Mod Makers Beware.

[Rhomal]

> You say it there, highlighted: one has to install a hack (or go and dig around the hard disk with a hex editor). In legal terms, there is an additional action that must be taken; a further step: it is not part of the game as relesed and available for the consumer.

 

I am NOT stating the EULA is not being violatied, it is. But if you see some of the quotes coming from Rockstar they are making the implication this mod ADDS to the code and put this game in the core app. This is NOT the case. All this hack is, is a small .exe that flips a 0 to a 1 in the save file more or less. This mini-game is in the game just disabled.

 

My point is RS is NOT being honest in their PR defense and its going to, IMO, cost them in the long run.

[BattleCookiee]

Your missing my point and focusing on symantics.

 

anti-violance, pro-family, anti-p0rn... whatever. With those TYPES of groups, Rockstar lying will give them ammo.

 

Anti-Violance: "Hot Coffee" is likely alot worse than killing random people... NOT

Pro-Familiy: The game has a 17/18+ Rating already. Pro-Family groups have no reason to go on war with such things

Anti-p0rn: They wear there clothes during the whole seen. There is as much to see as the "prostitude action" in III, VC and SA (UN-modded)..., they should go for the movies and such, not a game like this...

 

ANY of these groups complaining at R* for this are RETARDS...

[thepixiesrock]

I know an eight year old kid and his six year old brother who own this game. That is shocking to me, considering what is in this game.

[GhostofAnakin]

I know an eight year old kid and his six year old brother who own this game.  That is shocking to me, considering what is in this game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's more a sad commentary on the parenting involved than the game maker's and what content they may or may not have included (which isn't to say you were stating otherwise).

[BattleCookiee]

I know an eight year old kid and his six year old brother who own this game.  That is shocking to me, considering what is in this game.

 

That's not R*'s Fault, but of the parents of these children.

Just from this I can see they are just not doing their duties right...

[metadigital]

I know an eight year old kid and his six year old brother who own this game.  That is shocking to me, considering what is in this game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I blame the parents. "

 

 

Edit: Damn, everyone's bored and in this thread tonight!

Edited July 15, 2005 by metadigital

[213374U]

Anti-p0rn: They wear there clothes during the whole seen.

No, they don't.

 

But then again, anyone taking anti-porn groups seriously need to get back to the 1900s where they belong.

[Rhomal]

Your missing my point and focusing on symantics.

 

anti-violance, pro-family, anti-p0rn... whatever. With those TYPES of groups, Rockstar lying will give them ammo.

 

Anti-Violance: "Hot Coffee" is likely alot worse than killing random people... NOT

Pro-Familiy: The game has a 17/18+ Rating already. Pro-Family groups have no reason to go on war with such things

Anti-p0rn: They wear there clothes during the whole seen. There is as much to see as the "prostitude action" in III, VC and SA (UN-modded)..., they should go for the movies and such, not a game like this...

 

ANY of these groups complaining at R* for this are RETARDS...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am assuming by your reply you have never been involed in a PR battle...

 

It does not matter if they SHOULD or not, the fact is they ARE. And if you lie, as RS has done, all that does is take away power/credibality from you and give it to them. Thus the story becomes NOT if they should even be involved in the debate but WHY did you lie and what else are you deceiving the publc about. The you (RS in this case) does not have a leg to stand on teven to question if they should even be in this debate. As thats moot, you lied so you look guilty off the bat even if you did nothing wrong.

 

Thats why its very critical on a PR front for them to have been honest from the start, but now...

[BattleCookiee]

No, they don't.

 

But then again, anyone taking anti-porn groups seriously need to get back to the 1900s where they belong.

 

Oh yes, they do...

Must have installed the "Additional Skins" Rhomal talked about

[metadigital]

I still blame the parents. And society.

[GhostofAnakin]

I still blame the parents. And society.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They're probably the same parents who will then turn around and blame violent video games if their kids go on a shooting rampage. <_<

[thepixiesrock]

I know an eight year old kid and his six year old brother who own this game.  That is shocking to me, considering what is in this game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's more a sad commentary on the parenting involved than the game maker's and what content they may or may not have included (which isn't to say you were stating otherwise).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I did mean it as sad comentary. I didn't mean it to have any thing to do with Rockstar or anything. I was just shocked. I do blame the parents.

 

(When I first typed this, I typed in any thong instead of any thing. Teehee.)

[BattleCookiee]

I still blame the parents. And society.

 

Don't forget the Retard Groups (unless you count them in Society):

Some Examples:

Anti-Violance, Pro-Familiy, Anti-p0rn.

 

And to GhostofAnakin:

Yes, most likely the same parents.

"Yes, my 14 year old son killed somebody, and he played a lot of Manhunt"

"How did he got it?"

"Bought for his birthday by us"

 

Parent Rating: 0/100 = RETARDS

[213374U]

Oh yes, they do...

Must have installed the "Additional Skins" Rhomal talked about 

So what. You can have explicit sex in VC, and that's what matters. Whether or not were the skins included is beside the point.

 

Ah, yes. They really knew how to combine chastity and fashion back then.

 

EDIT: stupid page won't allow links, it seems. Feh. And yes, I meant SA.

Edited July 15, 2005 by 213374U

[BattleCookiee]

So what. You can have explicit sex in VC, and that's what matters. Whether or not were the skins included is beside the point.

 

 

 

Ah, yes. They really knew how to combine chastity and fashion back then.

 

1) Don't you mean SA...?

2) The pic doesn't show up...

[metadigital]

...

(When I first typed this, I typed in any thong instead of any thing.  Teehee.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Freudian slip ..?

I still blame the parents. And society.

Don't forget the Retard Groups (unless you count them in Society):

Some Examples:

Anti-Violance, Pro-Familiy, Anti-p0rn.

 

And to GhostofAnakin:

Yes, most likely the same parents.

"Yes, my 14 year old son killed somebody, and he played a lot of Manhunt"

"How did he got it?"

"Bought for his birthday by us"

 

Parent Rating: 0/100 = RETARDS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The recent British murder of a young boy by another young boy was farcical in the extreme. The tabloid that began the slow-news-day-stir-up-the-vested-interest-loonies story about the killer having a copy of manhunt was subsequently disproved by the police, who confirmed that the copy of manhunt was actually owned by the victim, not the perp.

 

Good ol' Daily Mail: don't let the facts get in the way of a good story ...

[thepixiesrock]

This sure seems to be the hot topic tonight... Or this morning...

[metadigital]

Well, no-one seems to be excited about Duke Nukem, so we're all here ...

[213374U]

Does Duke Nukem have explicit sex minigames?

[metadigital]

Unless I've been horribly misled ..!

[alanschu]

My motto in life:

 

 

"People are dumb"

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The most logical thing I can see coming from this is games being rated for content on the disk, and the ratings boards being much more pushy about just what is on the disk that they are not being shown.

 

This already happens on DvD's with "extra content".

 

Anything with the potential to raise the certification out of the box should be taken into a account and the game certified accordingly.

 

So even if NwN II for example shipped with very U friendly campaign (wont happen , its just an example) but has very R rated stuff in the toolset, then it needs to be rated R.

[alanschu]

I think people worry too much about the silly things.

 

 

I saw a mother refuse to buy her teenage son GoldenEye because it was too violent of a game...despite it's "Teen" rating.

 

I guess wandering around in a virtual world is too damaging for a young person, who clearly will not be able to differentiate between the video game and reality.

 

There's a lot of hoopla about video games, and I think a lot of it is unfounded.

 

Here's an interesting article by Henry Jenkins, an MIT professor (director of comparative studies). The article isn't just some opinion, but an actual report with references to studies to support his ideas.

 

Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked

 

I thought it was a good read, and given I find people overhype stuff way too much anyways, tend to be in agreement with most of it.

 

What do you guys think?

[alanschu]

Oh yes, they do...

Must have installed the "Additional Skins" Rhomal talked about 

So what. You can have explicit sex in VC, and that's what matters. Whether or not were the skins included is beside the point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

"Explicit" Sex?

 

I have yet to see this coffee mod, but are you saying that watching this mod would be akin to watching a hardcore pornographic film?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The second one is wrong.

 

Playing certain games heighten violent responses in certain people tested.

 

This isnt so much about the games as it is about the developer trying to slip things by the ratings boards. This is a deliberate effort to avoid the rules set in place and thus supply the game to people who should not have it by law.

 

Now personally I think the rules are so much bollocks, especially the sex ones where you can be rutting like rabbits at the age of 16. But you cant watch the same in a film till your 18. But being able to switch on hidden content by flipping a switch or adding a small file, is something no responsible parent is going to be comfortable with.