More stupidity abounds!

[metadigital]

As I said on the Elderscroll forums:

 

"...it still requires a mod to access the files. That is the bottomline here. A MOD is required to access the nudity. Listen to what I am saying... A MOD is required to access the nudity mesh that Bethesda left in the game. The game, UNMODDED, gives the player no access tot he file. The game needs to be MODDED to allow access."

 

The game is modified by a third person therefore a mod, regardless the files being left in or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wouldnt even call that a mod it would be an insult to mods.

 

Developers should be responsible for anything left on the disk. Regardless if it needs to switched on. To do otherwise leaves the backdoor open to include content which was not rated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is what the Ratings' Board members are trying to manage: it doesn't matter, in the grand scheme of things, WHO is responsible, just that SOME PARTY IS.

 

Chasing mod makers is not a fruitful pastime (as they don't have a lot of funds, compared to developers).

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

gary's mod is a mod that manupulates the envronment so you can create poser style work with the sourse engine...

 

you can reskin say... alex so that her model appears to have no clothing...

 

then you put her in a VERY sexual pose with gordon, the GMan, or any other member of the half life 2 cast and you've got an AO rated content that was created via mods...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sounds like a lot more effort that just "flicking a switch".

[metadigital]

gary's mod is a mod that manupulates the envronment so you can create poser style work with the sourse engine...

 

you can reskin say... alex so that her model appears to have no clothing...

 

then you put her in a VERY sexual pose with gordon, the GMan, or any other member of the half life 2 cast and you've got an AO rated content that was created via mods...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Different. There aren't any nude skins for the characters in the Half-Life 2 product released to the public.

[Calax]

and yet this gets by as M:

 

  How play as 20+ characters

  Start the game with maxpayne2.exe -developerkeys, then press ~ to open the

  console. To do this you right click on your shortcut (which is usually on your

  desktop) and add -developerkeys after the target line, here's an _example_:

 

  "C:/Games/Max Payne 2/MaxPayne2.exe" -developerkeys

 

  Then there shouldn't be any problems bringing up the console during gameplay.

 

  Press the Page Up/Page Down key when you're playing and you'll turn into any

  character that's in the game keep scrolling using Page up or down and you'll

  also be able to find the famous nude Mona. Enjoy.

Edited May 4, 2006 by Calax

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

and yet this gets by as M:

 

  How play as 20+ characters

  Start the game with maxpayne2.exe -developerkeys, then press ~ to open the

  console. To do this you right click on your shortcut (which is usually on your

  desktop) and add -developerkeys after the target line, here's an _example_:

 

  "C:/Games/Max Payne 2/MaxPayne2.exe" -developerkeys

 

  Then there shouldn't be any problems bringing up the console during gameplay.

 

  Press the Page Up/Page Down key when you're playing and you'll turn into any

  character that's in the game keep scrolling using Page up or down and you'll

  also be able to find the famous nude Mona. Enjoy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

When was Max Payne released ?

 

Nude mods are not anything new but the attitude to content has changed.

 

I have a sneaky feeling that most of the people on the thread would be quite overjoyed with some sneaky explicit content (be it more blood or whatever).

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

After discovering the issues in "post-release monitoring and play-testing," the ESRB initiated a review of the game's original ratings process. The board cross-examined the tape Bethesda submitted with video taken from the final release of the game, and ultimately determined that the developer understated the detail and intensity of the blood and gore in the game. In reference to the nude skin, which is inaccessible during normal play and so couldn't have been included in the taped submission, the ESRB said publishers are required "to disclose locked-out content during the rating process if it is pertinent to a rating," and that Bethesda failed to do so.

[alanschu]

I went and found that old Hot Coffee discussion and took a looksee through it, and came away recognizing that I should not argue with the internets.

 

 

All I'll say is that it doesn't really matter if it is right or wrong. A precedent was set with the Hot Coffee mod that developers WILL be responsible via the ratings for ALL content on the CD, including stuff not directly accessible with a vanilla copy of the game.

 

That's it folks, let's go home.

[Bokishi]

Let's.

[Kasoroth]

After discovering the issues in "post-release monitoring and play-testing," the ESRB initiated a review of the game's original ratings process. The board cross-examined the tape Bethesda submitted with video taken from the final release of the game, and ultimately determined that the developer understated the detail and intensity of the blood and gore in the game. In reference to the nude skin, which is inaccessible during normal play and so couldn't have been included in the taped submission, the ESRB said publishers are required "to disclose locked-out content during the rating process if it is pertinent to a rating," and that Bethesda failed to do so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The ESRB should really give a more clear idea about what they mean by "locked-out content".

 

If the content in question is contained in an archive file of a proprietary format that modders must build an extractor program to extract the content before being able to enable it, would that be considered "locked-out content" that the publisher is required to disclose, even though it's a lot harder to access than just "flipping a switch"?

 

What if the archive in question was encrypted so that modders would need to actually break an encryption key (and probably be in violation of the DMCA in doing so) to access it? What's actually on the disc in this case would be random-looking encrypted bits, not content in a usable form, so would the publisher still be liable for the content in this case?

 

What if it was encrypted with the "unbreakable" Vernam Cipher, would they still need to disclose it then?

 

Personally I think that the rating should not include any content that requires third-party tools or modification/addition of files to the game's directory to access. If you try to include things in the rating that are not normally accessible, you need to clearly define the line between "locked-out" and "user-created" because it's not as clear as some people seem to think it is.

 

I don't know the details of how 3d meshes and textures in Oblivion work, or the details of the particular mesh and/or texture in question here, but let's imagine a situation where the designers save polygons by making the underwear simply part of the texture on a rather undetailed mesh. Now let's imagine a modder copies and pastes sections of "bare skin" from the part of the texture not covered by the underwear. The result is a very poor quality nude mod for the game built completely from numodified meshes and slightly rearranged textures, but every pixel in the mod texture is an exact copy of some pixel in the original texture. The modder didn't create, he just rearranged. How do you define the point at which such rearrangement is legally declared to be creation and no longer the responsibility of the publisher?

 

The only reasonably objective measure I can see for making this determination is whether or not third-party tools were necessary to make the content accessible, but even this is potentially a problematic standard though. Imagine that you drop a bunch of potions on the ground in Baldur's Gate, so that they spell out the words [censored] [censored] [censored]. You could spell out words that would earn the game an M rating for language, and you could do it completely from within the game, so does this mean that Baldur's Gate should be rated M?

 

My opinion is that content should only be included in the rating if it can be accessed without the player taking intentional action to make it accessible. If you go to a mod site and download a mod that unlocks nude textures, you're intentionally changing the nature of the game. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter whether the mod makes use of files that came on the disc or not, you still have to make an intentional change to the game to access it. If you manually place potions on the ground in BG to spell "offensive" words, you're taking intentional action to put those words in the game, even if they're made entirely of Bioware's potion icons.

 

Someone who is capable of finding or creating and then installing a mod to "unlock" the topless Oblivion meshes is almost definitly capable of downloading and viewing pornography anyway, so if they're intentionally looking for that sort of content, they're going to find it anyway, and if they're trying to avoid that sort of content, it's sufficiently "locked up" that they don't need to worry about finding it in the game by accident. I really don't see why this should warrant any change in Oblivion's rating.

 

-Kasoroth

[alanschu]

I thought it was pretty clear what the ESRB means with "locked out content" with the hot coffee incident.

 

Developers are responsible for all of the content on the disc, regardless of whether or not it is easily accessible.

[Judge Hades]

I disagree and obviously so did Bethesda since they saw the skin as not pertinent to the rating, so they didn't disclose it.

Edited May 4, 2006 by Judge Hades

[alanschu]

I'm not saying if it is right or wrong.

 

Precedent was already set.

[Llyranor]

Too bad these changes don't affect most of us here anyway.

 

Unless you're all 12 or something. Which isn't that unlikely.

 

Jerks.

[Kasoroth]

I thought it was pretty clear what the ESRB means with "locked out content" with the hot coffee incident.

 

Developers are responsible for all of the content on the disc, regardless of whether or not it is easily accessible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So you're saying that even if the content is encrypted with the Vernam Cipher so that no one could access it without the key, they are responsible for disclosing its presence to the ESRB?

 

-Kasoroth

Edited May 4, 2006 by Kasoroth

[Tigranes]

Yah, the prob was that the nude skin was a Beth-made skin and could simply be 'unlocked'. Of course, I've seen sports games that couldn't get licenses on real players/teams' names simply put the real names in an easily 'unlockable' "hidden" file, and they dont get slammed for it.

[StillLife]

Man, Take Two is probably gonna get real sick of putting their games on PCs soon. Damn nosey modders.

 

Too bad these changes don't affect most of us here anyway.

 

Unless you're all 12 or something. Which isn't that unlikely.

 

Jerks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, but no one wants to see games have their sales unjustifiably marginalized.

[Shadowstrider]

That's it folks, let's go home.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Like... together?

[alanschu]

I thought it was pretty clear what the ESRB means with "locked out content" with the hot coffee incident.

 

Developers are responsible for all of the content on the disc, regardless of whether or not it is easily accessible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So you're saying that even if the content is encrypted with the Vernam Cipher so that no one could access it without the key, they are responsible for disclosing its presence to the ESRB?

 

-Kasoroth

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Based on the precident and statements by the ESRB, yes.

 

For what it's worth I don't agree with it.

 

Yeah, but no one wants to see games have their sales unjustifiably marginalized.

 

If it marginalizes it at all. Free publicity is good publicity and all that jazz.

Edited May 4, 2006 by alanschu

[Llyranor]

Besides, the kiddies can still get the 360 version!11!11!!

[Darque]

this is dumb.

[alanschu]

this is dumb.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Winnar!

[LoneWolf16]

this is dumb.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A brief, though apt summary of the situation. Bravo.

[Kasoroth]

So you're saying that even if the content is encrypted with the Vernam Cipher so that no one could access it without the key, they are responsible for disclosing its presence to the ESRB?

 

-Kasoroth

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Based on the precident and statements by the ESRB, yes.

 

For what it's worth I don't agree with it.

 

By that logic, Baldur's Gate 2 should have probably had an Adults Only rating for the hardcore porn video encrypted in the CREAnim1.bif file on CD3 with the Vernam Cipher. With the right Vernam Cipher key, you can "decrypt" any file into any other file (which is the reason that the cipher can't be broken by "brute force" techniques; any attempt to do so just creates every possible file of the same size as the encrypted file with no way to tell which, if any, is the "right" one).

 

I could choose any file of 63,927,017 bytes or less and calculate a key that would "decrypt" CREAnim1.bif into my chosen file. If I create a decryption key that unlocks a hardcore porn video from CREAnim1.bif, and make that key available on the internet, should the ESRB change the rating of BG2 to Adults Only?

 

If you rule that even content encrypted with the Vernam Cipher counts toward your rating, you're effectively ruling that any content that could possibly fit on the disc counts toward the rating. This is obviously an absurd ruling because every game would have to be rated Adults Only and the ratings would be completely meaningless.

 

As I said in my previous post, a line has to be drawn somewhere between what is considered the developer/publisher's responsibility and what is considered user created content out of the publisher's control.

 

The "If it's on the disc it's the publisher's responsibility, even if it's encrypted" standard of judgement clearly can't work, as I just showed.

 

The "you can turn the gore/violence/language/nudity slider down in the options menu if you don't like that stuff" standard of judgement would make the ratings meaningless in the other direction because publishers could get a "Teen" or "Everyone" rating by just having options to disable all the objectionable material.

 

The line needs to be somewhere between these extremes, and it needs to be clearly defined.

 

-Kasoroth

Edited May 4, 2006 by Kasoroth

[alanschu]

So you're saying that even if the content is encrypted with the Vernam Cipher so that no one could access it without the key, they are responsible for disclosing its presence to the ESRB?

 

-Kasoroth

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Based on the precident and statements by the ESRB, yes.

 

For what it's worth I don't agree with it.

 

By that logic, Baldur's Gate 2 should have probably had an Adults Only rating for the hardcore porn video encrypted in the CREAnim1.bif file on CD3 with the Vernam Cipher. With the right Vernam Cipher key, you can "decrypt" any file into any other file (which is the reason that the cipher can't be broken by "brute force" techniques; any attempt to do so just creates every possible file of the same size as the encrypted file with no way to tell which, if any, is the "right" one).

 

I could choose any file of 63,927,017 bytes or less and calculate a key that would "decrypt" CREAnim1.bif into my chosen file. If I create a decryption key that unlocks a hardcore porn video from CREAnim1.bif, and make that key available on the internet, should the ESRB change the rating of BG2 to Adults Only?

 

If you rule that even content encrypted with the Vernam Cipher counts toward your rating, you're effectively ruling that any content that could possibly fit on the disc counts toward the rating. This is obviously an absurd ruling because every game would have to be rated Adults Only and the ratings would be completely meaningless.

 

As I said in my previous post, a line has to be drawn somewhere between what is considered the developer/publisher's responsibility and what is considered user created content out of the publisher's control.

 

The "If it's on the disc it's the publisher's responsibility, even if it's encrypted" standard of judgement clearly can't work, as I just showed.

 

The "you can turn the gore/violence/language/nudity slider down in the options menu if you don't like that stuff" standard of judgement would make the ratings meaningless in the other direction because publishers could get a "Teen" or "Everyone" rating by just having options to disable all the objectionable material.

 

The line needs to be somewhere between these extremes, and it needs to be clearly defined.

 

-Kasoroth

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was not familiar with the Vernam Cipher until you brought it up. Considering the exceptional situations at which the Vernam Cipher is used (given it's a one-time pad), I don't think it would be very hard to prove that the "hardcore porn" was not put on the BG2 disc 3 intentionally.

 

But, since you mentioned:

So you're saying that even if the content is encrypted with the Vernam Cipher so that no one could access it without the key, they are responsible for disclosing its presence to the ESRB?

 

I'm not sure what you are saying. Why would a game developer encrypt its content with the Vernam Cipher? Especially seeing as that kind of goes against the purpose of the Vernam Cipher.

Edited May 4, 2006 by alanschu

[Judge Hades]

this is dumb.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Its the US. You expected something different?