-21? That 'taint partisanship, that's mofuckin consensus!

Sponsor of the bill? Fred Upton, Republican. http://www.house.gov/upton/

Cosponsors of the bill? Edward J. Markey, Democrat. http://www.house.gov/markey/
Joseph W. Pitts, Republican. http://www.house.gov/pitts/

So, in general (all of you, not Revanantae specifically), enough with the "OMG! TEH CLUNTONZZ11!!!" because it's all of Washington.
 
Let's dispense with the politics entirely. I'm going to bash Democrats and Republicans. Others will bash Republicans/Democrats only. The fact is, I'm picking on Hillary because she's got the most face time on this issue. Her aside, there are more Democrats lately screaming about the Video Game curse than Republicans. Leland Yee anyone?

Oh, and before we get down to clubbing each other over this point,
http://www.iema.org/government/2005_Legislative_Tracker.pdf
Count the D's, count the R's.

The point, however, is not whether politicians are roaming piles of stench. We all know that Blue or Red, they're pretty much all yellow, and obsessed with green. The point is that this whole issue is crap. I noticed you didn't respond the earlier note I posted. I was hoping we could discuss the industry more, and the most corrupt pastime in the U.S. (politics) less.
 
[quote name='Revenantae']Let's dispense with the politics entirely. I'm going to bash Democrats and Republicans. Others will bash Republicans/Democrats only. The fact is, I'm picking on Hillary because she's got the most face time on this issue. Her aside, there are more Democrats lately screaming about the Video Game curse than Republicans. Leland Yee anyone?

The point is, however, not whether politicians are roaming piles of stench. We all know that Blue or Red, they're pretty much all yellow, and obsessed with green. The point is that this whole issue is crap. I noticed you didn't respond the earlier note I posted. I was hoping we could discuss the industry more, and the most corrupt pastime in the U.S. (politics) less.[/QUOTE]

Would that be the post where the ESA claims that most purchases are made by adults? I'd love to see the actual source of that claim; part of me wants to say "Well, of course more adults buy goods than children. What's revolutionary about thinking that, and what's the ESA's point? Purchasers and primary users aren't always the same." The other, more cynical half of me thinks that they don't know shit, corrupted their data, or otherwise have no verifiable evidence that their assertion is true. That is not your burden but the ESA's; however, you cited it, so I'd love to see a link if you have it.

I contend the claims in that post because of the source they come from; the ESA is complicit in covering its ass, and that includes the ESRB and anything that might damage its reputation.

Retailers regulating themselves? Well, that's what they're doing, aren't they? They're regulating GTA right out of the store! Hooray for principles over profits, right?

Finally, I will point out that I will continue to hammer home the political aspect of this issue. This is dreadfully ambiguous for all involved, for reasons any page on this thread will point out. It has become, whether you like it or not, a political issue as a result. If you choose to not address it, that's your prerogative. My post was general, your quote was convenient. I don't think that I'll change my tune because one person doesn't find the government involvement relevant (although people are screaming for the heads of Democrats - Clinton and Yee in particular - all politicians save a few are getting involved in this).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Would that be the post where the ESA claims that most purchases are made by adults? That is not your burden but the ESA's; however, you cited it, so I'd love to see a link if you have it.[/QUOTE]
http://www.theesa.com/files/2005EssentialFacts.pdf

[quote name='mykevermin']I contend the claims in that post because of the source they come from; the ESA is complicit in covering its ass, and that includes the ESRB and anything that might damage its reputation.[/QUOTE]
Let me put that another way. I can clearly see the earth is flat, therefore your conjecture that the earth is round, and your data backing that assertion is clearly bunk designed to cover your ridiculous argument. If you dispute someone elses research, you need to bring a bit more to the table than "I don't believe it!!!".

[quote name='mykevermin']Retailers regulating themselves? Well, that's what they're doing, aren't they? They're regulating GTA right out of the store! Hooray for principles over profits, right?[/QUOTE]
As a matter of fact, it HAS been pulled from quite a few stores, irregardless of the fact it really shouldn't be.

[quote name='mykevermin']Finally, I will point out that I will continue to hammer home the political aspect of this issue.[/QUOTE]
You misunderstand my point. Yes, this is a political issue. However, rather than allow this to degerate into yet another "Bush Lied People Died" topic, let's keep our eye on the ball.
 
[quote name='Revenantae']Let me put that another way. I can clearly see the earth is flat, therefore your conjecture that the earth is round, and your data backing that assertion is clearly bunk designed to cover your ridiculous argument. If you dispute someone elses research, you need to bring a bit more to the table than "I don't believe it!!!".[/quote]

Which is why I asked for the source. Had I been less scientific, I would have said that "I don't believe it, and stuff your sources!" Right?


As a matter of fact, it HAS been pulled from quite a few stores, irregardless of the fact it really shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

So, you aren't happy that the government is getting involved, and you're also unhappy that retailers are doing something about before the government? What exactly do you want? You claim that the industry and retailers are unquestionably working well right now falls apart if you consider what is going on at the moment. If it worked so well, there should be no consumer base to be upset about owning this title. OTOH, you do bring up educating parents about the ratings system. How do you do that? Who sponsors (i.e., funds) it? Do you test the parents before letting them buy "M" games? How do you make it failsafe?

Back later; I'll see if I can't find out anything about the ESA contention.

BTW, 'irregardless' is not a word.

You misunderstand my point. Yes, this is a political issue. However, rather than allow this to degerate into yet another "Bush Lied People Died" topic, let's keep our eye on the ball.
Click to expand...

There's just one?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Which is why I asked for the source. Had I been less scientific, I would have said that "I don't believe it, and stuff your sources!" Right?
[/QUOTE]
That's pretty much what you said, yes.

[quote name='mykevermin']
So, you aren't happy that the government is getting involved, and you're also unhappy that retailers are doing something about before the government? What exactly do you want?[/QUOTE]
Yes, yes, and you would know had you bothered to read my previous posts.

[quote name='mykevermin'] You claim that the industry and retailers are unquestionably working well right now falls apart if you consider what is going on at the moment. [/QUOTE]
No, actually it doesn't. View the assaault weapon contreversy a few years back. Public outrage and rhetoric generate: LOTS. Actual effect of legislation: negligable. This is far from the first time much ado has been made about nothing, and I'm sure it won't be the last. After all, a documentary showing the startling and disturbing discovery that poor eating habits make you fat and unhealthy was recently hailed as a landmark that may have been up for an oscar.

[quote name='mykevermin'] OTOH, you do bring up educating parents about the ratings system. How do you do that? Who sponsors (i.e., funds) it? Do you test the parents before letting them buy "M" games? How do you make it failsafe?[/QUOTE]
These are actually good questions, and I'll try to tackle them in order. One, the best way to educate the parents is to make the information as accessible as possible. Some stores have giant ESRB info stands in their stores. These should be standard in any gaming area. Second put the ESRB rating info in the FRONT of the box, not the back. Make it take up, say, the botton 20% of a game cases front art. Third with public information bits on television and the radio, just as they did when I was a youth.

Who should pay for it? The gaming industry itself. They already pay for membership in the ESA and for ratings from the ESRB. Hike the fees enough to pay for these things. It's not as expensive as it sounds, especially when you factor in that radio and tv stations are REQUIRED to donate a certain amount of airtime for PSA's.

How do you make it failsafe? You don't. America is about freedom, and part of that freedom is the freedom to foul up. If the game companies make an honest effort, and you sidestep it all, the fault is yours.

[quote name='mykevermin']
BTW, 'irregardless' is not a word.[/QUOTE]
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=irregardless
It is considered non-standard english, but it is indeed a word.
 
[quote name='Revenantae']
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=irregardless
It is considered non-standard english, but it is indeed a word.[/QUOTE]

LOL... I use that all the time. It's usually to snide something I am arguing against (sorta proves your usage as well ^__^)

BTW, I don't think making the rating on the box bigger and more prominent is going to help much. Most movie ratings are on the back and on the bottom in small print. It really will be about getting education and participation by parents and by stores for this to work.

How did the movie industry get their rating system out there for people to really follow? Did it just take years of exposure for it to sink in, maybe? I do disagree with the rating system continually expaning (and that horrid switch-over from K-A's to E's). There's now an E-10 rating! If they don't keep things simple and consistent with reasonable bounds, it's going to fail.

I honestly don't think most parents understand what an "M" means either. I bought my 13-year-old nephew Castlevania for the PS2 and I discussed it with my sister and brother-in-law first. They had no idea that the "M" meant content was for 17+ like an R-rated movie. I have the game as well and showed them any objectionable content and they were OK with him playing it because of his maturity level. I know they are great parents based on how both my nephews are turning out, but they still didn't really understand the rating system. They won't let my nephew who is 8 play the game.
 
[quote name='Revenantae']That's pretty much what you said, yes.


Yes, yes, and you would know had you bothered to read my previous posts.


No, actually it doesn't. View the assaault weapon contreversy a few years back. Public outrage and rhetoric generate: LOTS. Actual effect of legislation: negligable. This is far from the first time much ado has been made about nothing, and I'm sure it won't be the last. After all, a documentary showing the startling and disturbing discovery that poor eating habits make you fat and unhealthy was recently hailed as a landmark that may have been up for an oscar.


These are actually good questions, and I'll try to tackle them in order. One, the best way to educate the parents is to make the information as accessible as possible. Some stores have giant ESRB info stands in their stores. These should be standard in any gaming area. Second put the ESRB rating info in the FRONT of the box, not the back. Make it take up, say, the botton 20% of a game cases front art. Third with public information bits on television and the radio, just as they did when I was a youth.

Who should pay for it? The gaming industry itself. They already pay for membership in the ESA and for ratings from the ESRB. Hike the fees enough to pay for these things. It's not as expensive as it sounds, especially when you factor in that radio and tv stations are REQUIRED to donate a certain amount of airtime for PSA's.

How do you make it failsafe? You don't. America is about freedom, and part of that freedom is the freedom to foul up. If the game companies make an honest effort, and you sidestep it all, the fault is yours.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=irregardless
It is considered non-standard english, but it is indeed a word.[/QUOTE]

I hope that you wouldn't give as much credence to a Philip Morris study on the harmful effects of tobacco usage, as you seem to be doing with these ESA stats.

You argument is unclear, regardless of how many previous posts you have made, simply because you're advocating for self regulation in the marketplace rather than in Congress. It's happened, and quite quickly, I might add. Yet you're not happy with that. Why? You can still buy a copy of San Andreas, can't you? While I personally disagree with what stores are doing, what you are advocating is what they are doing - taking the responsibility upon themselves.

Additionally, allow me to be as snarky as you have been regarding your previous posts. If you had read the house bill that I linked to, it is simply a request for the FTC to look into Rockstar to acquire information about if there was intent for the customers to access the minigame (in other words, did they fail to comply with the ESRB by hiding portions of the game meant for the audience, in order to receive a more favorable rating). It is not a bill to come into your house and take all your GTA games. It is not a bill to fine every EB that still sells San Andreas. It is merely looking into a situation that, if ignored, could lead to future scenarios where developers do purposely hide content to avoid certain ratings. What's so bad about the government doing that?

At the end of the day, this isn't about people's inability to comprehend the ratings system (though I would never argue that it makes any bit of sense to non-gamers). It is about intentionally hiding content on a disc for the purpose of falsifying one's ESRB rating, which is what Rockstar is accused of doing, and nobody, save Rockstar, definitively knows the answer to. You can sell any game to any person of any age, and it could have any kind of surplus content on it, not reviewed by the ESRB (and it thus has no bearing on the rating you see on the box). That's the main reason it's being looked into.

Non-standard english? When I was young, there was a saying; something like "Ain't ain't a word and I ain't gonna say it."
 
[quote name='Scrubking']
PWNED!!11!!!1​
[/QUOTE]

please. You know what they say about those in glass houses...

Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
Click to expand...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irregardless

Grammar police on the prowl!
 
[quote name='Scrubking']PWNED!!11!!!1[/QUOTE]

In the immortal words of WhipSmartBanky, "there's no need to be a little Scorch about it." :D
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I hope that you wouldn't give as much credence to a Philip Morris study on the harmful effects of tobacco usage, as you seem to be doing with these ESA stats.[/QUOTE]
If I recall correctly, the biggest reason the tobacco industry was slapped down as hard as it was had to do with the fact that ther research studies DID show smoking tobacco was harmful and they covered that information up.

[quote name='mykevermin'] You argument is unclear[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, I'll make it as clear as I can. I want no government regulation of the gaming industry. I want the retailers to act responsibly, not as censors. I want the industry to work harder to educate parents, children, retailers and politicians as to the current state of the industry, it's demographics and the realities entailed by a relatively new and unfamiliar form of entertainment.

[quote name='mykevermin'] Additionally, allow me to be as snarky as you have been regarding your previous posts.[/QUOTE]
My remarks were'nt intended to be snarky, and I apologize if you took them that way.

[quote name='mykevermin'] If you had read the house bill that I linked to... What's so bad about the government doing that?[/QUOTE]
I did read it, and I realize quite well what the bill is realy about: free face time in the national media for politicians. What's bad about it is that it will waste a lot of time, effort and money that could be better targeted.

[quote name='mykevermin'] At the end of the day, this isn't about people's inability to comprehend the ratings system.[/QUOTE]
IMHO that is EXACTLY what it is about. I posted earlier the EXACT ESRB rating and content advisories applied to GTA:SA. Which of those does not apply to the game with or without the Hot Coffee mod. IMHO the mos shouldn't effect the rating. By doing so, the game is essentially making the leap from R to X. Since the game doesn't contain, with mod, anything you won't see on a late night R movie on Cinemax, I don't see the sense in the rating change.

[quote name='mykevermin'] Non-standard english? When I was young, there was a saying; something like "Ain't ain't a word and I ain't gonna say it."[/QUOTE]
I used to be that way as well.. but I learned to roll with the fact that the English language changes. Face it, "bad" and "sick" are now synonyms for "good".
 
[quote name='Revenantae']Fair enough, I'll make it as clear as I can. I want no government regulation of the gaming industry. I want the retailers to act responsibly, not as censors. I want the industry to work harder to educate parents, children, retailers and politicians as to the current state of the industry, it's demographics and the realities entailed by a relatively new and unfamiliar form of entertainment.[/quote]

I can live with that perspective. I don't agree with it at all, but I can understand it at least. That's some headway, isn't it?

My remarks were'nt intended to be snarky, and I apologize if you took them that way.
Click to expand...

Duly noted. I'll work on my manners.

I did read it, and I realize quite well what the bill is realy about: free face time in the national media for politicians. What's bad about it is that it will waste a lot of time, effort and money that could be better targeted.
Click to expand...

Well, people say this all too frequently about government, and, for the most part, they're right. In this case, however, one major factor we're taking for granted is that this title jumped from "M" to "AO" based on the minigame. What if it were a "T" title or an "E" title? It sounds absurd and unlikely, and I hope it is; that doesn't make it impossible, though. It's important to look into, because I don't imagine industry self regulation will eliminate extraneous code, like hot coffee.

IMHO that is EXACTLY what it is about. I posted earlier the EXACT ESRB rating and content advisories applied to GTA:SA. Which of those does not apply to the game with or without the Hot Coffee mod. IMHO the mos shouldn't effect the rating. By doing so, the game is essentially making the leap from R to X. Since the game doesn't contain, with mod, anything you won't see on a late night R movie on Cinemax, I don't see the sense in the rating change.
Click to expand...

Again, duly noted. Game ratings and movie ratings are very different, and I dare say game ratings are moderately more sophisticated. While it is unfortunate that ESRB covered its ass by changing the rating, what they did was legitimize the surplus content on the game. The ESRB made the problem worse in this way, and I think you'll agree. The questionable content not being part of the original rating, though, makes it a very difficult issue. Methinks there are many more issues at hand than the rating system.

And with that, I really need to find that motherfucking NSF grant number, so I'm "audi," to use that wacky modern non-english parlance.

IKIK
 
[quote name='cleaver']Did anyone else think it was Fred Thompson coming down hard against mature video games?[/QUOTE]

Nah, he's busy acting as the pitchperson for John Roberts.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']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?[/QUOTE]

Of course it should be allowed. If it's rated E with "rated E content" then I'm fine with it whether or not some lonely nerd spends hours in his basement altering/adding coding that allows him to see pixelated nipples. This whole argument is pathetic. If GTA was the "direct your own porn movie" game then I could see an AO rating - anything short of that - no matter what is on the disc - playable our of the box or not - should get an M rating - just like any movie would. Period.
 
I don't believe the solution lies in more gov't force.

The problem is that when gov't comes in to "solve" a problem, ANY problem, they are like using a sledehammer to hammer carpet tacks.

That isn't an issue of Republican VS. Democrat VS. Whatever party.

It's purely an issue of gov't being too large to deal with individual problems.

Gov't, when it is involved, replaces common sense. The two cannot coexist. Gov't is all about rules, regulations, dotting "I"s and crossing "T"s, etc and there is NO room for leeway. It's blunt and unforgiving and after you get thru the miles and miles of red tape and bureacrats, all you have left is a mangled item.


See, the answer truly lies in parents. Read: the individual.

We don't need gov't telling us what's best for us or our children.

The truth of the matter is- the decisions about what your child is involved with are up to the PARENTS. How many parents would knowingly allow their child to drink beer? Collect porno mags? Etc, along with many other activities that should be generally decided upon by someone that is an ADULT. I'm not against "adult" items and entertainments. As a free individual-- as long as you aren't infringing upon MY rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness-- you should be free to decide. And until your child is an ADULT, it is YOU the parent that should be making those decisions for them.

As was stated above by another poster-- it's a lot more politically expedient to blame producers and industries and try to bring gov't force to bear on them than it is to state simple facts that people have to be responsible for their own lives along with their children's lives.
 
http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?article_id=10162#10162
[quote name='Congressman Fred Upton (R-MI)']"I look forward to the FTC getting to the bottom of this matter. It is despicable that a company would go to such lengths to deliver smut to our kids."[/QUOTE]
This is the fundamental reason why this is all bullshit. To believe Rockstar makes GTA for kids is just plain stupid, hell the developers of the game don't let their kids anywhere near the game.

Rockstar and Take-Two did not conspire this whole thing to get publicity and sell more copies at the risk of $50 million in losses over this bullshit just from stock losses. Rockstar did make a mistake in leaving this content in, but why it was still in if it was not to be played? I don't know, maybe it's essential to other parts of the game so they commented it out.

Rockstar should be in no way responsible for the mod that removes the code barrier that kept this from being in the normal game. If you look in the damn user agreement in the manual, it states that the user agrees to not modify the content and code on the software. Of course they don't pay attention to this kind of stuff.

This is a black eye on the industry and I'm hoping that this heals and doesn't get fucked up by the government by instituting their own ratings board even though the ESRB is doing their job, which is provide all the info that's needed to decide if this game's content is right for their child or themselves. I can't believe peope have to get this stupid to get worked up on a game where killing cops, hookers, citizens, in various forms as well as other types of emergent gameplay but they get pissed when you can further express love to the girlfriends by have sex with them. Their not raping them are they? They're not really nude are they? No. This is just bullshit and it just sucks to only be able to sit on the sidelines and not do anything at all.
 
As a 38 year old public school teacher in Chicago, I've had two thirteen year old students shot and another raped. Videogames did not cause these problems, however the arguing that is going to ensue in our esteemed capital is going to take time, money, and attention away from REAL crimes, and REAL sexual assaults and put them on PRETEND crimes and PRETEND sexual assault. The things people choose to focus on amazes me. My kids wake up to real gunshots, have real gang problems, and have real temptations to join these gangs. I'd much rather have them play GTA and take a couple of jpg bullets instead of real bullets.

This is similar to the comic book witchhunt of the fifties, the way people screamed about Elvis or the Beatles, Reagan's "Just Say No" to marijuana, but keep right on killing yourself with those cigarettes and Slo Gin Fizz's...sometimes this government just makes me crazy.
 
Revenantae do you honestly believe in your heart that Rockstar in no way markets toward kids or markets to entice children? that they are defenders of truth justice and our constitutional freedoms? If the money from kids wasn't used to subsidize GTA R&D how would we get our games? Yes. the majority of video games are bought by adults but that study is skewed by overall games. Suppose a household with adults only had 55 games of various ratings including GTA. now imagine a household with kids and they have 5 games and it includes GTA. See the adult houshold clearly has more games and buys more games but they both bought GTA cause it is a mainstream popular game.
 
Sparklecopy-

What difference does it make if they do market to kids? Most of the children who own the game own it because their parents (or grandparents) bought it for them. They could give away a free Bratz doll with every purchase, or include a Star Wars Lego kit inside the box, guess what, it's the adults who buy the games FOR their kids...I'm speaking from firsthand experience here. As a teacher, many of my 8th graders own and regularly play the game, and in just about every case it was the parents or adult guardians who bought the game for their children.

However, I do not think the games are any more marketed to children than R-rated movies, music cds or cigarettes. And if we say those things are marketed to children too, then we have a problem a whole lot bigger than animated violence and pretend blowjobs.
 
Thought this merited a post, from today's Opinion section of the LA Times...(I ordered his book, by the way)

Hillary vs. the Xbox: Game over
Senator, would your probe of video games also take a look at the substantial benefits they can provide?

By Steven Johnson, Steven Johnson's "Everything Bad Is Good For You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter" was published by Riverhead Books in May.



Dear Sen. Clinton:
I'm writing to commend you for calling for a $90-million study on the effects of video games on children, and in particular the courageous stand you have taken in recent weeks against the notorious "Grand Theft Auto" series.

I'd like to draw your attention to another game whose nonstop violence and hostility has captured the attention of millions of kids — a game that instills aggressive thoughts in the minds of its players, some of whom have gone on to commit real-world acts of violence and sexual assault after playing.

I'm talking, of course, about high school football.

I know a congressional investigation into football won't play so well with those crucial swing voters, but it makes about as much sense as an investigation into the pressing issue that is Xbox and PlayStation 2.

Your current concern is over explicit sex in "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas." Yet there's not much to investigate, is there? It should get rated appropriately, and that's that. But there's more to your proposed study: You want to examine how video games shape children's values and cognitive development.

Kids have always played games. A hundred years ago they were playing stickball and kick the can; now they're playing "World of Warcraft," "Halo 2" and "Madden 2005." And parents have to drag their kids away from the games to get them to do their algebra homework, but parents have been dragging kids away from whatever the kids were into since the dawn of civilization.

So any sensible investigation into video games must ask the "compared to what" question. If the alternative to playing "Halo 2" is reading "The Portrait of a Lady," then of course "The Portrait of a Lady" is better for you. But it's not as though kids have been reading Henry James for 100 years and then suddenly dropped him for Pokemon.

Another key question: Of all the games that kids play, which ones require the most mental exertion? Parents can play this at home: Try a few rounds of Monopoly or Go Fish with your kids, and see who wins. I suspect most families will find that it's a relatively even match. Then sit down and try to play "Halo 2" with the kids. You'll be lucky if you survive 10 minutes.

The great secret of today's video games that has been lost in the moral panic over "Grand Theft Auto" is how difficult the games have become. That difficulty is not merely a question of hand-eye coordination; most of today's games force kids to learn complex rule systems, master challenging new interfaces, follow dozens of shifting variables in real time and prioritize between multiple objectives.

In short, precisely the sorts of skills that they're going to need in the digital workplace of tomorrow.

Consider this one fascinating trend among teenagers: They're spending less time watching professional sports and more time simulating those sports on Xbox or PlayStation. Now, which activity challenges the mind more — sitting around rooting for the Packers, or managing an entire football franchise through a season of "Madden 2005": calling plays, setting lineups, trading players and negotiating contracts? Which challenges the mind more — zoning out to the lives of fictional characters on a televised soap opera, or actively managing the lives of dozens of virtual characters in a game such as "The Sims"?

On to the issue of aggression, and what causes it in kids, especially teenage boys. Congress should be interested in the facts: The last 10 years have seen the release of many popular violent games, including "Quake" and "Grand Theft Auto"; that period has also seen the most dramatic drop in violent crime in recent memory. According to Duke University's Child Well-Being Index, today's kids are less violent than kids have been at any time since the study began in 1975. Perhaps, Sen. Clinton, your investigation should explore the theory that violent games function as a safety valve, letting children explore their natural aggression without acting it out in the real world.

Many juvenile crimes — such as the carjacking that is so central to "Grand Theft Auto" — are conventionally described as "thrill-seeking" crimes. Isn't it possible that kids no longer need real-world environments to get those thrills, now that the games simulate them so vividly? The national carjacking rate has dropped substantially since "Grand Theft Auto" came out. Isn't it conceivable that the would-be carjackers are now getting their thrills on the screen instead of the street?

Crime statistics are not the only sign that today's gaming generation is doing much better than the generation raised during the last cultural panic — over rock 'n' roll. Math SAT scores have never been higher; verbal scores have been climbing steadily for the last five years; nearly every indicator in the Department of Education study known as the Nation's Report Card is higher now than when the study was implemented in 1971.

By almost every measure, the kids are all right.

Of course, I admit that there's one charge against video games that is a slam dunk. Kids don't get physical exercise when they play a video game, and indeed the rise in obesity among younger people is a serious issue. But, of course, you don't get exercise from doing homework either.
 
Loserboy "What difference does it make if they do market to kids? Most of the children who own the game own it because their parents (or grandparents) bought it for them. They could give away a free Bratz doll with every purchase, or include a Star Wars Lego kit inside the box, guess what, it's the adults who buy the games FOR their kids...I'm speaking from firsthand experience here. As a teacher, many of my 8th graders own and regularly play the game, and in just about every case it was the parents or adult guardians who bought the game for their children."

Damn you are a teacher? what are u teaching those kids? First of all it makes all the difference in the world. It's one thing to say I'm making an adult game for adults. It's another to make an adult game that you secretly want kids to play. Yes, a lot of dumb parents buy these games for their kids but you know what? They buy games cause they want the kids to shut up. It's like buying em a lollipop at a gas station except they don't know that inside the lollipop is tequila. Sure they could have looked at the package that said tequila pops -"not for kids' but as a parent with kids you know it's damn hard to regulate everything your kids do. Not that there is any excuse for bad parenting but you can empathize. and why do they buy these games for these kids? it's cause Rockstar markets to children and gets them and their classmates to go ga ga for the game then sics em on unsuspecting parents who have 9 to 5 jobs and when they come home and the kids are bouncing off the walls and the parents say "If I get you a game for christmas will u guys be good?' then when christmas rolls around what games are the kids clamoring for? why good old GTA. THe movie and music industry are guilty of the same thing. They try to get away with everything they can until they cross the line. Rockstar has crossed the line.
 
[quote name='sparklecopy']Damn you are a teacher? what are u teaching those kids? First of all it makes all the difference in the world. It's one thing to say I'm making an adult game for adults. It's another to make an adult game that you secretly want kids to play. Yes, a lot of dumb parents buy these games for their kids but you know what? They buy games cause they want the kids to shut up. It's like buying em a lollipop at a gas station except they don't know that inside the lollipop is tequila. Sure they could have looked at the package that said tequila pops -"not for kids' but as a parent with kids you know it's damn hard to regulate everything your kids do. Not that there is any excuse for bad parenting but you can empathize. and why do they buy these games for these kids? it's cause Rockstar markets to children and gets them and their classmates to go ga ga for the game then sics em on unsuspecting parents who have 9 to 5 jobs and when they come home and the kids are bouncing off the walls and the parents say "If I get you a game for christmas will u guys be good?' then when christmas rolls around what games are the kids clamoring for? why good old GTA. THe movie and music industry are guilty of the same thing. They try to get away with everything they can until they cross the line. Rockstar has crossed the line.[/QUOTE]

Here's an idea - lets dumb down all of society so we don't offend the sensibilities of the children.
 
sparkle-
Let's assume that these games are marketed to children...there are certain things we should do about it...and there are certain things we should NOT do about it.

Censorship is one of the things we should NOT do.
Banning or limiting the manufacture of these games is something we should NOT do.

Educating children and parents is something we SHOULD do.

Believe me when I tell you prohibition of ANY FORM has never worked. Did you drink before you were 21? Did you? You probably did, most of us probably did. Why? It was against the law. What country has one of the largest teen alcohol problems in the world...why it's the U.S. of course, because teens CAN'T drink here. But in Italy where a little wine with dinner is a normal, nightly occurence, no such problem. In France, where the vin is not taboo, no problem. Here where you MUST BE 21...HUGE PROBLEM.

The solution to any problem has never been banning, prohibition, or censorship. The solution is education, informed decisions, and responsibility.

Raising children is WORK. The parents must look at the label. The grandparents must look at the label.

GTA:San Andreas :Strong sexual content...it says so right on the label. The end.
 
But wait, there's more...

Why is it that America is so accepting of violence in films and videogames, but when it comes to sex everyone is so squeamish and puritanical.

My wife breastfed both of our children---EVERYWHERE. Parks, zoos, restaurants...everywhere. her tits were out and our kids were sucking away. Don't care who saw, don't care who was offended. And yet the number of people who are still shocked by this is stunning. A woman's breasts are there for one reason, to feed their babies. So, you would think that a mommy feeding her baby would be viewed as a beautiful thing, yet this society, so overrun with puritanical wackos, still looks down upon such a natural thing.

But we can watch cartoons where Elmer Fudd and daffy duck are blown to smithereens and shoot the living shit out of each other...and that's fine.

We can watch television shows where violence is high art, like the Soparanos, and that's wonderful.

But someone pops a tit out, and suddenly everyone has to scream to high heaven.

Again, the solution to all of this is education. A teacher who understands GTA and adolescence is a much better teacher than someone who says..."DON'T DO IT." and has no fucking clue what they're talking about.
 
American society plays a good game of "Hot Potato" when it comes to pandering to "values voters".

Congress to ratings to Walmart -- it's a winning triple-play for those who wish to hijack the social agenda and turn American progress back 50 years.

Corservatives have scandal and spectacle on their side ("will somebody pleeease think of the children"). I understand that their kids are so emotionally unequipped to deal with the real world that seeing a left tit would cripple their ability to function effectively in society.

Therefore my modest proposal is to designate media blackout areas of the country where conservatives can rear their children, free from libertines who think that hearing the F word after 10PM on properly labeled network TV will not morally bankrupt the country. In media blackout areas, only values-oriented shows like Joan of Arcadia and Fox News (but NOT Fox programming) will be aired, thus ensuring a life of placid simplicity for good values people (free from all that "thinking" stuff).
 
[quote name='loserboy']But wait, there's more...

Why is it that America is so accepting of violence in films and videogames, but when it comes to sex everyone is so squeamish and puritanical.[/QUOTE]

How are you going to get 18 year olds to kill the enemy if they don't get some prior experience from videogames? You can't kill anyone with a left tit!
 
Are you idiots honestly this dense? Do you honestly think that all the government (and soccer moms) want from the video game buis is to police itself correctly?

Is that why it blamed Doom, a very old game, for columbine? Is that why they try to say that aiming a control stick is the same as aiming a gun? Is that why idiots like Jack are trying to ban harmless games like FFX2 and the Sims?

Wake up morons. They don't want the industry to police itself, they want to make a scapegoat out of it. Just like it's done out of everything.

Oh, and parents aren't responsible for anything. I mean, they brought the kids into this world, but someone else should raise.

Idiots.
 
woah woah, now OUR side is overblowing the hot cofee BS?

while i agree Rockstar messed up, and it is hurting us so we should be pissed at them, now we're doing exactly what we loathe the other side does with stuff like this.

I dont know why Rockstar would have tried to sneak that in, and the games been out for quite some time so why it only seems t ohave become so known now is odd to me, and that it is more difficult to enable on the PS2 than just a simple code says something to the situation.

in the end though this is just an endless twisting tornado and now with stuff like this we're blowing it up even more, soon we wont even know what hot cofee is, we'll just arbitrarily throw it around like it was the worst thing in the world.

And for the record, just because Jack Thomspon hinted towards something in that blurb that was important, you're immediate retraction of his credibility hints towards the contrary, as he probably is just a whore for the camera who eyes the industries deep pockets.

He may have inadvertantly made a small "point" but i dont see how he's really all too right. I will never call a man right who will take an admittedly crappy controversy like Hot Cofee and let some money grubbing hypocrite adult sue the industry for "millions" in "damages", whatever the heck that means anymore
 
All videogames should sold only to those 18 and over with proof of age as a requirement. Maybe then I can actually get something from the EBgames morning update without a bunch of damn punk kids stealing my Tales of Destiny 2!
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']I'm hoping that this heals and doesn't get fucked up by the government. . .[/QUOTE]

When I was a child, they didn't offer M-rated videogames for sale in stores, but there were R-rated movies in theaters. I remember this vividly because a friend and I had ridden our bicycles several miles to a theater one day but weren't allowed to buy tickets because we were underage.

If today's videogames are going to have an effective ratings system, it must be enforced by retail stores, meaning no underage kids can buy restricted games. If the government is going to get involved, I believe this is how they should do it, by enforcing the existing ratings system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top