M rated Video games

[Tranquility]

But what does that mean? Not much. People get this influence from all sorts of media. Not just games.

EXACTLY. I don't see why games are getting a lot of flak when a lot of the things that conjure a Mature rating can easily get into even a PG13 movie.

So... what do you guys think of GTA: Liberty City Stories on PSP? :wink:

I'm buying a PSP especially for this.

[Tranquility]

And the ESRB will investigate the San Andreas sexual minigames.

TBH I think it was a very stupid move by Rockstar. For those who don't know about the mod, it uses a third party tool to unlock a sex minigame. Also, the code for the mod was already existing in the game, and not introduced by the 3rd party modders, which differentiates this situation from the naked mods for the Sims, Tomb Raider, et al. It's obvious Rockstar wanted to include the feature but avoid an AO rating. So they left it there for modders to unlock it.

I never heard about this. What is it and why is it causing so much controversy?

Basically a third party modder found some unfinished code in the game for a sex minigame. In San Andreas, there's the added game mechanic that you can date certain women in the game. In the official version of the game, eventually you have an affair with your date, but of course you don't see any of it. The tool that unlocked the sex minigame allowed you actually see your character having sex with the girl you were dating, in an interactive way similar to how you would do the weight lifting in the San Andreas gyms (tapping two keys simultaneously and continuously). The girl is undressed but your character isn't.

From what I've read, the implementation is very buggy and it's possible that Rockstar just entirely scrapped it from the game. But the unfinished code was there to be exploited.

[smoothvirus]

I have to wonder if the majority of persons who are playing GTA San Andreas on the PC are actually children. I play the game and enjoy it, but I'm 34. If I had young children I would not allow them to play it.

There are lots of 12 year old kids with PS2's, but how many 12 year olds have $1000 to blow on a gaming PC? Some, but not many.

I suspect that the majority of people who are playing this game on the PC are men in their 20's and 30's.

[Tranquility]

Big day for censors today. The Guy Game, a crappy game by Top Heavy Studios, bites the dust after the publisher, Sony, and Microsoft, were all sued by one of the girls in the game who was under 17. The game is basically trivia questions that if you answer correctly lets you watch some uninhibited ladies in spring break.

The game was terribly received since it was so bad. The game deserved to be banned for including a minor, but a statement on the game's website just struck a chord:

The rumors are true! The most controversial video game ever created — THE GUY GAME — is no longer available! The Man has decided that our fun and hilarious presentation of Spring Break revelry just wasn’t appropriate for the world of gaming. Maybe we should have blown some *stuff* up?

Not that I think either don't have a place in games, but I don't see why the game should get an AO rating for a sex minigame, but a mature rating for allowing you to strap on a jetpack and kill random people in the street with twin Uzis.

Bizarre world.

[Humphrey]

I can see why GTA ought to be rated AO... It's a game where you go around shooting innocent people! I mean, WTH?!

I would just wonder. Whats your defenition of violence? [Not websters, yours]. Because i think thats where people are hanging here.

To me Violence is gore, and lots of it. Manhunt is a perfect example. You show glass in peoples eyes. Choke them with bags, snap necks, cut throats, cut bellies. A ton of violence and gore.

In GTA: you can shoot someone in the heador body. Body they fall down and a puddle of blood is on the ground. Shoot them in the head and the head dissapears and you see some blood flow out like a garden hose. But its nowher near as bad or realistic as in Manhunt.


You cvan kill innocent civilians in GTA, But not without consequences, and the game does not enforce it. Kill enough and the poliece, FBI, and military will come after you. And they do not give up.
Heck there is not a single mission in the entire game where they make you kill a innocent civilian. Its all on your own choice.
Even then its comical violence. There is more blood, gore, and realism in the average PG-13 movie.


My main argument is: Whats the point of giving a game AO rating? It is only one year older than a M rating and covers the exact same regulations.

I agree that they need stricter penalties for online retailers for buying M rated games. But regulation is very, very hard for that. How can you accurately make sure the person buying is of legal age beyond a online agreement saying you are over 18?
And it still falls down to the parents i think. The parents should know what the kids are purchasing, and regulate it.

[Humphrey]

I still feel the ESRB changing the rating on GTA:SA becuase of the sex minigame is rediculous. You still have to hack into the code of the game with 3rd party software to get to it. Its buggy, and not finished.
It does not appear anywhere in the official game itself, so it should not at all be judged in the rating.

[Tranquility]

I still feel the ESRB changing the rating on GTA:SA becuase of the sex minigame is rediculous. You still have to hack into the code of the game with 3rd party software to get to it. Its buggy, and not finished.

It is still buggy and unfinished. But thinking over it....

The minigame is not as abstract as other sexual content in the game. In fact, in the minigame you actually get to choose the position you want, and its a rhythm game. It's very explicit. If they let you have a stabbing minigame for example where you had to stab a character in a particular pattern, I'm pretty sure there would be a similar investigation.

All in all it was pretty stupid of Rockstar not to completely remove it. As mentioned in the Gamespot story, the issue is whether the code was there in the game but not implemented, or if it had to be written by a third party modder. And it's the former that's true. So Rockstar could be^H^H^H^H..

[Normandy6644]

I still feel the ESRB changing the rating on GTA:SA becuase of the sex minigame is rediculous. You still have to hack into the code of the game with 3rd party software to get to it. Its buggy, and not finished.
It does not appear anywhere in the official game itself, so it should not at all be judged in the rating.

Yeah, after reading what you said about it, that's pretty stupid. To rate a game based on something unofficial is just wrong. Games can be modded, but those are outside the main line of the original game.

[Kebsis]

And the ESRB will investigate the San Andreas sexual minigames.

TBH I think it was a very stupid move by Rockstar. For those who don't know about the mod, it uses a third party tool to unlock a sex minigame. Also, the code for the mod was already existing in the game, and not introduced by the 3rd party modders, which differentiates this situation from the naked mods for the Sims, Tomb Raider, et al. It's obvious Rockstar wanted to include the feature but avoid an AO rating. So they left it there for modders to unlock it.

That is pushing the limits, I have to agree...

It isn't uncommon for developers to leave unfinished bits in a game. One game comes to mind, Fable for the PS2, which was rumored to be unfinished upon it's release; this was confirmed when several boss characters were found still in the code of the game, just not accessible normally.

Max Payne 2 comes to mind as well; there are several scenes of a female character in the game having sex and taking a shower, but the scenes were shot at angles which covered all the interesting bits. However, by opening up the developers console you could view all the characters in the game, which included the nude model of the woman they had used for the shower scene.

Sometimes there's a lot of code and things in a game that are simply more difficult to remove than they are to hide. Complaining about something that can only be opened with a hack that you search for on the internet and install yourself is like descrambling the porno channel and then complaining to the cable company that there are naked women dancing around on your TV.

[W.F. Tomba]

Also, here's a witty but nice comparison of the best game engines out there, comparing them approximately to what a real rock looks like. The Crytek engine powered Far Cry, the Source engine powered Half-life 2 and the Doom 3 engine powered Doom 3 as well as other upcoming anticipated shooters like Quake IV and Prey.

Hey, that rock has a C on it! An obvious fake!

[Musashi]

I love that doom one.

[Normandy6644]

I love that doom one.

Haha, me too.

[Kebsis]

Somebody doesn't have his flashlight out

[Tranquility]

Rockstar is denying rumors that the code for the mod was already there:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07...s_6128759.html

Rockstar alerted the press late in the day that is aware of the investigation by the ESRB. "We can confirm the ESRB is conducting an investigation and that we will be complying fully with their enquiries," the statement read. "We thoroughly support the work of the esrb, and believe that it has an exemplary record of rating games and promoting understanding of video game content. We also feel confident that the investigation will uphold the original rating of the game, as the work of the mod community is beyond the scope of either publishers or the ESRB."

This afternoon, when asked if the "Hot Coffee" code was included in game discs manufactured by Rockstar or its agents, the company commented more fully then it had previously. A spokesperson told GameSpot News it was not.

[electromagneticpulse]

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/21...rn-san-andreas

Well Rockstar can deny it but there's apparently a mod out that activates the code.

Personally I don't see what the matter is. The article says "In order to take part players must steal cars, deliver drugs and use prostitutes." Well the name is Grand Theft Auto, it would be the biggest miss advertisement ever if you didn't steal cars it would be like Driver without driving. Also if the game gets banned then its the biggest hierocracy ever as this is the 5th game in the series where you steal cars and deliver drugs and the 3rd one where there are prostitutes.

If governments took more responsibility over helping parents than trying to ban violent games when kids see violence every day anyway. Here you need to be 18 to buy them so it's down to 'bad parents' granted my parents are involved as i'm 17 and I played GTA when it first came out so I was about 9 IIRC. It hasn't done anything wrong to me, I've never stolen a car or run anyone over... yet

[Humphrey]

Minor nitpick: 6 GTA games:
GTA
GTA; London
GTA 2
GTA 3
GTA: VC
GTA; SA

[electromagneticpulse]

ops: My mistake, I thought london sucked though so I think I just removed it from my mind.

[farmerjumperdon]

I would definitely agree that anyone pushed over the edge to killing by their exposure to a game is a nutcase to begin with (though there is still the not yet completely resolved question of social responsibility for doing the pushing).

What I don't get is the view so many people have of these games as having some inflated and unrealistic value. There were a couple comments about them "teaching" about life. If someone's perspective has been so severely manipulated that they see these games as somehow teaching lessons for life - they've been had.

And the consequence of the gaming industry collapsing? Would mean some retooling and retraining - but somehow we'd all survive. Games have benefited from development of technology, but I don't see how anything has benefited from games.

They are just games - not Soylent Green.

[farmerjumperdon]

Oh, the pill. I want the one that will allow me to remember everything - but I can't remember which color does that now.

#-o

[SKY]

From what I've read, the implementation is very buggy and it's possible that Rockstar just entirely scrapped it from the game.

It is buggy, but not the minigame itself. After completeing the minigame, you end up outside the "Dates" house, this is were it gets buggy. The game won't let you move anwhere. You have to enter a code to commit suicide, then start again from the hospital. That was the only bug I saw.

My personal feeling is that Rockstar wanted to push limits and may have put it in a joke or as something for someone to find later (as they did). I personally don't think they thought it would clear the ratings board unless they were going for a AO rating to begin with then just decided to have an M rating. It's pretty graphic. I think their intentions from the beginning were to leave it in but as a secret, to them this is good publicity for the game.

Just my thoughts.

I have to wonder if the majority of persons who are playing GTA San Andreas on the PC are actually children. I play the game and enjoy it, but I'm 34. If I had young children I would not allow them to play it.

There are lots of 12 year old kids with PS2's, but how many 12 year olds have $1000 to blow on a gaming PC? Some, but not many.

I suspect that the majority of people who are playing this game on the PC are men in their 20's and 30's.

Not only does it work on the PC, it also works on the XBox and PS2 versions.

You really have to go through a lot to get the code to work for the PS2 version, but it is there.

[Humphrey]

I use games soley as entertainment and as stress relief.

But not all games can be lumped in the non educational group. Some of the later games to come about nowadays can teach many thing.

Planning, future thinking, economics, using recources to their fullest, etc. All of those can be learned from games such as Sim city, and some RTS style games. Also games such as Civ, and Rome: Total war.

In some games, you learn histroy too. But thats hard to judge since so many games make up their history. Even those who base their games on famous battles or empires.

Ill grant that most FPS (first prerson shooters) have no educational value beyond teamwork and tactics.

[Humphrey]

I wonder what the demographics of underage game players are nowadays. I mean what percentage of xbox, ps2, and pc owners who actively play games are under 17?

[electromagneticpulse]

I would definitely agree that anyone pushed over the edge to killing by their exposure to a game is a nutcase to begin with (though there is still the not yet completely resolved question of social responsibility for doing the pushing).

What I don't get is the view so many people have of these games as having some inflated and unrealistic value. There were a couple comments about them "teaching" about life. If someone's perspective has been so severely manipulated that they see these games as somehow teaching lessons for life - they've been had.

And the consequence of the gaming industry collapsing? Would mean some retooling and retraining - but somehow we'd all survive. Games have benefited from development of technology, but I don't see how anything has benefited from games.

They are just games - not Soylent Green.

You don't see how anything has benefited from games? Okay how about the hundreds of thousands of people who work writing the code, doing the art, 3D modelling, scriptwriting or those people who develop the processors and technology that allow for the graphics. Okay for an astronomy example how about the scientists that used graphics processors that were used to compute how a supernova goes off, using graphics processors that are a direct result of the gaming industry. How about the musicians that make the music for games.

How about the hundreds of people that earn a living from the films made out of the games, Resident Evil to name one, and the screenwriters who write the films and the writers who write the books. Sorry if I'm getting defensive here but my friends are writers, I'm a writer and I hope to become a screenwriter and director and without a doubt I want some of those things that 'benefit nothing' made from my work. How about the simple fact that the games industry has pushed forward CG graphics that are used in almost everything on TV and Movies, even simple things like adding a colour tint to full CG movies because there is a significantly larger need for graphics because of people who play games.

Also how about educational games that DO help because they teach kids without them fully knowing, puzzle games that increase peoples logic and reasoning. Sorry but games benefit a whole lot of people, most games are for fun but when millions of people spend £30 on a single game that is a lot of money. Industry collapsing, more like economy. Sorry but I don't think you even spent a second thinking about how much of an integral part of society games actually are.

[Normandy6644]

I use games soley as entertainment and as stress relief.

But not all games can be lumped in the non educational group. Some of the later games to come about nowadays can teach many thing.

There's an article about this in the most recent Discover magazine. It's really interesting.

[farmerjumperdon]

I don't think all of those things go away because violent games of the militaristic or street-gang type don't get invented. Other way around. Those games are an offshoot of the technologies that support them. Assuming those technologies would not exist if it were not for the games is putting the effect before the cause. It's like saying cameras wouldn't exist if it were not for cellphones. We could just as easily have developed learning games without the killing & maiming games.

And all those people involved in the development and others that economically depend on the games would simply be doing other things. A good analogy is the myth that major league sports teams bring money to town. That's total garbage being heaped on the public to get them to subsidize the billionaire business of a few rich people. (For a good debunking of this nonsense, read Major League Losers). Simply put, people have a certain amount of discretionary spending cash, and they will spend it one way or another. The lie that if we don't have a ballpark we won't have as big of an economy is proven wrong in beforementioned book. In fact, having a pro sports team concentrates more money into fewer hands.

I digress, but the principle holds. People will have jobs and make money, people will spend some of that money, and not having certain kinds of games or pro sports teams is not going to alter the total in the pot - just how and where it is spent.

Again, if you like them - cool. But the allusions to them being so realistic are just ridiculous (and obviously not uttered by any sane person who has ever stared down the wrong end of a gun barrel).

They glorify and glamourize violence for kids (not everyone playing them) who get desensitized via exposure to things they do not have the sophistication or maturity to fully comprehend. It's why we have free speech at the same time as we have pornography laws. Young people (older than you would like to think) are negatively impacted by exposure to things they do not have the wisdom to place in perspective. It's the same prnciple at work that almost guarantees that an abused child will display abusive behavior as an adult.

Anyway, I'm not against them, but I strongly support the ratings and feel we should error on the side of conservatism. I rarely take that kind of stance, but when kids are involved, I say play it safe. Why would any adult be upset about minors not having access to them? If you are a minor, you can vote against the people on the other side of the aisle once you come of age to participate in such decisions. History shows that when you get that chance, odds are you will have gained the wisdom to put the welfare of kids ahead of the freedom to annihilate video characters regardless of age and consequence.

[Tranquility]

They glorify and glamourize violence for kids (not everyone playing them) who get desensitized via exposure to things they do not have the sophistication or maturity to fully comprehend.

They're not supposed to. Like you said, that's we have ratings, and pornography laws. A kid should not be playing a Mature rated game, or even a Teen rated game, and the fact that the kid is playing these games is a failure by the parents. The game is rated for above 17 or above 15 because it has violence the kid ought not to be exposed to. It doesn't desensitize kids to violence because kids aren't meant to be playing, period. If they do, it's not the game developer's fault. It's the parent's fault because they can't take time out of their lives to notice what is it their kids are doing. It's like saying pornography in which women are not treated well desensitizes kids to mistreatment of the opposite gender. Well, it doesn't because a kid isn't supposed to be watching it in the first place.

Why would any adult be upset about minors not having access to them?

I don't think anyone posting in this thread objected to the game not being available to minors. The gripe is that an Adult Only rating differs by only 1 year. A Mature game can be played by people who are 17+, and AO is for 18+. That's pretty far away from what you and I mean by children, and that extra 1 year won't give the person a long sought after insight into the meaning of life, so the distinction in the age groups is pretty much meaningless, but the gripe is that an AO title is not put on display at major retailers, so the aim is not so much to restrict people who are above the prerequisite age group from buying it, because they still can, but it's only intended to maliciously hurt the game's sales.

[farmerjumperdon]

Nothing said here is creating any sympathy in me for not rating these games very strictly or not making it as difficult as possible for kids to buy them.

Games with adult themes (such as assuming a fictional identity and commiting crimes or having sex to earn points or gain status, etc.) should not be available to kids. If that takes them off the shelves of mainstream stores - too bad. So what. If adult (18 and up) gamers want them, they'll go to get them. If they're not willing to go get them somewhere other than Target or Wal-Mart, then it must not be worth buying.

Loosening the rating system so that the game manufacturers can increase sales is irresponsible.

I do agree that the rating system as described in bits and pieces of this thread are silly. I'm a minimalist at heart and like simple rules wherever possible. I would simply say anything other than childish cartoon-like violence gets an adult rating (18 and up). All sex gets the same.

I'm also not saying they can not play them (did someone earlier in the thread say it is illegal for them to play?); just that they should not be for sale to minors. If an adult wants their kid to have the game, that is in my mind an individual, albeit irresponsible choice.

Lastly, the arguement that there is more violence elsewhere so why try to stop it here doesn't wash. Just because somewhere else bad choices have been made doesn't mean we are required to keep making bad choices.

[mid]

Why would any adult be upset about minors not having access to them?

Why would someone who is unaffected by a ban care less if others are, you mean? I think we've already established that is your general opinion of the matter.

If you'd like to provide the slightest piece of evidence to back up your assertions of how 'damaging' these games are, go right ahead by the way. It's more than any of the people behind this legislation can be bothered to do.

[Tranquility]

Nothing said here is creating any sympathy in me for not rating these games very strictly or not making it as difficult as possible for kids to buy them.

How exactly is the ratings board supposed to enforce ratings aside from slapping a big M for Mature 17+ label on the front of the game? From there onwards its the job of the parents and the store clerks not to sell an M game to a minor. Just like movie cashiers aren't supposed to sell tickets to R-rated movies to minors. The restriction is already there, what else do you want them to do? Hold a gun to the head of the store clerk? Well, they might as well do the same for movies.

Games with adult themes (such as assuming a fictional identity and commiting crimes or having sex to earn points or gain status, etc.) should not be available to kids. If that takes them off the shelves of mainstream stores - too bad.

Another movie industry analogy. DVDs of R rated movies are available at major retailers, but an 8 year old can't pick up a DVD of Original Sin and go to the clerk, pay for it, and leave. The store clerk will not sell it to him because he's a minor. Likewise for the game industry. If a game is rated M, the store clerk shouldn't sell it to an 8 year old. That doesn't mean that they should remove all the R-rated DVDs (I'm not talking pornography here of course) and the M-rated games from mainstream stores. It just means they shouldn't sell them to little kids. They're not available to little kids because they're not allowed to buy them. If they do manage to get them, the fault is not in the ratings board.

Loosening the rating system so that the game manufacturers can increase sales is irresponsible.

That's obviously misunderstanding what I said. Whether GTA San Andreas deserves an AO rating or not is under investigation. GTA will sell and continue to sell because it's a mainstream title, whether its AO or M. But the politician requesting the change in rating is obviously not aiming for children's protection because the distinction between AO and M is meaningless. Being M means that kids aren't allowed to buy it, likewise for AO. And the age difference of the 2 ratings is 1 year only. The only obvious reason for his crusade is to try and dent the San Andreas sales, not child protection.

I would simply say anything other than childish cartoon-like violence gets an adult rating (18 and up). All sex gets the same.

CNN ought to be over 18. Where do you think kids live, underground?

I'm also not saying they can not play them (did someone earlier in the thread say it is illegal for them to play?); just that they should not be for sale to minors.

They're not - hence the rating.

[electromagneticpulse]

I'm also not saying they can not play them (did someone earlier in the thread say it is illegal for them to play?); just that they should not be for sale to minors. If an adult wants their kid to have the game, that is in my mind an individual, albeit irresponsible choice.

Well the problem is that adults make that choice or kids wouldn't be getting the game selling or renting a game to a minor takes a heavier fine than selling cigarettes to a minor. There are kids as young as 7 playing San Andreas, which would actually be very comical to see them trying to buy an 18.

The problem I see with classifications is that they make no sense, the first star wars (4) is a U (any age) and has someone’s arm cut off, which I saw when I was about 3 when I'd never seen blood before so to an adult or even a preteen appears completely unrealistic but how could a child that’s almost come out of diapers going to tell that. I've seen slap stick comedies with 15 certificates when all they do is hit each other over the head with things and then I've got Chronicles of Riddick on my desk which is also a 15 but is combat all the way through with guns and the works. Or the film The Evil Dead is an 18 but has no realistic violence in at all, which by the star wars standard should be a U and a 3 year old should be able to watch it (excluding the swearing of course).

Oh and before I forget, there are sexual innuendo’s in children’s programs because its deemed that the children are two young to get it but I was getting the innuendo’s in the simpsons when I was 10 because that was school ground talk, so I think we need younger people in the classification system so people know what is more realistic.