San Andreas

[alanschu]

http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000180051299/

 

 

I won't being to rant on what I feel about the ratings system as it is, but I guess if you can download a mod and make pr0n out of a game, it'll get Adults Only.

[Darth Flatus]

... yesss, cos all the violence thieving and generally anti social behaviour depicted in the game was kid safe was it? I just hope this little mess doesnt change the way rockstar makes games in the future.

[BattleCookiee]

"Hot Coffee discussion"

 

Yep. Damn Hardp0rn in games. I mean 2 fully clothed people going up and down on each other, which can't even happen without 3rd party intervention..., haven't seen worse on TV or internet...No no

 

Cop-killing, random people killing, grand theft auto, break-in, Theft, gangwars, blowjobs and such are perfectly suited for kids...but THAT

 

Stealing personal property while running over, bludgeoning and shooting gang members and innocent bystanders while committing sex acts with prostitutes you'll later bludgeon to get your money back complete with sounds of ardor and cars bouncing up and down and sometimes maybe seeing a chunky badly textured naked woman grind on a fully-clothed person...rated AO.

Scap the "badly textured naked woman" part...as that is not even included (except if you install a 3rd part mod... mmm... hear something fimiliar??? "

[Diogo Ribeiro]

As if ratings were meaningful in this case. Going from Mature to Adult Only means zilch in the greater picture. They wanted a scapegoat, something to ease off the pressure from "concerned" parental associations and sensationalist media - they got one. Guess what? Grand Theft Auto will keep selling, idiots. The more prohobitions it has, the more it will be desired by gamers of most all ages. You're just promoting the game. Even for cases where gamers below the ratings' age don't acquire it legally, they'll still be able to warez them.

 

Morons.

 

I like this post by a guy called Jay over at that article's comment section:

 

Okay...let's get this straight. I want to be sure I'm clear on this.

 

Stealing others' personal property to advance in a game...rated M.

Running over gang members with a car...rated M.

Bludgeoning gang members with blunt objects...rated M.

Shooting gang members with automatic weapons...rated M.

Running over innocent bystanders with a car...rated M.

Bludgeoning innocent bystanders with blunt objects...rated M.

Shooting innocent bystanders with automatic weapons...rated M.

Sex acts implied by sounds of ardor...rated M.

Sex acts implied by seeing a car bounce up and down...rated M.

Picking up prostitutes for sex and bludgeoning them to get your money back...rated M.

 

Stealing personal property while running over, bludgeoning and shooting gang members and innocent bystanders while committing sex acts with prostitutes you'll later bludgeon to get your money back complete with sounds of ardor and cars bouncing up and down...rated M.

 

Stealing personal property while running over, bludgeoning and shooting gang members and innocent bystanders while committing sex acts with prostitutes you'll later bludgeon to get your money back complete with sounds of ardor and cars bouncing up and down and sometimes maybe seeing a chunky badly textured naked woman grind on a fully-clothed person...rated AO.

 

Okay. Whatever.

[GhostofAnakin]

I realize it's because of ratings guidelines, but I've always been amazed at how anal these ratings are when it comes to sex, but yet graphic violence is okay.

 

Heaven forbid we expose the youth of our world to sexual topics, lets just have them exposed to graphic violence. I mean, seeing sexual intercourse on their tv screen is MUCH worse than seeing someone's head explode after a shotgun blast.

[Dark Moth]

The rating system is very screwed up, IMO. Jade Empire only got an M rating because of the same-sex romances, I think, but the violence was okay. And I don't think Rockstar will change how it makes games any time soon. I recently read an interview with one of GTA's main devs (forget his name) and he was a shameless defender for everything in the game (violence, sexual content, etc.) I don't have San Andreas, but I have Vice City, and I know firsthand what the players encounter in the game.

[Petay]

I've always really wondered why they haven't really done much about GTA from no.3 onwards, with all the violence it has in it, like exploding somebodys head with a gunshot, having a chainsaw to somebodies body , yet they never really decide that it is really bad until a mod comes along that allows you to see sexual content in the game, which isn't exactly worse than some of the gruesome deaths you get on GTA.

[Guest Fishboot]

I looked at the ESRB list of AO games and it's now GTA:SA, the Leisure Suit Larry game, a bunch of hentai and some porn quasi-games (porn checkers!). So it's purely a dump rating for pornography. I dunno, I can cut a groan about how stigmatized sex is in games and in general but I also have to be happy that the ESRB bifurcated the pure porn rating from the "intended for adults only" rating - the movies are completely screwed up because R just isn't adult enough and NC-17 is too loaded. Hopefully the promotion of GTA to AO will provide enough of a detente to keep games out of the jaws of politicians for a little while longer until the video game generations starts getting the reins.

[alanschu]

Hehe true.

 

I keep waiting for the eventuality that the President grew up playing Video Games.

[SteveThaiBinh]

A victory for the moral majority.

 

Next stop: The Sims 2

[alanschu]

ROFL!!!!!

[alanschu]

I dunno. I don't think taking on Electronic Arts is a good idea. They have huge money, and have friends like Sony and Microsoft that also have huge money.

 

 

 

EDIT: Good thing the Judge ruled in favour of Thompson. Now he can go on a moral crusade against anything he doesn't like. Training pedophiles, my GAWD!

[Drakron]

A victory for the moral majority.

 

Next stop:  The Sims 2 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well EA does not have to worry about it, even with the blur removed they are "Barbie and Ken", in fact Maxis said they could have put anatomical correct textures but decided otherwise due to the cheat codes and the US rating ... they knew full well what would happen and covered for it.

 

He can try but that means going after hundred of sites that offer such content, EA is not willing to do so and that EA is a monster, he will lose against EA.

[Guest Fishboot]

A victory for the moral majority.

 

Next stop:  The Sims 2 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It looks like the lawyer guy got caught in a lie in that article (that there's nudity under the blur), when I really doubt there is.

 

EA is too cheap to pay for art they're just gonna pixelate.

[Guest Fishboot]

EDIT: Good thing the Judge ruled in favour of Thompson.  Now he can go on a moral crusade against anything he doesn't like.  Training pedophiles, my GAWD!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Huh? What judge?

[alanschu]

By judge perhaps I mean more "ass-monkey" that convinced the ESRB to buckle and change GTA's rating.

[BattleCookiee]

I dunno.  I don't think taking on Electronic Arts is a good idea.  They have huge money, and have friends like Sony and Microsoft that also have huge money.

 

EDIT: Good thing the Judge ruled in favour of Thompson.  Now he can go on a moral crusade against anything he doesn't like.  Training pedophiles, my GAWD!

 

Well, R* also has friends at Sony, but still..., and calling R* a "low/mid-money" is also not what it seems to be.

 

And any stupid decision by the "enemy" can be seen as a victory for the Gamer.

 

About sexual content in S2: Yes, Barbie and Ken, but do note that that is already MORE than SA, and if you move them close to each other and make their textures bump...*Explicit Sexual Content*

[Ohma]

Next we should start going through the deleted scenes in movies, rough drafts for novels, and first drafts for comic pages to see just how *filthy* they *truly* are!

 

(and then we can move on to fan creations!)

 

Why is the ESRB *so* arking spineless?

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

You cares? I think people are too hung up on such matter. *tee hee*

[Diogo Ribeiro]

EDIT: Good thing the Judge ruled in favour of Thompson.  Now he can go on a moral crusade against anything he doesn't like.  Training pedophiles, my GAWD!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd like to see him prove that one. What exactly is there to rehearse or train in the game? It's not possible to have depictions of sexual intercourse between adults and children in The Sims 2.

 

These people are as much of a bane to videogames as Frederic Wertham was to comics, and just like him they are idiots if they think codes or legislations will ever work.

[Arclam]

I don't understand how he thinks that he can bring suit against a company for not stopping the mod community from making the game "pornographic." When the content is not in the box than he has no legal beef.

 

I don't see how he will beat EA over a mod for the Sims 2 that Maxis never made but then again I thought the odds in his case against Take Two were against him.

 

When it came to GTA I had a greater problem with killing cops than with "hot coffee". I dont get how realistic and extreme violence against innocents is ok in video games but it is wrong to have content about sex or even just a nude human body.

[~Di]

Indeed, I think it should have been Adults Only right out of the block instead of rated for Mature17+ (which means retail outlets must card buyers, and can be fined if they sell to anyone under the age of 17).

 

Still, the ratings system says that general mayhem and utter viciousness for its own sake is okay for older teens, but sex is verboten except for those over the age of 21. Since Adults Only ratings sell MUCH less than any other rating, GTA developers slipped their game right up to the line of Mature17+. Then wanting their cake and eating it too, they included a bawdy sex mini-game, "inactivated" it for the retail release and waited for a cheat code to be made widely available to reactivate it. That way, they had the Adults Only game they wanted with the higher sales figures of a Mature17+ rating.

 

They even had the audacity, once caught, to try and squirm out of it by implying that it was all the fault of unauthorized hackers... until the fact that it was GTA developers themselves who had created the scene in question was proven. The content WAS in the retail box, and GTA developers had put it there!

 

Well, they flat deserve what they got, an immediate re-rating to Adults Only, and the subsequent pulling it off shelves from WalMart, Target and a host of other retail establishments which do not, by policy, carry Adult Only material.

 

Shame on GTA's developers. Their cutesy ratings dodge was dishonest to say the least. I do not feel the least bit sorry for them. That kind of shenanigan is what gives fuel to the righteous video-game haters out there who are trying to ban our hobby altogether. Everyone who loves video games should be outraged at GTA's developers for dropping the entire industry's reputation another notch toward the old toilet in the eyes of mainstream society.

[Sargallath Abraxium]

...didn't this exact same horseshyte come up when Manhunt was released???...only then it was "graphic violence" that was The Root of all EVIL!!!...now it's OK, but sex is a no-no...this, too, shall pass and soon the prepubescent teenyboppers will be right back where the video game industry wants them; on the front lines of the envelope-push forever more... <_<

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

[Guest Fishboot]

Indeed, I think it should have been Adults Only right out of the block instead of rated for Mature17+ (which means retail outlets must card buyers, and can be fined if they sell to anyone under the age of 17). 

 

Still, the ratings system says that general mayhem and utter viciousness for its own sake is okay for older teens, but sex is verboten except for those over the age of 21.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, AO just means 18+ instead of the 17+ of M. Isn't that idiotic? How fine do we have to split hairs to decide what an 18 year old can handle that a 17 year old can't? But in reality AO is just the porn stigma category, the way X used to be for movies (in the 80's, anyway). That is, anything besides porn goes M.

[alanschu]

I think there's some sort of association with AO and explicitly not being able to sell to minors or something to that extent.

 

Kind of like the infamous NC-17 rating in movie theaters.