R* p0wn3d!

[Gladguy]

Kotaku is reporting that the ESRB has laid the smackdown on R*. As I stated in an earlier thread, this isn't unexpected. It's the only thing the ESRB could do to maintain any semblance of integrity in their ratings system.

T2 expects this mess to cause a $10MM hit to their next quarter's revenues. Expect some interesting discussion on the future of mods and the accountability for such content.

[Gladguy]

Press release here. (http://www.shacknews.com/docs/press/072005_gta_sa.x)

[Jazar]

That's funny a patch to block the mod. If a kid is smart enough to d/l the mod, I'm sure he's smart enough to know how to reinstall the game. Not to mention that kids shouldn't be playing this anways.

[Wholly Schmidt]

I've only been sorta following all of this, when the other thread quickly devolved into the same tired arguments about violence, sex, ratings, and all that jazz, I stopped keeping up with it.

So has any evidence ever come to light at all as to Rockstar's intentions in the issue? Maybe I'm just hopelessly naive, but the most logical explanation to me for all of this was that Rockstar was going to have the sex scenes and for whatever reasons decided to cut them from the game. Their mistake appears to have been not removing them entirely. I just can't swallow the idea that this was some insidious ploy to sneak sex scenes past the ratings board, or that they did this with the intention of drumming up more press, as if the GTA series needed more coverage of this type.

Obviously, if there really is no evidence either way, I can't very well say it wasn't all a grand consipracy to sell more games, but I would like to make sure I didn't miss any other important factors in the debate before getting comfortable with my opinion.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

The ESRB has said:


However, the material was programmed by Rockstar to be inaccessible to the player and they have stated that it was never intended to be made accessible.

So Rockstar apparently copped to the presence of the content, but just did a poor job cutting it off from users.

Were there ulterior motives for leaving it in? Given their lack of forthrightness about where the content came from, pardon me for doubting the official Rockstar line about their intentions.

Troy

[Creole Ned]

So without modification, there is no way anyone could access this content, correct? Isn't that like rating a movie NC-17 because of scenes that were edited out and not included in the final cut? I mean, obviously the code is actually in GTA:SA but there's no way to make any use of it without deliberately going out of your way *and* using a thid party modification. And the game is already rated Mature.

I'm not sure what sort of credibility the ESRB gains on this one. It seems like an overreaction.

[Dave Long]

So basically, they're getting away with not telling people that they were the ones who put the stuff there in the first place even though that's obviously the case given the PS2 version having the same stuff accessible through codes for Pro Action Replay, etc.

They're snakes.

--Dave

Edit: The content is on the disc. Rockstar left it in there. They should have removed it entirely to prevent this. They deserve the rating.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

So without modification, there is no way anyone could access this content, correct? Isn't that like rating a movie NC-17 because of scenes that were edited out and not included in the final cut? I mean, obviously the code is actually in GTA:SA but there's no way to make any use of it without deliberately going out of your way *and* using a thid party modification. And the game is already rated Mature..

But the existence of third party modifications is not exactly news to Rockstar. They should have known that with this content - that they created - already on the program it would have been found. Maybe it's not malice, but it's clearly gross incompetence.

The movie analogy is inapt because when DVDs with new content are released, they may forego the entire ratings procedure, so you get the whole UNRATED ROAD TRIP SORORITY BOYS! ads. When a movie goes through the ratings process, there is nothing that the user can do to add new content or access additional content that is not intended.

Troy

[Wholly Schmidt]

Oh I knew they admitted to putting the content there after they allegedly tried to deny that too. So yeah, that was dirty of them, but that's just after the fact PR spinning that failed.

[JD]

So without modification, there is no way anyone could access this content, correct? Isn't that like rating a movie NC-17 because of scenes that were edited out and not included in the final cut?
No, it's not as you wouldn't be able to 'unlock' the scenes unless you stole them from the studio. I'm sure Rockstar didn't intend this to happen - the decision is right nonetheless. Or else companies could include any content of their choice, lock it to get a lower rating and then go "ooops, not our fault" when people start enabling the hidden content - as they certainly eventually would. See ragdoll physics in the German version of FarCry.

-Julian

[Wholly Schmidt]

That whole issue aside, I don't really understand the ESRB's actions. They're stopping production of the game until it's fixed, and at the same time giving it an AO rating? Does this mean they'll actually be sending the Best Buy employees out to the shelves with AO stickers to put on the current games? That seems a little unnecessary, there are already so many millions of copies in the hands of gamers, just halting current production and actually deleting the content for future copies seems like it would suffice.

[Creole Ned]

I know my analogy isn't perfect, so feel free to consider it withdrawn if it muddies my point. Obviously Rockstar should have removed the content if they wanted to make absolutely certain no one could access it, but there is no way at all to see it if you play the game as is. I think the issue is more gray than some are indicating, not that their PR haven't been weasels about it.

[Gladguy]

I wish I hadn't left my copy of Computer Games at Wendy's last week... there was a feature piece on GTA:SA in there, and IIRC, there was a comment on R* and their attitude towards modding. Something along the lines of "while we won't be releasing an SDK per se, the game was written so that mods are relatively simple edits in XML. We certainly welcome mods with open arms and we're excited to see what people will do with our game!" :oops:

Maybe Steve can dig up the quote for us?

[Dave Long]

That whole issue aside, I don't really understand the ESRB's actions. They're stopping production of the game until it's fixed, and at the same time giving it an AO rating? Does this mean they'll actually be sending the Best Buy employees out to the shelves with AO stickers to put on the current games? That seems a little unnecessary, there are already so many millions of copies in the hands of gamers, just halting current production and actually deleting the content for future copies seems like it would suffice.

Rockstar are the ones stopping production until its fixed. Rockstar will have to supply the AO stickers to those in the retail channel. What don't you understand? The ESRB has said that the game, as sold on shelves right now, should have been rated AO and will now get that designation and puts the onus on Rockstar to fix the rating for those on the rack. That R* decided to stop production, remove the code, then reship with an M is their choice.

--Dave

[Fred]

That whole issue aside, I don't really understand the ESRB's actions. They're stopping production of the game until it's fixed, and at the same time giving it an AO rating? Does this mean they'll actually be sending the Best Buy employees out to the shelves with AO stickers to put on the current games? That seems a little unnecessary, there are already so many millions of copies in the hands of gamers, just halting current production and actually deleting the content for future copies seems like it would suffice.

Then how would we ever know which boxes to charge more for on eBay?

[Jason McCullough]

This pretty clearly smells like "bored progammer put in hilarious sex minigame, they turned it off for the shipping build."

[Nick Walter]

This pretty clearly smells like "bored progammer put in hilarious sex minigame, they turned it off for the shipping build."

I haven't experienced this mod directly, but the stuff I've heard describes the sex minigame as fairly full featured. I think it was a bit too polished to be the work of one renegade programmer. I'm betting the dev team built it deliberately at one point in time, perhaps as a fallback plan if management wanted to go the AO direction with the product.

For a game series rife with crime and violence, it doesn't seem so farfetched to imagine a team of designers sitting around a conference table and seriously entertaining the idea of a sex minigame.

[Jamie Madigan]

I wonder how the author of the Hot Coffee mod feels about costing Rockstar $10 million? I know we could argue about his (I assume it was a "he") culpability, but I wonder how he feels.

[Fred]

I wonder how the author of the Hot Coffee mod feels about costing Rockstar $10 million? I know we could argue about his (I assume it was a "he") culpability, but I wonder how he feels.

HE = truely renegade programmer from Rock*? :?:

[Jose Liz]

It's unfortunate that this happened. I think that it needed to happen for the government to leave the ESRB alone for a while.

I think it's an utterly stupid rating. Singles had an "R" rating and it featured topless characters and an equally "realistic" depiction of sex. The only thing that gave that game an "AO" was the full frontal nudity. San Andreas features no such nudity.

This is costing Take-Two an absurd amount of money.


The Company now expects $205 to $215 million in net sales and a net loss per share of $(0.05) to $(0.10) for the third quarter ending July 31, 2005.


As a result of the re-rating of the game, Take-Two is lowering guidance for the third fiscal quarter ending July 31, 2005 to $160 to $170 million in net sales

$45 million? For a mod? WTF.

[Menzo]

It's all just posturing. They know that tons of kids are going to rush out tomorrow to buy the M-rated version. It'll cost them money to recall, but not that much.

[Mehrunes]

Thank God little Timmy will be spared from being forced to see those evil breasts in between bouts of blowing up little old ladies with a rocket launcher.

[Jojo]

It will be very interesting to see what the end results of all this our. In the short term, sales of GTA:SA will spike, as a result of all the "negative" publicity, even after Wal-Mart has hidden all their copies under the counter.

It will be interesting to see if the ESRB re-considers the differences between M and AO ratings, since AO is basically exactly the same as M but with sex and/or nudity.

I also wonder if its possible this might somehow de-stigmatise the AO rating. if GTA can continue selling without a significant sales drop, then maybe AO will be considered feasible. I dunno, maybe not, since it came out originally as an M rating.

It would be nice to see a change in the retailers attitudes, since AO is only considered a death-knell by publishers because retailers get all prissy about it. Movies with sex and nudity in them are just fine to display on the shelf, but videogames with sex and nudity are dirty and must be hidden.

[Wholly Schmidt]

Rockstar are the ones stopping production until its fixed. Rockstar will have to supply the AO stickers to those in the retail channel. What don't you understand? The ESRB has said that the game, as sold on shelves right now, should have been rated AO and will now get that designation and puts the onus on Rockstar to fix the rating for those on the rack. That R* decided to stop production, remove the code, then reship with an M is their choice.

--Dave
Well, I guess I didn't understand that Rockstar was the one stopping production and changing it. I mean, I knew that'd be the logical step, but I thought the ESRB was actively making them do it instead of just forcing their hand. At first glance, it just seemed silly that the end result was that the ESRB was giving an AO rating to a game that's effectively vanishing as they rate it. What good is telling the people who already bought the game that it's now AO?

But yeah, thinking through it more, I guess the actions make sense. The ESRB has to make the rating change or Rockstar probably wouldn't have bothered to fix it.

So yeah, just me being dumb.

Now, when can I get some AO stickers for my other GTA PC games? GTA 3 and Vice City can make the entire female population into nude exhibitionists with a simple mod! The code (for three dimensional representations of women walking around) is already in the game! All it took was a simple modification to a texture to unlock it!

[eliandi]

Thank God little Timmy will be spared from being forced to see those evil breasts in between bouts of blowing up little old ladies with a rocket launcher.

Seconded!

I also disagree with the penalty. Rockstar seems to have done due dilligence in locking the content originally (ie it was not easily accessable), however thier initial coverup was inexcusable.

[Kryten]

This makes me happy to live in a country where games are rated using the exact same system and markings (stickers) etc. as movies, books, porn etc. and not seperate systems all with their own criteria. GTA:SA was rated from day one as R18 (http://www.gpstore.co.nz/Games/1463221.html) (for violence and offensive language), so impact on NZ = negligible. And I'll bet the R18 rating had very minimal impact on sales.

[shang]

I can't understand the whole thing about the M versus AO rating at all. How is that ONE YEAR DIFFERENCE so meaningful that some retail outlets will not carry the game and every conservative person and organisation goes batshit insane. Why do you even need both the M and AO ratings?

Edit:

This makes me happy to live in a country where games are rated using the exact same system and markings (stickers) etc. as movies, books, porn etc. and not seperate systems all with their own criteria. GTA:SA was rated from day one as R18 (http://www.gpstore.co.nz/Games/1463221.html) (for violence and offensive language), so impact on NZ = negligible. And I'll bet the R18 rating had very minimal impact on sales.

Yeah. Pegi (http://www.pegi.info/index.html), while exclusive to games, seems a bit more reasonable than ESRB too and IIRC Finland uses only the age limits 3, 7, 11, 15 and 18+, so it's not quite so fine grained. And I bet the 18+ rating over here doesn't affect sales either. All 12+ gamer boys that I know are happily playing San Andreas.

[Gendal]

Woo, if I was their programmers I would be kicking myself right now. A simple


#if 0
/* all the hot coffee code*/
#endif


would have made sure this never happened. Unless they wanted it to be found and simply miscalculated the backlash. I am guessing they just figured nobody would figure it out, which of course was stupid.

[steve]

I think it's an utterly stupid rating. Singles had an "R" rating and it featured topless characters and an equally "realistic" depiction of sex. The only thing that gave that game an "AO" was the full frontal nudity. San Andreas features no such nudity.
There's a big difference between Singles and San Andreas.

In the case of Singles (and Leisure Suit Larry), it had nudity. And in the case of Larry, bad language. That's it.

With San Andreas, the nudity comes on top of the graphic violence, language, drug use, etc. The combination--not just the sex--could be argued as what put it over the top.

In fact, it's highly likely that Hot Coffee was in the game as an official feature and the ESRB said, "Nope, it's gotta go to get an M rating," which is why it's there, sorta. It's not unlike the MPAA telling a studio that they need to remove one extra thrust in a sex scene to get an R, or cut out that exploding eyeball.

[nijimeijer]

I haven't experienced this mod directly, but the stuff I've heard describes the sex minigame as fairly full featured. I think it was a bit too polished to be the work of one renegade programmer. I'm betting the dev team built it deliberately at one point in time, perhaps as a fallback plan if management wanted to go the AO direction with the product.

For a game series rife with crime and violence, it doesn't seem so farfetched to imagine a team of designers sitting around a conference table and seriously entertaining the idea of a sex minigame.

It may have even been in there initially as a way to help them get an M, rather than an AO. Sound silly? Let me 'splain. Movie makers whose films are a hard "R" may deliberately put in over the top, NC-17, X rated content when it's being rated by the MPAA, so that when they remove it, the product leaves a cleaner impression, garnering them an R, despite the movie perhaps being closer to NC17 than R, with or without this content. Game makers may be starting to do the same thing.

[Drastic]

Back before San Andreas was released, I idly wondered how they'd ever exceed the free marketing that the whole silly Vice City "kill all the Haitians/Cubans" business generated.

Time has a way of answering all such questions.

[Jose Liz]

In the case of Singles (and Leisure Suit Larry), it had nudity. And in the case of Larry, bad language. That's it.

With San Andreas, the nudity comes on top of the graphic violence, language, drug use, etc. The combination--not just the sex--could be argued as what put it over the top.

This is a fine point but game was already described as having "Strong Sexual Content," which is the same descriptor they gave Singles. The combination was already there and it earned the game the "M." I don't see why it's necessary to give it an "AO" rating especially since there is going to be no change to the descriptors for the game.

[Angie Gallant]

Because explicit sex is different from implied sex.

[Damien Falgoust]

Because explicit sex is different from implied sex.
Still. "Strong Sexual Content" is the same descriptor applied to Skinomax soft-core boobie flicks (uh, not that I'd know...), and the stuff I've seen on the internet about "Hot Coffee" is about on par with that. Someone relying solely on the ESRB rating would be on notice that there's steamy stuff in there, even if the un-patched product is in actuality less steamy than the rating would lead one to believe.

That's really a rating flaw, though. It seems to me that "strong sexual content" should mean the game actually has strong sexual content (rather than implied, off-screen sex), and that a game with actual strong sexual content should get an AO rating.

[Sean Hargraves]

You know, if you use a cheat code (something that moves objects around) in The Sims 2, you can move the sims out of the bed while they're woohooing (sims version of sex) and watch 'em go at it!

It should be rated AO since the cheat and ability to do that in the game was there from the beginning and required no mods whatsoever. And that game was rated T for Teen!

[Alan Au]

Not that R* is blameless, but the whole thing sounds excessively punitive to me. I mean, the difference between the M and AO ratings that M is 17+ while AO is 18+. Well, that and retailers somehow balk at the AO rating while eagerly rushing M rated titles to the hands of eager consumers.

- Alan

[Sean Tudor]

"There is sex content in the disc," said Take-Two spokesman Jim Ankner. "The editing and finalization of any game is a complicated task and it's not uncommon for unused and unfinished content to remain on the disc."

LOL! Well that's that then. Is this any worse than the sex content in Team America ? Puppets or low quality graphics on screen - what's the difference ?

[Jose Liz]

"There is sex content in the disc," said Take-Two spokesman Jim Ankner. "The editing and finalization of any game is a complicated task and it's not uncommon for unused and unfinished content to remain on the disc."

LOL! Well that's that then. Is this any worse than the sex content in Team America ? Puppets or low quality graphics on screen - what's the difference ?

Rockstar's official response is that Ankner was misquoted.

[Sean Tudor]

Well given that the hex offset of the file where the bit is located that can be changed I'd say Ankner needs to have another chat with his programmers. :wink:

[steve]

This is a fine point but game was already described as having "Strong Sexual Content," which is the same descriptor they gave Singles. The combination was already there and it earned the game the "M." I don't see why it's necessary to give it an "AO" rating especially since there is going to be no change to the descriptors for the game.
It's the degree of "Strong Sexual Content" that, it could be argued, put it over the top.

There is no nudity in San Andreas. There is with Hot Coffee. The "Strong Sexual Content" would probably be the lap dances you can buy; now it's pretty graphic (if comically un-erotic) sex.

[Toddy]

With San Andreas, the nudity comes on top of the graphic violence, language, drug use, etc. The combination--not just the sex--could be argued as what put it over the top.

Didn't Singles get an AO based on sexual content alone? I dunno, I think sex is the big no-no for the ESRB, not some combo of sex and violence (though that sure doesn't help). Anyhow, it's crazy that something like this can tip a game over the line into AO territory, when suffocating people with plastic bags only gets Manhunt an M. What is the deal with America and sex?


In fact, it's highly likely that Hot Coffee was in the game as an official feature and the ESRB said, "Nope, it's gotta go to get an M rating," which is why it's there, sorta. It's not unlike the MPAA telling a studio that they need to remove one extra thrust in a sex scene to get an R, or cut out that exploding eyeball.

That really doesn't make sense, though, as Rockstar told the ESRB that Hot Coffee was produced by a hacker, that it wasn't their code. They wouldn't have done that, obviously, if they'd already shown the sex mini-game to the ESRB when getting SA rated in the first place.

[steve]

Still. "Strong Sexual Content" is the same descriptor applied to Skinomax soft-core boobie flicks (uh, not that I'd know...), and the stuff I've seen on the internet about "Hot Coffee" is about on par with that.
Many of those same Skinemax movies are rated "Adults Only" (i.e. unrated). The ones that have an "R" are much tamer, with sex scenes that are edited way down.

Not that I'd know...


That's really a rating flaw, though. It seems to me that "strong sexual content" should mean the game actually has strong sexual content (rather than implied, off-screen sex), and that a game with actual strong sexual content should get an AO rating.
I generally agree, though I think there's also sexual dialogue. It's a far cry from strong sexual content, in my book, but I think they just threw the book at San Andreas as a way to say, "Um, it's really Mature."

[steve]

Didn't Singles get an AO based on sexual content alone? I dunno, I think sex is the big no-no for the ESRB, not some combo of sex and violence (though that sure doesn't help).
Not true. Leisure Suit Larry got an M with plenty of nudity and sex.

I believe Singles got it for lower nudity. Boobs are okay. Hollywood is similar; if you show bush or a penis, its.. um.. harder to get an R rating.


That really doesn't make sense, though, as Rockstar told the ESRB that Hot Coffee was produced by a hacker, that it wasn't their code. They wouldn't have done that, obviously, if they'd already shown the sex mini-game to the ESRB when getting SA rated in the first place.
Good point.

[Jose Liz]

Not true. Leisure Suit Larry got an M with plenty of nudity and sex.

I believe Singles got it for lower nudity. Boobs are okay. Hollywood is similar; if you show bush or a penis, its.. um.. harder to get an R rating.


This is true. The M version is the same as the AO sans the full frontal nudity.

[mouselock]

Didn't LSL have a hex-edit/.ini file hack to change it to full frontal, though?

Why wasn't that a sticking point? Just the sheer difference in popularity of the two properties?

[Backov]

Fuck the ESRB.

If they're going to get an AO for this, they should put it back in the shipping version.

[MattKeil]

Fuck the ESRB.

If they're going to get an AO for this, they should put it back in the shipping version.

Heh. They'd probably sell a ton of them if they did.

This really is the stupidest "scandal" in the industry since Washington realized Mortal Kombat and Night Trap existed. In a game full of horrific acts, the idea that a cartoon sex minigame that isn't even accessible unless the player takes intentional steps outside the game to unlock it suddenly warrants this kind of a flap is ridiculous. I don't know who these people think is benefitting or being protected by this. Certainly not children, since they're not supposed to be playing the fucking game in the first place. Really, I don't get this. It's mature content in a mature rated game. Who cares if it's an M or an AO? Who's really operating under the delusion that the one goddamn year difference between the two ratings makes any difference whatsoever? Exactly what happens in that year that suddenly makes it acceptable for someone to play a sex-based rhythm game as opposed to the perfectly-17-year-old-friendly gameplay element of sneaking up and slitting women's throats with a combat knife?

"Strong Sexual Content" covers Hot Coffee just fine. This country needs to get over its hangup with sex already. I guess nobody learned anything from when we collectively lost our goddamn minds over seeing part of Janet Jackson's breast during the Super Bowl.

[Sean Tudor]

"Strong Sexual Content" covers Hot Coffee just fine. This country needs to get over its hangup with sex already. I guess nobody learned anything from when we collectively lost our goddamn minds over seeing part of Janet Jackson's breast during the Super Bowl.

Exactly. I guess this is what happens when a country is taken over by a bunch of Bible-bashing prudes.

It's sad to think Australia is heading down the exact same path. :roll:

Still there some of us left that enjoy their bit of pr0n and have a good laugh when this sort of thing happens in a computer game.

[Ben Sones]

It's sad to think Australia is heading down the exact same path. :roll:

Really? I thought that Australians got generally less worked up over that sort of thing, but I've never travelled to Australia, so perhaps that's just a misconception on my part.

[tronnc]

Here is what I'm worried about.


the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association (IEMA), has issued the following statement regarding the revocation of the “Mature” rating for the controversial video game, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

“The ESRB (Entertainment Software Ratings Board) notified us late this afternoon Eastern Time that they have revoked the “Mature” rating previously issued for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, following an extensive investigation. Our members intend to immediately cease all sales of the game until existing inventory can either be re-stickered with an AO (Adults Only) rating, or exchanged for new versions of the game that has the hidden content removed and the original M (Mature 17+) rating intact. Though not a policy, IEMA members generally do not carry AO-rated games any differently than we do not carry X-rated videos or DVDs, thus it is likely that our members will be removing all copies of the current version and re-stocking with the updated version.”


From Bluesnews today.

I haven't got around to purchased the game yet because I just didn't have the time. But now do I have to call up stores today and race out to get a copy before they pull them from shelves.

[Sean Tudor]

It's sad to think Australia is heading down the exact same path. :roll:

Really? I thought that Australians got generally less worked up over that sort of thing, but I've never travelled to Australia, so perhaps that's just a misconception on my part.

They don't normally but censorship laws in this country are still somewhat draconian with regards to film and games ratings. There has also been a swing to the religious right after the last election which definitely hasn't helped.

Eg. we don't have a rating for games above MA15+. So therefore games like Leisure Suit Larry are banned from sale here. The ratings here are so inconsistent given that they still passed GTA:SA and numerous other ultra-violent games.

[steve]

"Strong Sexual Content" covers Hot Coffee just fine. This country needs to get over its hangup with sex already. I guess nobody learned anything from when we collectively lost our goddamn minds over seeing part of Janet Jackson's breast during the Super Bowl.
Or alternately, people need to realize that not everyone is so opened-minded and quit shoving it down their throats, saying it's their problem and they need to change right now. That type of extremism just begets more extremism. And it's easy to forget how much more culturally free we are right now versus, say, 50 years ago.

It's easy to forget that people aren't too happy with the violence in San Andreas. And the language. And the cop killing. And the drug use. And the bad language. But the sex game isn't just "Strong Sexual Content." It's pretty explicit. It wouldn't be "R-rated." For a movie, it would be NC-17, easily.

Just to reiterate, if San Andreas was just a dating game, this would be less of an issue. But when you add-up all of the "rated" content in San Andreas, I think it's perfectly reasonable to rate it "Adults Only," assuming you use the qualifier that the rating covers all content included on the disc.

Also, this is an absolutely critical point for videogames. If the ESRB didn't re-rate it, if Rockstar didn't pull it, you could kiss any hope for future "adult" games goodbye--it would be Teen games forever.

[Damien Falgoust]

Exactly. I guess this is what happens when a country is taken over by a bunch of Bible-bashing prudes.
Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman are Bible-bashers?

[Kareem]

I like the statement GTA Garage made (they removed the mod from their website in support for Rockstar):


Just in case you really really need to see naked polygon people for some strange reason, and are upset that Patrick deleted this, go here or here [...] to download a mod which removes the default censorship blur over mature scenes in The Sims2 by EA Games. A game which is rated Teen, mind you, yet no one seems to care that it can be uncensored to reveal content which was already there in the retail version. Or, for that matter, just google almost any PC game's name +"nude patch" to find user created adult content which is now, apparently, the responsibilty of the publishers.

[Gladguy]

I like the statement GTA Garage made (they removed the mod from their website in support for Rockstar):


Just in case you really really need to see naked polygon people for some strange reason, and are upset that Patrick deleted this, go here or here [...] to download a mod which removes the default censorship blur over mature scenes in The Sims2 by EA Games. A game which is rated Teen, mind you, yet no one seems to care that it can be uncensored to reveal content which was already there in the retail version. Or, for that matter, just google almost any PC game's name +"nude patch" to find user created adult content which is now, apparently, the responsibilty of the publishers.
That quote entirely misses the point. We're not talking about "user created adult content" here. We're talking about a submission to the ESRB in which the Publisher/Developer lied about the content shipping on the disc, and then lied again about the existence of the content when they got caught.

IMO, the American hangup over sex (i.e. blow my head off and have blood spurting everywhere, but don't show any boobies) isn't the issue here. The issue is maintaining the integrity of the ESRB. If that integrity is compromised, we're in for a whole bunch more government legislation and regulation, and that can never be a good thing.

The ESRB handled this one in an exemplary fashion. They were duped, and -- given the extremely high profile of the GTA series -- the news broke about additional extreme content that was hidden on the disc. They did what they had to do given the external pressures politically and socially.

R* should have known better. They either tried to pull one over on the ESRB, or they were sloppy in their removal of the minigame which they knew would cause a media storm. They got caught, and they have to pay.

[TriggerHappy]

I like the statement GTA Garage made (they removed the mod from their website in support for Rockstar):


Just in case you really really need to see naked polygon people for some strange reason, and are upset that Patrick deleted this, go here or here [...] to download a mod which removes the default censorship blur over mature scenes in The Sims2 by EA Games. A game which is rated Teen, mind you, yet no one seems to care that it can be uncensored to reveal content which was already there in the retail version. Or, for that matter, just google almost any PC game's name +"nude patch" to find user created adult content which is now, apparently, the responsibilty of the publishers.
That quote entirely misses the point. We're not talking about "user created adult content" here. We're talking about a submission to the ESRB in which the Publisher/Developer lied about the content shipping on the disc, and then lied again about the existence of the content when they got caught.

IMO, the American hangup over sex (i.e. blow my head off and have blood spurting everywhere, but don't show any boobies) isn't the issue here. The issue is maintaining the integrity of the ESRB. If that integrity is compromised, we're in for a whole bunch more government legislation and regulation, and that can never be a good thing.

The ESRB handled this one in an exemplary fashion. They were duped, and -- given the extremely high profile of the GTA series -- the news broke about additional extreme content that was hidden on the disc. They did what they had to do given the external pressures politically and socially.

R* should have known better. They either tried to pull one over on the ESRB, or they were sloppy in their removal of the minigame which they knew would cause a media storm. They got caught, and they have to pay.

Did you actually read about the Sim2 (or was it Singles?) issue pointed out earlier? In game cheat code. Not hex editting, not gamesharking, just a plain old cheat code.

I could've sworn that there wasn't any actual nudity in the GTASA sex mini game. And it's a pain to unlock, at least on the console. You have to have a gameshark type device, and you have to change like 30 lines of code, then hit a certain button combination, and make sure you don't save your game since it'll be all screwed up.

So it's harder to do than the Sims, less graphic than the Sims, but it warrants a much higher rating?

[JPR]

Gladguy must not have noticed this part:


...download a mod which removes the default censorship blur over mature scenes in The Sims2 by EA Games. A game which is rated Teen, mind you, yet no one seems to care that it can be uncensored to reveal content which was already there in the retail version.

[Gladguy]

The Sims wasn't born into the center of a media storm. If there's unlockable content shipping on the Sims disc that warrants a higher rating than T, then The Sims should be pulled and restickered. I don't cotton to double standards.

Thing is, R* should have known better, given the history surrounding the GTA series. Sad, but true.

[Kareem]

The Sims wasn't born into the center of a media storm. If there's unlockable content shipping on the Sims disc that warrants a higher rating than T, then The Sims should be pulled and restickered. I don't cotton to double standards.

Thing is, R* should have known better, given the history surrounding the GTA series. Sad, but true.

But that's what the quote (and the earlier comment in this thread) says. There already IS that sort of thing in Sims 2.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

There is nudity in the GTA sex game (http://screenshots.filesnetwork.com/75/files2/44662_2.jpg) and it shows thrusting, various positions and implied oral sex.

Even if there wasnt't nudity, unless your definition of "explicit" has no room for movement or context, and is only about what body parts can be seen, then my high school biology book must have been very titillating.

Troy

[Gladguy]

The Sims wasn't born into the center of a media storm. If there's unlockable content shipping on the Sims disc that warrants a higher rating than T, then The Sims should be pulled and restickered. I don't cotton to double standards.

Thing is, R* should have known better, given the history surrounding the GTA series. Sad, but true.

But that's what the quote (and the earlier comment in this thread) says. There already IS that sort of thing in Sims 2.
Ok. Get on your bandwagon, call Thompson and Clinton and Leiberman and rally the troops! Sims 2 is a blight on American Society and must be stopped! OMG... won't anyone think of the children? THE CHILDREN!!

:roll:

[JPR]

Ok. Get on your bandwagon, call Thompson and Clinton and Leiberman and rally the troops! Sims 2 is a blight on American Society and must be stopped! OMG... won't anyone think of the children? THE CHILDREN!!

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Aren't you mocking your own standpoint here?

And also, if you think that The Sims 2 wasn't released to a ton of media attention, you're kidding yourself. The sequel to the best selling PC game of all time got quite a bit of media attention. The fact that it contains nudity that is accessed as easily as the nudity in San Andreas is the sort of thing that the ESRB needs to think about pretty seriously. And there are plenty of actual children playing the Sims.

[Marcus]

he fact that it contains nudity that is accessed as easily as the nudity in San Andreas is the sort of thing that the ESRB needs to think about pretty seriously.

Exactly.

[Justin Fletcher]

Will Wright is praying CNN doesn't read this thread.

[Kareem]

John seems to have said what I would have wanted to say, except much more eloquently.

But you say you don't cotton to double standards when you assume strangely that The Sims 2 isn't as blockbusting as San Andreas, and you decide to ignore claims that The Sims 2 has cheat codes that enable nudity in a much less complicated way than San Andreas, without bothering to verify it. Then you go on a rambling rhetoric which proves nothing other than the fact that you ARE employing double standards.

[Gladguy]

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Aren't you mocking your own standpoint here?
To clarify my standpoint (and use the nifty List feature!):
1) The important value that must be upheld is the integrity of the ESRB. If the rating process is marginalized, we open the doors to government intervention that will have a negative impact on the type of content available. And I like shooting stuff.

2) The GTA series has a history of being a political hot potato. Rightly or wrongly, R* must be aware their game will be held to a different moral standard, due to the inherent content.

3) Devs/Pubs are 100% responsible for all the content shipped on their media. Enabled or otherwise. If it's on the disc, you're responsible for it, and if it's of an extreme nature, you better advise the ESRB.

4) GTA:SA shipped with content that:
a) is deemed extreme
b) is offensive to some
c) warrants an AO rating

5) If there's stuff resident on the Sims2 -- or any other game, for that matter -- that warrants an R rating, then the ESRB should act on it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there have been discussions about a very public audit. If I were Jeff Sloan, I'd be planning such an audit and making that news very public. It would turn this otherwise negative PR mess into something positive.
The thing is, The Sims 2 didn't have the attention of all the panic mongers in the US, so any nudity/porn didn't raise any flags. The real point of my glib comment above was a dig at how nothing is an issue until someone makes it an issue. GTA:SA shipped with all the attention of the self-righteous.

[noun]

eBay's already beginning to reflect this; prices for both the PC and XBOX versions are nudging actual retail prices. In another couple of weeks, I'm sure they'll surpass that. I wonder if eBay will soon start treating pre-AO versions like other adult merchandise.

[mouselock]

It's easy to forget that people aren't too happy with the violence in San Andreas. And the language. And the cop killing. And the drug use. And the bad language. But the sex game isn't just "Strong Sexual Content." It's pretty explicit. It wouldn't be "R-rated." For a movie, it would be NC-17, easily.

Yet these are the people who are applying the hot coffee mod? I don't think so.

It still comes down to people getting offended on behalf of other people. On behalf of other people who choose to make the game more offensive to others, but assumably are either okay with making it more offensive to themselves, or simply don't find it more offensive.

I'm still trying to figure out the mythical consumer who this furor is "protecting" from offensive content. Because I can't for the life of me envision the process whereby someone has the right to claim "Oh my god, it offended me... [size=9]after I installed the patch and/or typed in the cheat codes to make it more offensive[/size=9]"

If Rockstar has any sense, they'll pull the content, and offer it as an additional download/bonus disc for another $10, with the additional content being rated AO. Presumably if people buy it (directly or from, I guess, the porn shops who would be the only ones to sell it) it would therefore actually be their own fault for enabling the content this time?

[Rywill]

I'm sure people are upset because of kids (even 17-year-old kids) buying the game, which is what the ESRB is all about anyway: letting parents protect their kids from certain kinds of content, if they (the parents) choose to. Again, you may think there's no real difference between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old (and I would agree with you) and you may think it's stupid to "protect" a 17-year-old from pictures of sex (I'd agree with you there too). But that's the rule that everyone, including Rockstar, agreed to: you submit the hardest content to the ESRB and they tell you, down to this one-year margin, who the game is suitable for.

[MattKeil]

"Strong Sexual Content" covers Hot Coffee just fine. This country needs to get over its hangup with sex already. I guess nobody learned anything from when we collectively lost our goddamn minds over seeing part of Janet Jackson's breast during the Super Bowl.
Or alternately, people need to realize that not everyone is so opened-minded and quit shoving it down their throats, saying it's their problem and they need to change right now. That type of extremism just begets more extremism. And it's easy to forget how much more culturally free we are right now versus, say, 50 years ago.

What's being shoved down anyone's throats? You don't like this kind of thing, don't buy the frigging game. It seems real simple to me.


It's easy to forget that people aren't too happy with the violence in San Andreas. And the language. And the cop killing. And the drug use. And the bad language. But the sex game isn't just "Strong Sexual Content." It's pretty explicit. It wouldn't be "R-rated." For a movie, it would be NC-17, easily.

Just to reiterate, if San Andreas was just a dating game, this would be less of an issue. But when you add-up all of the "rated" content in San Andreas, I think it's perfectly reasonable to rate it "Adults Only," assuming you use the qualifier that the rating covers all content included on the disc.

Totally agreed, but they didn't rate it AO, they rated it M. I don't object to GTA:SA being an AO game, I object to the idea that the Hot Coffee thing is what warrants the AO. If the ESRB didn't think it was already AO material, this shouldn't be what pushes them over the fence on it.


Also, this is an absolutely critical point for videogames. If the ESRB didn't re-rate it, if Rockstar didn't pull it, you could kiss any hope for future "adult" games goodbye--it would be Teen games forever.

I don't buy this for a second. The only thing this whole scandal is highlighting is how much of a joke the ESRB is. If the purpose of the ESRB is really to self-police the industry so the government doesn't step in and do it for them, I don't see how "oops, the latest installment of this gen's most popular franchise should actually have been rated AO!" Good thing they caught that before millions of people bought the cop-killing, drug-running, car-stealing, civilian massacring gangster game with the hidden devil sex in it!

I freely admit that I'm not in any way objective on this issue. I despise the censorship of creative works in any way, shape, or form, and while this certainly isn't that, it's a step in that direction for the industry. It wouldn't surprise me if nobody's going to have the balls to put anything sexually explicit in their game for years now, and while I'm not clamoring for a sexually explicit game, I don't think there should be a stigma about putting such content in a game.

Nobody's banging anyone's door down and forcing them to play any of this stuff. If you were offended by something in a game, stop playing it, sell it or return it to the store. End of fucking story. Yes, sometimes things offend a person. It's perfectly reasonable and rational that that person wouldn't want to play GTA:SA or whatever game offended them, or other games like it. That's where it ends. It is not in any way reasonable or rational to go on these nutbar political rampages to remove this kind of content from games (or any other media) just because it offends that person. Or, in the case of this situation, might at some point offend a hypothetical person who has gone through the trouble to use outside patches or third-party cheat devices to activate the content that subsequently offends them.

I find it doubly amusing that the mod is called "Hot Coffee," because all of this is the digital equivalent of spilling hot coffee on your lap and suing the restaurant because the coffee was hot. Almost. To match up correctly, you'd have to get the coffee, then pour it into your own personal cup with a hole in it that spills the coffee when you try to drink it. Nobody saw this Hot Coffee crap who didn't want to. Well, at least until Hillary and the others made a stink over it and everyone and their brother downloaded video clips of it. Bravo, moral crusaders. Bravo.

[LarryLard]

Who came up with this system where you have different ratings for 17+ and 18+? And furthermore the next one below 17+ is, what, 13+? That's really not sensible at all. At the risk of sounding jingoistic (or something), I have to say the (UK) BBFC ratings (which get applied to games as well as movies) of 15 and 18 make a lot more sense than 17 and 18.

Of course there's a wider debate about when someone becomes an adult etc etc (eg you can join the Army here at 17, but you still can't vote until you're 18, although you could be a father at 16 legally), but really, didn't anyone ever say to the ESRB: Hey, 17+ and 18+ are stupidly close to have as ratings?

[bago]

There is no set of inputs from a Sony Playstation 2 controller on a Sony Playstation 2 console that will unlock this content.

If an R-rated DVD shipped with content that was NC17, but could not be accessed from any DVD player through the Menu/UI, but instead was found by some pirate ripping the DVD, would you get the same reaction?

[Jose Liz]

Of course there's a wider debate about when someone becomes an adult etc etc (eg you can join the Army here at 17, but you still can't vote until you're 18, although you could be a father at 16 legally), but really, didn't anyone ever say to the ESRB: Hey, 17+ and 18+ are stupidly close to have as ratings?

It's no different than "R" and "NC-17." One allows you to get the game with a parent or someone of age, while the other specifically requires you to be of age.

[slantz]

I was on 'rockstar's side' for a long time on this issue, but then I realized that if the ESRB doesn't hold Rockstar accountable for 'unhooked' content on its title, then other games can start taking advantage of the same leniency by adding in all sorts of 'unhooked' content and then leaking the gameshark codes (or whatever) onto the net for their own free publicity.

So to me, it's not a matter of rockstar's intention, as much as creating a standard which is fair when applied to games in the future as well as now.

As far as I can tell, with the current resolution, it just boils down to devs/publishers just making sure that risque content above/beyond the game's final rating needs to be removed compeltely, and not left in for hacker types to find/unlock. Is that really so bad?

[slantz]

although you could be a father at 16 legally
So if you knock a chick up when you're 14, the law doesn't acknowledge it? Or do they send men in black to the girl's house to remedy the situation?

[Jose Liz]

although you could be a father at 16 legally
So if you knock a chick up when you're 14, the law doesn't acknowledge it? Or do they send men in black to the girl's house to remedy the situation?

If both people are under the age of consent... isn't that like illegal sex?

[Justin Fletcher]

Nobody's banging anyone's door down and forcing them to play any of this stuff. If you were offended by something in a game, stop playing it, sell it or return it to the store. End of fucking story. Yes, sometimes things offend a person. It's perfectly reasonable and rational that that person wouldn't want to play GTA:SA or whatever game offended them, or other games like it. That's where it ends.
That's all well and good when it comes to consenting adults. But the furor is based on parents watching out for their kids. I'm sure the teens who go to the trouble to unlock the content love Hot Coffee.

Parents are freaking because, as I said in another thread, they can't be omnipresent and want accurate guidelines on the media content to which their children are exposed. When those guidelines (i.e. the ESRB) break down, they feel duped and betrayed. (Of course, whether parents are actually freaking or are assumed to be freaking is debatable.)

As Gladguy says, the issue here is not the content of the game, it's the failure of the ESRB and Rockstar to accurately portray the content of the game. Forget whether Rockstar meant the content to be seen or whether or not the code could have been easily removed: in the end, the ESRB didn't catch it and gave it an inaccurate rating (based, admittedly, on its utterly arbitrary standards).


The only thing this whole scandal is highlighting is how much of a joke the ESRB is.
That's exactly the problem. If parents and, in turn, politicians lose faith in the ESRB, then the pressure will mount on the ESRB to become much more strict with their ratings, possibly leading, as steve says, to a "teenification" of the industry.

Sure, it seems retarded that parents who don't mind the implied sex and graphic violence of GTA have a huge problem with a small, hidden portion of graphic sex in GTA. Welcome to America.

[MattKeil]

It says "Strong Sexual Content." How does this not inform the consumer/parent that the game indeed contains, oh, I don't know...strong sexual content?

I know we're at the point where televisions have to come with "Do Not Eat" stickers on them, but come on. Every kind of mature content type imaginable is listed next to the rating on the back of the GTA:SA box. You could not possibly choose a more potentially offensive and corruptive (if you're of the belief that such a thing is possible from a game) influence in game form than GTA, barring importing Sexy Beach 2 or something. What more do they need to do? This is still leaving aside the fact that the content in question is merely on the disc, not actually in the game.

Using a cheat device, I can access an unfinished section of Liberty City, thoroughly bug-ridden and full of hard crash opportunities. Should Rockstar also be taken to task for shipping an unfinished game? It's on the disc, after all.

[shang]

That's all well and good when it comes to consenting adults. But the furor is based on parents watching out for their kids. I'm sure the teens who go to the trouble to unlock the content love Hot Coffee.

I wish it where their kids, but the people most steamed about this seem to be in furor about other people's kids, which should be none of their goddamn bussiness.

[Justin Fletcher]

It says "Strong Sexual Content." How does this not inform the consumer/parent that the game indeed contains, oh, I don't know...strong sexual content?
It also says "Mature - 17+" which, by the ESRB's own admission, is wrong in light of recent events. And for some reason, that's a whole world away from "Adults Only - 18+."

Yes, it's stupid. I'm not arguing that. But if the ESRB is to continue making its own rules, then it has to abide by them. One hopes they make better ones in the future.

[Justin Fletcher]

I wish it where their kids, but the people most steamed about this seem to be in furor about other people's kids, which should be none of their goddamn bussiness.
Yeah, but things like media ratings affect everyone's kids, so a compromise has to be made between more permissive and more strict beliefs.

[shang]

I wish it where their kids, but the people most steamed about this seem to be in furor about other people's kids, which should be none of their goddamn bussiness.
Yeah, but things like media ratings affect everyone's kids, so a compromise has to be made between more permissive and more strict beliefs.

Sure, I can understand that, but I guess what I was getting at is that how large is the demographic that would buy San Andreas for their kid as a 17+ game but wouldn't buy it as a 18+ game? I mean, the people that are steamed about a game being mis-labeled as M would never buy that sort of game anyway. Ever.

On another note. Does anyone else think, that as a parenting guide, the age limit is completely and totally useless? I mean the box lists things like "explicit sexual content" separately. Shouldn't that list be enough?

[Justin Fletcher]

On another note. Does anyone else think, that as a parenting guide, the age limit is completely and totally useless? I mean the box lists things like "explicit sexual content" separately. Shouldn't that list be enough?
In terms of "mature content," yes and yes. Ages can be helpful, though, when determing the difficulty level of a game for prepubescents.

[Kevin Grey]

Sure, I can understand that, but I guess what I was getting at is that how large is the demographic that would buy San Andreas for their kid as a 17+ game but wouldn't buy it as a 18+ game? I mean, the people that are steamed about a game being mis-labeled as M would never buy that sort of game anyway. Ever.

I wouldn't agree with that. As a young teen there were lots of R-rated (M-Rate equivalent) movies that my parents didn't have an issue with me watching and there were some that they did. However, my parents would never have condoned me watching an X or NC-17 (AO equivalent) at that age.

[quatoria]

That's a ridiculous comparison. The shit in the hot coffee mod wouldn't be at all out of the ordinary in an R-rated movie, and it's by no means X rated. For christs sake, from the videos posted on the site, and the screenshots I've seen attached to news reports, the characters have no genitalia, and CJ keeps all of his clothes on at all times. It's two incredibly low-poly mannequins pantomiming sex, and it appears that most of the time, neither one of them is even naked. Ridiculous.

[steve]

The shit in the hot coffee mod wouldn't be at all out of the ordinary in an R-rated movie, and it's by no means X rated.
I can guarantee you that a full-blown fucking scene, in multiple positions (missionary, a sort of raised missionary, and doggy style), in the middle of an action movie would garner it an NC-17 or X rating. The MPAA is pretty strict about mixing violence and sex in the same movies, and unless it's some French movie no one will see, they have issues like, "More than three consecutive thrusts, NC-17," crazy shit like that. Hell, American Pie got an NC-17 (initially) because the pie scene was "too explicit."

Early versions of the mod had both people clothed. 2.0 made the woman fully nude.

[MattKeil]

I mainly find the MPAA comparison inaccurate because (as far as I know) the MPAA actually watches the movies to which they assign ratings.

And yeah, a sex scene that was one long continuous shot like the Hot Coffee scene would probably garner an NC-17, but now you're crossing media boundaries unnecessarily. There are scenes in Basic Instinct and even the Donald Sutherland classic Don't Look Now that feature far more explicit sexual behavior than Hot Coffee.

[JPR]

I can guarantee you that a full-blown fucking scene, in multiple positions (missionary, a sort of raised missionary, and doggy style), in the middle of an action movie would garner it an NC-17 or X rating. The MPAA is pretty strict about mixing violence and sex in the same movies, and unless it's some French movie no one will see, they have issues like, "More than three consecutive thrusts, NC-17," crazy shit like that. Hell, American Pie got an NC-17 (initially) because the pie scene was "too explicit."

Early versions of the mod had both people clothed. 2.0 made the woman fully nude.

Somebody mentioned Team America earlier, and that's DEFINITELY the proper comparison to make here. The detail level of the puppets is roughly on par with that of the models in San Andreas, and the sex scene was as-if-not-more graphic than what's in the Hot Coffee mod. It was rated R.

As I mentioned earlier (in the other Hot Coffee thread, I believe), the MPAA standards aren't really "standards", they're more like gut-reactions of old librarians, but it seems like there should be some correlation between the two ratings.

I also don't think that it's any worse than what's to be found in the M-rated version of Leisure Suit Larry.

[Jose Liz]

Somebody mentioned Team America earlier, and that's DEFINITELY the proper comparison to make here. The detail level of the puppets is roughly on par with that of the models in San Andreas, and the sex scene was as-if-not-more graphic than what's in the Hot Coffee mod. It was rated R.

I think steve's main argument that you can't have both gratuitous violence and explicit sex or else you get a NC-17 or AO, in this case. I never watched Team America, does it have similar levels of violence?

[steve]

Totally agreed, but they didn't rate it AO, they rated it M. I don't object to GTA:SA being an AO game, I object to the idea that the Hot Coffee thing is what warrants the AO. If the ESRB didn't think it was already AO material, this shouldn't be what pushes them over the fence on it.
The sexual content in San Andreas, as shipped, consists of some sex noise, lots of sex talk, some lap dances, and the scene with the Gimp and a dildo. There isn't any nudity.

You're not seeing a difference between that and sex scenes, with nudity, with multiple positions, where you control the rhythm of the sex act? I'm not sure what the descriptors can be on an AO game, but it might go from "Strong Sexual Content" to "Explicit Interactive Sexual Acts."


Nobody's banging anyone's door down and forcing them to play any of this stuff. If you were offended by something in a game, stop playing it, sell it or return it to the store. End of fucking story.
Everyone is trying to impose their own morality on others in these types of issues. You want everyone to hold your "everyone should be free" view. They're supposedly speaking for parents who just want some help in shielding their kids from things they don't think they should be seeing.

But I'm not sure a healthy democratic society should say, "You just have to suck it up and never protest." Their protesting--and any legislation--is actually what democracy is supposed to be about... for better or for worse. And you're just as welcome to counter their protests, though for all the gamers sitting around steaming about this, most will do... nothing.

[Jose Liz]

You're not seeing a difference between that and sex scenes, with nudity, with multiple positions, where you control the rhythm of the sex act? I'm not sure what the descriptors can be on an AO game, but it might go from "Strong Sexual Content" to "Explicit Interactive Sexual Acts."

"Strong sexual content" (http://www.esrb.org/search_results.asp?rat_6=Adults+Only+%2818%2B%29&count1=6&desID0=32&desID1=8&desID2=24&desID3=28&desID4=37&desID5=4&desID6=44&desID7=31&desID8=23&desID9=38&desID10=27&desID11=22&desID12=39&desID13=10&desID14=25&desID15=30&desID16=52&desID17=56&desID18=55&desID19=43&desID20=46&desID21=50&desID22=51&desID23=53&desID24=54&desID25=34&desID26=41&desID27=42&desID28=48&desID29=13&desID30=40&desID31=49&desID32=15&desID33=11&desID34=26&desID35=14&desID36=12&desID37=33&desID38=35&desID39=21&desID40=36&desID41=20&desID42=29&count2=43&platID0=12&platID1=17&platID2=18&platID3=19&platID4=20&platID5=32&platID6=42&platID7=5&platID8=34&platID9=33&platID10=22&platID11=39&platID12=3&platID13=6&platID14=43&platID15=41&platID16=36&platID17=24&platID18=11&platID19=30&platID20=25&platID21=37&platID22=46&platID23=26&platID24=13&platID25=14&platID26=31&platID27=7&platID28=8&platID29=15&platID30=10&platID31=4&platID32=40&platID33=16&platID34=45&platID35=35&platID36=44&count3=37&pub=&key=&type=game&validatePowerSearch=1&x=66&y=10) is as far as they go, even for games with titles like "The Joy Of Sex" and "All Nude Cyber."

The only change to San Andreas' rating is the AO. The descriptors won't be changed.

[Kevin Grey]

That's a ridiculous comparison. The shit in the hot coffee mod wouldn't be at all out of the ordinary in an R-rated movie, and it's by no means X rated.

As has always been the case with this situation, its the stigma of the ratings themselves that are significant, not the actual content. AO is the equivalent ot X, NC-17, or porn as far as most retailers and many parents are concerned. We can debate whether the actual content of the Hot Coffee mod would warrant an AO but the ESRB has flat out stated that they would have given it an AO if it was present so that makes out debates on the subject moot. My point is that there are some parents out there who do draw various distinctions and an AO rating, whether we think its warranted or not, would likely have caused them to rethink their decision to let their child play the game. Never mind the fact that having an AO rating would likely have dramatically reduced the number of copies of GTA sold to minors by stores who don't bother to check ID on M-Rated titles.

I don't think its a stretch at all to say had San Andreas been released as an AO the sales would have been impacted significantly.

[steve]

There are scenes in Basic Instinct and even the Donald Sutherland classic Don't Look Now that feature far more explicit sexual behavior than Hot Coffee.
Just out of curiosity, how many people have installed the mod?

Don't Look Now wouldn't get an R-rating today, particularly with everyone knowing that Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland were really having sex. Basic Instinct probably wouldn't either. It also has an "unrated" version, because it needed cuts.

Of course most movies with the level of violence of a videogame wouldn't get an R-rating, so it works both ways.

I haven't seen Team America, but as John said, the MPAA relies more on gut reactions. For example, they said there were no cuts that would earn Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer an R-rating.

Trey Parker and Matt Stone had to constantly go back-and-forth with the MPAA for both South Park and Team America to get their R-ratings.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

IIRC, even Team America had to cut a lot out to dodge the NC-17 rating.

Not that movie ratings really matter here. The industry decided to use its own rating system instead of the MPAA ratings. They have their own procedures and their own staffing. Maybe the ESRB would have given Team America NC-17/AO. The MPAA almost did, but appropriate cuts were made.

(Books aren't rated at all and they are even more explicit! Maybe we should use that as a model.)

To me, this is all about the credibility of the ESRB - which took two weeks of be bludgeoned before moving. If you think that GTASA should remain a M title, explain why in terms of the ESRB standards, not the MPAA ratings - which are equally, if not more, hypocritical and confusing.

Looking to them for guidance is natural since its the most established rating system, but if we've agreed (a) games need ratings, and (b) games aren't movies, then we have to settle this with a system for the games.

Troy

[steve]

"Strong sexual content" is as far as they go, even for games with titles like "The Joy Of Sex" and "All Nude Cyber."
Well, I guess the switch from Mature to AO means that the "Strong Sexual Content" is, um, stronger.

[quatoria]

Everyone is trying to impose their own morality on others in these types of issues. You want everyone to hold your "everyone should be free" view. They're supposedly speaking for parents who just want some help in shielding their kids from things they don't think they should be seeing.

What parents are they speaking for, Steve? Parents who buy underage children a game that is labelled, clearly, only for 17 years and up, and are then outraged that their children might be exposed to objectionable content? What's more, objectionable content that they have to hunt down a patch or hack to even see? It would take less time and effort to find full blown porn on the net. It's a ridiculous battle, over a ridiculous issue. The people up in arms keep talking about "the children", and I say again - what in the fuck is any child doing with a copy of a game that is supposed to be sold to people 17 years and older? Either their parents purchased it for them, or are so negligent as to not know what their children are doing in their leisure time, and what video games they posess. In either of those two scenarios, aren't the parents deserving of censure, for utterly failing in their responsibilities?

[Jose Liz]

Everyone is trying to impose their own morality on others in these types of issues. You want everyone to hold your "everyone should be free" view. They're supposedly speaking for parents who just want some help in shielding their kids from things they don't think they should be seeing.

What parents are they speaking for, Steve? Parents who buy underage children a game that is labelled, clearly, only for 17 years and up, and are then outraged that their children might be exposed to objectionable content?

I don't think there are very many such parents. Just a very small, and very vocal group.

[quatoria]

Everyone is trying to impose their own morality on others in these types of issues. You want everyone to hold your "everyone should be free" view. They're supposedly speaking for parents who just want some help in shielding their kids from things they don't think they should be seeing.

What parents are they speaking for, Steve? Parents who buy underage children a game that is labelled, clearly, only for 17 years and up, and are then outraged that their children might be exposed to objectionable content?

I don't think there are very many such parents. Just a very small, and very vocal group.

I never expected to say this, and as I type it, thunder is booming overhead, and the sky is growing dark, but... I think Jose Liz is right.

[Marcus]

I don't think there are very many such parents. Just a very small, and very vocal group.

You give people more credit they you should. I tend to think there are quite a few.

[McBain]

You give people more credit they you should. I tend to think there are quite a few.

I concur.

[steve]

The people up in arms keep talking about "the children", and I say again - what in the fuck is any child doing with a copy of a game that is supposed to be sold to people 17 years and older?
Because it was sold to that 13-year old? I don't think kids should be playing San Andreas, but there's really nothing stopping them because ratings aren't regularly enforced at retail. I don't think it should be legislated, but if the ESRB and IEMA could have sat down and said, "You need ID to buy an M-rated game," this would be less of an issue.


Either their parents purchased it for them, or are so negligent as to not know what their children are doing in their leisure time, and what video games they posess. In either of those two scenarios, aren't the parents deserving of censure, for utterly failing in their responsibilities?
I guess it's negligent not to follow your kids 24-7, and to search their room every day.

While I'm inclined to agree with people saying it's really a parental issue, I'm also sympathetic to parents. I don't have any kids, but I'm not so quick to just say, "Fuck you, it's your fault that you gave your kid money!"

The ESRB system is terrific, but until it's enforced it's ineffectual.

(edit) Oh, and I don't think it's parents that buy the game, then are offended. It's more likely parents who know other people's kids have the games, and whose parents don't seem to give a shit.

[XPav]

Quick, someone make a poll!

[quatoria]

You don't need to follow your kids 24/7 or search their rooms every day to have an idea of what they're playing, and even if you did have to search their rooms every day - okay, so? I see no reason to be so quick to discount the parental responsibility in situations like this. As a society, we seem awfully quick to assign responsibility for raising and protecting children on everyone but their parents, and it regularly disturbs me.

[mouselock]

(edit) Oh, and I don't think it's parents that buy the game, then are offended. It's more likely parents who know other people's kids have the games, and whose parents don't seem to give a shit.

But the only viable solution in that case is to make it so any game you might find objectionable is rated so highly that those other kids won't have it because their parents would have otherwise had to have bought it for them. Which brings us back to the fact that this whole blow-up has very little to do with whether or not the ESRB rating was correct before or not and very much to do with trying to find a scapegoat to pin the whole "I hate videogames, look how bad they are for the children" sheet on something that nobody could really defend. (I mean, how many parents are going to say "Hey, yeah, it's kinda like porn, but you know what, I trust Timmy at this point." to other parents?)

I really wonder if the ESRB truly thinks the title deserves an AO, or if they just had to give it one after all the media attention.

[shang]

(edit) Oh, and I don't think it's parents that buy the game, then are offended. It's more likely parents who know other people's kids have the games, and whose parents don't seem to give a shit.

I think so too, and I think the offended parents shoud just shut up about other people's kids. You see, I disagree that those other parents don't "give a shit", it just so happens that some parents have different values and different opinions about the real effects or non-effects of entertainment. I know a 12 year old boy who lives next door and plays San Andreas. Not because his parents (who aren't hip and young or anything like that) "don't give a shit", but because generally people here in Finland just don't freak out about video games and don't see even a game like San Andreas as a problem.

I might add that despite a generation of young people who've grown up playing violent video games with very little restrictions, the crime rate in Finland (especially violent crime) is ridiculously low compared to e.g. US.

[Justin Fletcher]

The ESRB system is terrific, but until it's enforced it's ineffectual.
And until it's standardized. When CNN points out the gaping consistency holes in your rating record, it doesn't inspire confidence from the American people.


Further complicating matters, games' final ratings can sometimes be of little use to parents and gamers deciding on a purchase.

For example, THQ Inc. offers two versions of "The Incredibles" for PC -- one rated "E" and the other "T" for teen -- each described simply as containing "cartoon violence." And "Chris Moneymaker's World Poker Championship" from Valu Soft is rated "M" for its "simulated gambling," while Hoyle's "Poker Series" gets an "E," also for "simulated gambling."

Then there's Atari's "F/A-18: Operation Iraqi Freedom," which allows the player to "Kick some Ba'ath" by dropping bombs on targets deep inside Iraq. It's rated "E" for everyone, just like Her Interactive's "Nancy Drew: The Secret of Shadow Ranch."

[hermyhermit]

I'm starting to dislike this country more and more everyday. No wonder people point at us and snicker, who wouldn't?

Give your 17 (or younger) year old child the means to become one of the most reviled type of human beings on earth: a gangbanger. Let him blissfully learn how to cut throats, bludgeon with baseballs bats, rob, steal, mass murder, and do drive by shootings. Let him hear every motherfuckin' obscenity known to man throughout most of the game. BUT!!11!1!! Let him see two consenual adults engaging in sex and we must protect their eyes lest they be blinded by one of the most natural acts on the planet.

How did America get so screwed up? We bathe in violence and do not bat an eyelash, we see a tit, and go off the fucking rail with a vengeance. Is there a place I can go that isn't like this? I hope so...

[steve]

Let him hear every motherfuckin' obscenity known to man throughout most of the game. BUT!!11!1!! Let him see two consenual adults engaging in sex and we must protect their eyes lest they be blinded by one of the most natural acts on the planet.
One more time, there are multiple games which have sex and nudity. There are zillions of games with violence. There are multiple games with language and drugs.

There are very few games that have all of these elements. Before Hot Coffee, San Andreas was on the very edge of the M-rating. This just put it over the top.

[Gladguy]

Is there a place I can go that isn't like this?
Yeah. It's called Canada.

But up here, gay marriage is legal too, so... y'know. :roll:

[steve]

And until it's standardized. When CNN points out the gaping consistency holes in your rating record, it doesn't inspire confidence from the American people.
It can never ben truly standardized, just like the MPAA rating system can't, because that would force it to disregard context.

To use one bad example, let's say the MPAA decided that any movie with graphic violence can't show nudity; if you have both, you get an NC-17.

Okay, fair enough. That's a standard. That horror movie has to drop the boobs or the decapitations. But what about, I dunno, Schindler's List? It had both nudity and graphic violence. You could set a standard, but context is important.

[Justin Fletcher]

Sure, but it could be more standardized than it is right now. I mean, what is the difference in context between Valu Soft Poker and Hoyle Poker? Maybe there is one, but without further explanation, giving one an "M" and the other an "E" looks contradictory and arbitrary. And the F/A-18 vs. Nancy Drew example makes me ill. What's the similarity in their context?

Perhaps the ESRB should write up their decisions for perusal on its Web site, where aspects like context could be better addressed. That may seem a bit too Supreme Court for games, but at least confusion over strange examples like the above could be explained.

[Jose Liz]

Perhaps the ESRB should write up their decisions for perusal on its Web site, where aspects like context could be better addressed. That may seem a bit too Supreme Court for games, but at least confusion over strange examples like the above could be explained.

That would actually be a great idea.

[Mehrunes]

There are very few games that have all of these elements. Before Hot Coffee, San Andreas was on the very edge of the M-rating. This just put it over the top.

You say "just" as if it all makes perfect sense. Which, I suppose it could, if you were completely batshit fucking insane. In no way whatsoever does an unfinished and modded-in sex scene in a game filled with theft, murder and enormous helpings of bloody violence make that game any less appropriate to anyone.

Hell, a short reprieve from the violence of the rest of the game might actually make the game more appropriate. The kiddies can waste their time trying to become better Hot Coffee lovers, instead of honing their drive-by technique. Oh, but I forgot, sex is the tool of the DEVIL. Now where did I leave my assault rifle? I use it to hunt... deer, I swear!

[Sean Tudor]

How did America get so screwed up? We bathe in violence and do not bat an eyelash, we see a tit, and go off the fucking rail with a vengeance. Is there a place I can go that isn't like this? I hope so...

Agreed. How deliciously ironic. :wink:

[Alan Au]

How did America get so screwed up? We bathe in violence and do not bat an eyelash, we see a tit, and go off the fucking rail with a vengeance. Is there a place I can go that isn't like this? I hope so...
Last I checked, it was the other way around in Europe.

- Alan

[Ben Sones]

You could not possibly choose a more potentially offensive and corruptive (if you're of the belief that such a thing is possible from a game) influence in game form than GTA, barring importing Sexy Beach 2 or something.

Now I'm intrigued... tell me more!

Edit: Never mind, I Googled it. Sounds like something that Rockstar might import.

[steve]

Which, I suppose it could, if you were completely batshit fucking insane. In no way whatsoever does an unfinished and modded-in sex scene in a game filled with theft, murder and enormous helpings of bloody violence make that game any less appropriate to anyone.
This is how the ESRB rates the games. I don't think it's completely batshit fucking insane to say that sexual dialogue and innuendo can mean "Strong Sexual Content," and that once you flip the switch to actual sex acts--especially ones that you control--you go up a rating. (The arbitrary 17 and 18 ages is always weird, but whatever.)

But yes, everyone who doesn't want kids to see sexual content is completely batshit fucking insane, though the issue here is that there's additional sexual content beyond what's been rated. I'm as pro-sex as can be, but having played the mod even I think a line was crossed. It's not some beautiful expression of love between two adults; it's some thug fucking some girl he goes on drive-bys with. While seeing 13-year old kids laugh at a head shot is weird, I think it'd be even weirder to see them going "fuck her, fuck her, switch to doggy, faster, faster!"

Maybe violence should be more unacceptable. But if we go down that path, what are we concerned about? That it does have an impact on kids? Otherwise, what's the big deal with extreme graphic violence?

And which do you think is more likely, that exposure to violent games makes kids violent, and they run out and shoot their friends and neighbors, or that expoure to lots of sexualized material makes kids want to fuck even more than they already do?

I honestly have no answer to that one, though my gut reaction is that the violence issue is overblown and that I'm generally more concerned about teenage pregnancy and disease spreading. But that's probably my inner Catholic talking.

[Dave Long]

Which, I suppose it could, if you were completely batshit fucking insane. In no way whatsoever does an unfinished and modded-in sex scene in a game filled with theft, murder and enormous helpings of bloody violence make that game any less appropriate to anyone.
This is how the ESRB rates the games. I don't think it's completely batshit fucking insane to say that sexual dialogue and innuendo can mean "Strong Sexual Content," and that once you flip the switch to actual sex acts--especially ones that you control--you go up a rating. (The arbitrary 17 and 18 ages is always weird, but whatever.)

But yes, everyone who doesn't want kids to see sexual content is completely batshit fucking insane, though the issue here is that there's additional sexual content beyond what's been rated. I'm as pro-sex as can be, but having played the mod even I think a line was crossed. It's not some beautiful expression of love between two adults; it's some thug fucking some girl he goes on drive-bys with. While seeing 13-year old kids laugh at a head shot is weird, I think it'd be even weirder to see them going "fuck her, fuck her, switch to doggy, faster, faster!"

Maybe violence should be more unacceptable. But if we go down that path, what are we concerned about? That it does have an impact on kids? Otherwise, what's the big deal with extreme graphic violence?

And which do you think is more likely, that exposure to violent games makes kids violent, and they run out and shoot their friends and neighbors, or that expoure to lots of sexualized material makes kids want to fuck even more than they already do?

I honestly have no answer to that one, though my gut reaction is that the violence issue is overblown and that I'm generally more concerned about teenage pregnancy and disease spreading. But that's probably my inner Catholic talking.

Bravo.

--Dave

[mouselock]

But yes, everyone who doesn't want kids to see sexual content is completely batshit fucking insane, though the issue here is that there's additional sexual content beyond what's been rated. I'm as pro-sex as can be, but having played the mod even I think a line was crossed. It's not some beautiful expression of love between two adults; it's some thug fucking some girl he goes on drive-bys with. While seeing 13-year old kids laugh at a head shot is weird, I think it'd be even weirder to see them going "fuck her, fuck her, switch to doggy, faster, faster!"

Yeah, well, I think I'd be more worried about a kid aiming a gun at someone's head and pantomiming pulling the trigger myself, since we're playing in the fantasy land of kids being influenced primarily by videogames anyway.

But yeah, if you're weirded out by the thought of 13 year olds being sexualized, then I suggest you don't have children, ever.

[Sean Hargraves]

Trey Parker and Matt Stone had to constantly go back-and-forth with the MPAA for both South Park and Team America to get their R-ratings.

I can't find the source, but I remember Parker and Stone commenting in an interview about South Park that after the MPAA suggested scenes be changed to garner an R rating, they actually made those scenes worse with each iteration before finally getting an R rating, much to their surprise.

Edit: Ahahaha found this while searching for the above:


And they got away with another dig at the MPAA, which sent the film through multiple revisions in order not to receive an NC-17 for its marionette sex (rather than the splattery violence). The notoriously humorless ratings board's reason for the "R" is priceless: "GRAPHIC, CRUDE & SEXUAL HUMOR, VIOLENT IMAGES & STRONG LANGUAGE; ALL INVOLVING PUPPETS." "That was part of the deal," Stone says, "We got them to say that. I think it's great."

Edit 2: Ah here it is:


June 1999 - The release date is pushed to June 11, then to July 2 to June 30. Parker and Stone say they filled the film with as much vulgarity as possible as revenge for the NC-17 slapped on Orgazmo. But every time they submit the movie, it gets an NC-17 and they're asked to remove stuff from it so it could get an R. They comply, only to replace the deletions with more vulgar stuff, then submit an even worse movie. The MPAA relents and okays the R. The real lesson to learn from all this: You can use as much profanity and filth as you want, as long as you don't show any copulation.

And
Ynoxas: Did you guys have to do a massive re-write because of MPAA? It seemed the movie was written knowing it was going to be controversial.
Trey: Well, we changed the things that the MPAA made us change, but we always changed them for the worse. Story-wise nothing changed.
Matt: We changed things story-wise because we wanted to change them not because of anything they wanted us to do.

[steve]

But yeah, if you're weirded out by the thought of 13 year olds being sexualized, then I suggest you don't have children, ever.
That's not what I meant, but thanks for projecting.

[mouselock]

But yeah, if you're weirded out by the thought of 13 year olds being sexualized, then I suggest you don't have children, ever.
That's not what I meant, but thanks for projecting.

Y'know, I can't tell what you think I meant, either. My point was that anyone who believes that 13 year olds don't get a daily earful of sex through all the other channels that normal 13 year olds utilize is kidding themselves. I understand parents wanting to control what their kids have access to, but graphic sex games aren't nearly as far away from "the norm" as parents would like to believe. Certainly no farther (or more influential, IMO) than graphic violence.

[Soma]

Basically GTA is the kind of game that allows you to do things you can't do in real life: jacking cars on the whim etc. Now they include the sex minigame. Is that a subtle dig at the people who play the game: since in real life you can't get laid/satisfy your woman, we will include this in our game!?

[Munky]

Jumping back a bit in the thread... and slightly re-derailing it... I think The Sims 2 is a poor choice to use as a comparision, as by disabling the censorship blur what you see is OMGZWTFBBQ!!1! mannequins, basically. And that only when bathing - sims apparently don't drop trou when sitting on the shitter. Ew. Nipple-less boobies, no junk. Mannequins. Or Barbie dolls. Though I do recall when I was wee young lad my GI Joe's* getting naked with my neighbor's Barbies, so I guess those products should be kept away from kids because of their obvious adult nature...?

You have to download additional actual content produced by third parties - sort of what Rockstar originally claimed was required for GTA:SA. And it seems to me it's the fact that the content actually was distributed by Rockstar that has various knickers in a twist.

As to what you can do in the base game, it seems to be very well handled for the Teen rating. Certainly a lot tamer than what you can see on TV at 8 o'clock at night.

* Not the sorry piece of crap GI Joe of today's youth. The fine, strapping 12" tall figure of the heroic fighting man.

[Mehrunes]

But yes, everyone who doesn't want kids to see sexual content is completely batshit fucking insane, though the issue here is that there's additional sexual content beyond what's been rated.

That's a wonderful strawman you've constructed there, but I said people who think a sex minigame is "the straw that broke the camel's back" when added to a game that's literally chock full of graphic violence are insane. Although the attempt to paint me as someone who thinks kids should be exposed to sexual content was truely pathetic. Try again.


While seeing 13-year old kids laugh at a head shot is weird, I think it'd be even weirder to see them going "fuck her, fuck her, switch to doggy, faster, faster!"

My inner Catholic is wondering what planet you grew up on.

[Justin Fletcher]

I understand parents wanting to control what their kids have access to, but graphic sex games aren't nearly as far away from "the norm" as parents would like to believe. Certainly no farther (or more influential, IMO) than graphic violence.
I don't understand what you're saying here.

Do you mean that graphic sex games are no farther away from the reach of children than graphic violence games? If so, any examples?

Do you mean that graphic sex is no farther away from the reach of children than graphic violence? If so...huh? I know the sad fact that barely pubescent kids are more and more sexually active, but are you saying that acts of graphic violence are as prevalent?

[Justin Fletcher]

While seeing 13-year old kids laugh at a head shot is weird, I think it'd be even weirder to see them going "fuck her, fuck her, switch to doggy, faster, faster!"

My inner Catholic is wondering what planet you grew up on.
Planet America. I agree that violence being A-OK in this country while sex is taboo is ridiculous. However, the ESRB has to rate according society's overall mores to be effective. So it's not insane that Hot Coffee pushes GTA into AO territory; it's typical.

[MarchHare]

You have to download additional actual content produced by third parties - sort of what Rockstar originally claimed was required for GTA:SA. And it seems to me it's the fact that the content actually was distributed by Rockstar that has various knickers in a twist.


You have to download additional content produced by third parties to get Hot Coffee to work too; yes, Rockstar did write the code, but there's no way to access it without running a third-party mod. It's completely unavailable unless you alter the game as shipped.

[shang]

I too don't really get the distinction people are making with mods that only do code changes and mods that add content such as textures. Neither kind of mod could have been done by the average gamer, but both as just as easy for an average gamer to apply. So what does it matter is the nude skin textures came from the mod or from the disk?

Besides, were there even real nude textures distributed with San Andreas? The first version of the Hot Coffee mod had them clothed, while a later version removed the clothes. Did the later version add textures or just do further code manipulation? And were the nude textures just plain skin-color plastic or did they contain nipples etc.?

[mouselock]

Do you mean that graphic sex is no farther away from the reach of children than graphic violence? If so...huh? I know the sad fact that barely pubescent kids are more and more sexually active, but are you saying that acts of graphic violence are as prevalent?

No, what I mean is that graphic, computerized sex is probably not as extreme compared to what a kid experiences of sex (at the age of 13) as the graphic violence is in respect to a kid's normal experience with violence.

Steve's point seemed to imply that he felt access to graphic sex was likely to be more corruptive. I think that tends to ignore the fact that kids are exposed to sex a ton more in this day and age already. In essence, while the Hot Coffee mod is pushing the envelope for people who are 35-40 and grew up in a relatively more innocent time, it's not nearly so envelope pushing for the kids that are ostensibly the focus of the battle.

(Calling 13 unilaterally pre-pubescent is a bit of a misnomer, too.. at the very least it's one of those "on the fence" ages; I knew a lot of folks who were undergoing puberty by the age of 13, whether fully or just starting to. Coincidentally, there was a dramatic upswing in the interest of sex right about then, too.)

[Justin Fletcher]

Steve's point seemed to imply that he felt access to graphic sex was likely to be more corruptive. I think that tends to ignore the fact that kids are exposed to sex a ton more in this day and age already.
I took his point to be that, if we take it as a given that games are potentially "corrupting," Hot Coffee would have a greater influence because children are more able to engage in sex than mass murder. Kids don't normally have access to automatic weapons, but they have all the equipment they need for sex. Thus, with their curiosity piqued, they would be more likely to have their own little java break rather than a leisurely afternoon mowing down civilians.


(Calling 13 unilaterally pre-pubescent is a bit of a misnomer, too.. at the very least it's one of those "on the fence" ages; I knew a lot of folks who were undergoing puberty by the age of 13, whether fully or just starting to. Coincidentally, there was a dramatic upswing in the interest of sex right about then, too.)

I know the sad fact that barely pubescent kids are more and more sexually active, but are you saying that acts of graphic violence are as prevalent? :wink:

[mouselock]

I know the sad fact that barely pubescent kids are more and more sexually active, but are you saying that acts of graphic violence are as prevalent? :wink:[/quote]

I will not post before being awake a full hour. I will not post before being awake a full hour...

[Dr Fear]

But yeah, if you're weirded out by the thought of 13 year olds being sexualized, then I suggest you don't have children, ever.
You should probably graduate from college get a job and have children before you start lecturing people on whether or not to have children.

[Robert Sharp]

But yeah, if you're weirded out by the thought of 13 year olds being sexualized, then I suggest you don't have children, ever.
You should probably graduate from college get a job and have children before you start lecturing people on whether or not to have children.

That makes no sense whatsoever. All he said was that a lot of 13 yos today are sexualized, and so you should be aware of that if you are going to have children. To say he has to have children before saying that is ridiculous.