Slashdot Mirror


Government Pressure on ESRB

Alex Blonski writes "There is new CNN coverage on the recent pressure the government is putting on the ESRB to crack down on mature-rated titles, after the Grand Theft Auto Debacle. ESRB President Patricia Vance says that 'It is very important for people to realize that this game is rated " for mature,' Vance said. 'This game is not a game that was rated for children. Regardless of what if anything was modified, it's a game that the ESRB has made as clear as it can that it was not intended for anyone under the age of 17.'"

79 of 519 comments (clear)

  1. Put the blame where it belongs. by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From TFA:
    And these games are having a real, detrimental inpact on young minds, Baca said -- "In a video game, you're actually pursuing and simulating a person. You're under hypnosis. You're a person that is dramatizing, that is living the example of what is going on."
    OK, who else is sick of this shit? Hands?
    If a child decides to emulate the antics of a character in a video game, it is not the game's fault...it is the fault of the child's parents who have failed to instruct the child in the fundamental differences between fantasy and reality. They are the ones who should and must be held accountable for the misdeeds of their progeny.
    When parents use their televisions and consoles as nanny and babysitter, they shouldn't be too surprised when their children begin using them as role models.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by fkamogee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about, for starters, parents pay attention to what their kids are playing? Check the damn label. You don't let them go to NC-17 movies, do you? The ESRB cannot be held responsible for your lack of parenting.

    2. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by varmittang · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I blame the parents for buying the game and allowing them to play it in the first place. Its a fantacy game for people like me who want to have a little fun and break the law without doing it in real life. Kids play it and think its the real word, thus they go out and shoot people thinking they can get away with it like they did in the game. Parents really need to start parenting, and not the government doing group parenting for everyone just because some parents don't.

      --
      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
      12345
      -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    3. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Explain something to me: How did you copy and paste a line from the article and have "impact" become "inpact"?

    4. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by Seriman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sick of this entire attitude that people aren't responsible for their actions. This extends beyond this video game BS. If there's anything you don't want to take responsibility for, call a big drug company and they'll push your "condition" into the diagnostic manual. Let's just clarify this real quick. The devil did NOT make you do it.

    5. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by KamaDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Kids play it and think its the real word, thus they go out and shoot people thinking they can get away with it like they did in the game.

      I don't believe that for a second. I grew up playing games, so did my friends. We're not violent killers. We're not dumb enough to think that shooting someone is okay just because we did it in a game.

      This whole epidemic is just lousy parenting. People needed someone to blame after Columbine, and it was so easy to claim that it wasn't *my* fault for being a lousy parent, it was those *games*. Politicians jumped on the bandwagon because it absolved parents from all responsibility. That makes the parents feel good, so the parents keep voting for the politicians. It it totally backwards.

      The real problem is that people are having kids because they think they're supposed to. They don't understand what being a parent is or what kind of responsibility they have, and so you get kids who are out of control. So blame everyone but yourself. When it comes down to it, some people are just messed up in the head, too.

      "For some things, there is no solution. For everything else, there's parenting."

      --
      -KD
    6. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by dancpsu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not going to be one to join the "blame the parents" crowd. I think if someone is 17 then what they see in GTA is not going to cause any real damage.

      The main problem is that politicians love to try and "fix" a popular issue by jumping on the media bandwagon. This happens with absolutely everything that gets wide media attention. I'm beginning to believe that they purposefully promote a misunderstanding of the issue in order to make it sound as bad as possible to get themselves political points. These congressmen have all the research staff and support one could possibly need to give them a full understanding that this is not much different than the myriad of patches and hacks that made women nude or such in past games.

      To say that, however, would be like a politician getting up and saying "not all child molesters are that bad". The public would lynch him/her. The media have already spun the issue, and the public understands it as part of the main GTA game, not as something that requires a separate hack to download.

      --
      "Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." -- Max Planck
    7. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by netruner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [Raises Hand]

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the game in question already rated "M" and still needed modification to produce the behavior in question?

      I have to wonder how much hubub there would be if someone wrote a patch that put a similar "easter egg" into Word. Face it, this game has always had a bulls-eye on it as far as the self-rightous are concerned (just as Doom before it). This incident was just the most convienient excuse to attack it.

      Frankly, I'm just sick of the self-rightous political nonsense assumption that it's ok to tell the rest of us what is "ok" and what's not. This used to be primarily the domain of the "right", but it seems to be spreading like a nasty rash.

      --



      DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
    8. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by garcia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When parents use their televisions and consoles as nanny and babysitter, they shouldn't be too surprised when their children begin using them as role models.

      When parents use their televisions and consoles as nany and babysitter they also tend to use the Government as head of the household which is just wrong.

      Putting pressure on the Government for more invasive control is not only wrong it is not what this country was founded on... Yet, each and every day, more and more people want to do less and less parenting and regress back to being a child themselves with the "fatherland" leading their lives.

    9. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by dancpsu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can see how someone could see the word "game" and immediately associate "kids" with it. This is what the media depends on to add some shock value to the story. But I was not complaining about parents letting their kids play MA rated video games, just as I don't complain about parents letting their kids see R rated movies. I think the central issue here is a media bandwagon that politicians see and the facts are of no interest. It's all about appearances now.

      The relevant facts to this story are that the game industry hasn't put enough lobbying money into congressional pockets, so they're being investigated. It's just like when Microsoft was getting hit by the DoJ. Whether you like it or not, the main difference between the DoJ's interest in Microsoft before, and the lack of interest now, is the amount of lobbying money flowing from them to congress. The interest of the DoJ quickly dwindled even before a Republican got elected to the whitehouse.

      --
      "Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." -- Max Planck
    10. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by stlhawkeye · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If a child decides to emulate the antics of a character in a video game, it is not the game's fault...

      Most of childhood play revolves around such fantasy, look at the games that children play. "House" - emulating their own parents. "War" - emulating generals. "Cops and robbers" - emulating criminals and law enforcement. "Cowboys and Indians" - emulating ... well, cowboys and Indians. When you introduce toys, it's just a new level. My girlfriend's son recently got a toy lightsabre from his uncle, and he runs around whacking my dog with it and chattering about the Force. He's emulating a Jedi. When he plays with actions figures, he gives them lines and moves them around - it's only different from a video game in that he uses a bit more imagination and there's on controller. Transformers, GI Joes, Batman, Pokemon, almost all of childhood play is emulation. It's called "playing pretend" and it's one of the most common forms of self-entertainment among children. And frankly, I think it's far healthier than rotting in front of a television set watching cartoons.

      When does "playing pretend" go to far? When Mom says so, not when Uncle Sam says so. It's called individual liberty, and individual responsibility. It's called Enlightement liberalism.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    11. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by mahdi13 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Sorry, anyone who produces and sells something which contributes to the normalization of violence in the minds of the young must also take some of responsibility for the problems it causes.
      With that thinking we should be going after the US Army for all their TV commercials that basically say "It's cool to be a part of war"

      The people that make games put right on the friggin box that it's not suitable for children. If the parents are not taking notice to what their children are doing or (somehow) buying in their own home, the game companies can not be held responsible for the actions of someone else's kids!

      For crying out loud, it just takes a little bit of guidance from someone to teach their kids that DEATH is not fun or cool! If teenagers do not understand this very basic concept then something was fucked up in their education process and the people to blame for that is their parents (if any blame other then the child's is needed, which shouldn't be but everyone has to blame something) and NOT the people that make games/movies for adults

      Try talking to your children about good/bad right/wrong and become the one responsible for them and how they treat others.
      The children are only as fucked up as their parents.
      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    12. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by punkass · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Awesome! When do we get to sue to the nightly news?

      --
      "Nobody owns the fucking words man." - James Dean
    13. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by BewireNomali · · Score: 3, Insightful

      there are both sides to this. just because you as a parent pay attention to the games your child plays doesn't mean your neighbor does. your kid and theirs happen to be friends, and he has every game on earth. your kid will be playing that game.

      that's what it meant to be a kid, you wanted to do the very thing your parents said you were too young to do.

      which is to say that... this isn't a problem where you can point a finger in one direction and solve it.

      Re: NC-17 movies. it's not that you don't let your kids go to NC-17 movies, it's that the movie theater won't let them in. In other words, the point that I'm trying to make is that raising children is inherently social, not isolationist. So when something goes wrong, you can point at a number of places in the pipeline and find fault.

      I'm really lucky, because my 9 year old nephew only likes (what I find) boring RPGs where you walk around and talk and level up all day. I play games sometimes, and I like the violent ones. I'd be lying if I said they didn't change me, that I don't feel like I have a better understanding of how to kill, because I do.

      maybe in a future world, like next year, all consoles will be thin clients... all games will be server side, and biometrics will determine what tier of games are available to you and/or your kids.

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    14. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by endus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "This used to be primarily the domain of the "right"" I agree with your post but disagree with this statement. The left has *always* been on some "think of the children" garbage whereas the right used to have a respect for things like freedom of speech and personal responsibility. I suppose the difference is academic at this point because now all of our politicians, left and right, want to have a hand in forcing their morals on you, but I do think it's an important distinction that conservatism is supposed to respect market forces and personal responsibility, not foisting Christian morals on other people.

    15. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by snorklewacker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Re: NC-17 movies. it's not that you don't let your kids go to NC-17 movies, it's that the movie theater won't let them in

      The kids, or the movies? I think it's the latter.

      The government is pursuing a backdoor ban. See kids, lying, stealing, and killing is okay, but BREASTS ARE BAD.

      This country is filled to the brim with morons. Morons with power.

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    16. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by snorklewacker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The left wants to force socialist morals on you, and the right wants to force Puritan morals on you.

      The left's paternalism is based on utopian egalitarianism, the right's is based on fear of roasting in hell at the hands of an angry god.

      The left tends toward believing itself the force of progress, while the right prefers the "good old days".

      Frankly, I find both distasteful, but the right's jowl-wagging bluster and bigotry toward non-puritans has chased me away and quite firmly left of center.

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    17. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by dynamo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed. The pro-military culture is much more to blame for violence in america than any dumb ass video game.

      Seriously. Get your priorities straight. Once you get past fanasy vs. reality, the army is STILL out there advocating violence.

    18. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by dougmc · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You don't let them go to NC-17 movies, do you?
      A better movie rating analogy would probably be R, not NC-17.

      You don't let them go to R movies, do you?
      (And the answer may very well be `yes, you do.' And you may very well let them play `M' rated games.)

      Still, it's really something when you've got a game with lots of violence, and it gets a `Mature' rating (which seems appropriate) but when people find that there's a sex scene in there, one that you cannot even find by accident, politicians start grandstanding and saying how the ESRB needs oversight, etc.

      What is it about sex anyways that gets our culture's panties in such a twist? It's OK to let a kid see somebody murder an innocent person, but it's not OK to see two consenting adults have sex? (Or is it the problem that the GTA sex involes a white woman and a black man?)

      (Ok, I know the answer to that. They don't really care that it interracial sex. It's just that it's sex. Nevermind that it's non-violent and not even that out of the ordinary, except that the guy never takes off his clothes.)

    19. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by Moofie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If your kid does bad things when s/he goes to the neighbor's house, don't let him go to that neighbor's house.

      Talk to the neighbor. Tell him "Hey, what you do with your kid is up to you, but I don't want MY kid playing this game. Can you help me out?"

      Abdicating responsibility by just saying "These games shouldn't be available to ANYBODY" is unacceptable.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    20. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by thomas.galvin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When does "playing pretend" go to far? When Mom says so, not when Uncle Sam says so. It's called individual liberty, and individual responsibility. It's called Enlightement liberalism.

      Yes and no. Sometimes, mommy is an idiot, or a flake, and Uncle Sam would be a better judge of what's right for little Johhny. The problem, of course, is that most of the time, Uncle Sam is also an alcoholic with a penchant for violent outbursts.

      Sometimes, the line should be drawn well before Mom says so. In this instance, I would argue that any parent that allowed a child to play this game was failing in their duty as a parent.

      Of course, that's my opinion. I might be wrong. The government might be wrong. Mom might be wrong. And we all have a fairly equal chance of being wrong.

      That's why individual responsibility is so important. Not because individuals always make the right choice, but because people generally try to make the best choice, and having a lot of people making decisions, and thus many points of failure, is better than having one person or group making the decisions, and thus a single point of failure.

      If Jane is an idiot, Johhny is screwed, but Sam and Max will be all right. If the Govenrment is given control, though, and drops the ball, everyone suffers.

    21. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "Sorry, anyone who produces and sells something which contributes to the normalization of violence in the minds of the young must also take some of responsibility for the problems it causes."

      Again, the problem is...these games are NOT made for children. They are rated as Mature. Parents should take the time and responsibility to see what they are purchasing for their kids.

      This is nothing wrong with Adult content...for Adults. Hell, there is a TON of children friendly material out there. When is the last time you even SAW a NC-17 movie released?

      The bottom line is, there is nothing wrong with Mature and Adult entertainment. It is the parents' responsibility to screen and filter out what is appropriate for their kids....apparently a job they are neglecting. If you have kids...there are a FULL time job...you signed on for it when you had them, take the responsibility and raise them.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    22. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by stlhawkeye · · Score: 2
      Sometimes, mommy is an idiot, or a flake, and

      I'd say "often", that's the case, even when Mommy is college-educated. But that's because it's easy for me to apply my morality to somebody else and proclaim that if that kid's mother doesn't do (blank) then she must be some kind of idiot.

      Uncle Sam would be a better judge of what's right for little Johhny. The problem, of course, is that most of the time, Uncle Sam is also an alcoholic with a penchant for violent outbursts.

      Exactly. Uncle Sam's Child-Rearing Service is likely to be like the rest of Uncle Sam's business ventures: an unaccountable filing cabinet for otherwise unemployable people. Don't get pissy if you work for the DMV and think I'm attacking you, it's a generalization, and all generalizations suffer the flaw of having exceptions. If they didn't, it'd be a fact, not a generalization.

      Sometimes, the line should be drawn well before Mom says so. In this instance, I would argue that any parent that allowed a child to play this game was failing in their duty as a parent.

      So would I, but that's not my point. What level of government involvement is appropriate here? Do you really think that it's the business of the government to go poking into people's lives to ensure that Mrs. and Mrs. Taxpayer are raising their children in a government-sanctioned manner? That's a bit too fascist for my tastes. It starts off sounding harmless ("it's for the child's own good and health"), but it tends to never stop, as aspiring, well-intentioned politicians enact and support more and more intrusive legislation "for your own good," and this is the path to subservience, not liberty.

      Of course, that's my opinion. I might be wrong. The government might be wrong. Mom might be wrong. And we all have a fairly equal chance of being wrong.

      Yes, we do. Which is why, since everybody is equally likely to be wrong, it's most efficient and sensible to allow the parent of the child to run that risk rather than having a bunch of hand-wringing busy-bodies running around and telling us all what to do. Provide information, by all means. I fully support rating systems and education. I even support disallowing stores to sell videos that are rated "M" to kids underage. That, at least, encourages produces to weigh carefully the decisions of what content to include. Choices for everybody.

      I'm not saying or suggesting that a 6 year old should watch people screwing GTA or anything. I'm saying that in this particular article, and this particular quote, pretending to be somebody else is cited as some kind of evidence that games like GTA are highly damaging. Maybe a handful of people can't tell the difference but it's no reason to censor something for the millions of other people who are capable of moralistic determination.

      That's why individual responsibility is so important.

      It is indeed. As well educating people.

      Not because individuals always make the right choice, but because people generally try to make the best choice, and having a lot of people making decisions, and thus many points of failure, is better than having one person or group making the decisions, and thus a single point of failure.

      If you're alluding to government intervention in our personal lives, I disagree with the above argument. It's based on the assumption that when the government makes a decision, we still get to make one too, and that's often not the case. The government decides that at 16 I can't see a rated-R movie by myself. I don't have the option to make that decision for myself anymore. The governments of many states have decreed that navigating a box of steel and polymers on pavement at 75 miles per hour is something I'm capable of doing responsibly when I'm 16, but not betting six bucks at a casino. Th

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    23. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by PriceIke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Being a soldier means as much about loving war as being a firefighter does about loving fire. I've never EVER seen a US Army (or Marines, Air Force, etc.) commercial that glorifies war. The fact that you equate images of our military with images promoting war just illustrates your own liberal bias.

      --
      It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
    24. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Sorry, anyone who produces and sells something which contributes to the normalization of violence in the minds of the young must also take some of responsibility for the problems it causes.

      Does this include publishers who publish books with violence in them? How about the Brothers Grim for instance?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    25. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by RWerp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I remember reading a Newsweek (it's mainstream, not liberal) piece about soldiers in Iraq. When they saw an Iraq guy running away from their guns, they literally begged their leader for permission to kill. It's shocking, but being a soldier now means being trained to love to kill. Google 'killology'.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    26. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by Creepy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah - I've thought the morals in the US are completely screwed up for a long time... Since when is nudity and sex this horribly bad thing? OK, rape is bad, but so is killing. Nudity and sex are not equal to rape or killing in any way, since both are essentially violence.

      If they seriously think that they are preventing kids from seeing porn, they are seriously misguided, as kids will view it one way or another if they want to... maybe it's the Internet, maybe it's late nite Showtime, maybe it's stealing a Playboy from dad's stash. Heck you can order Playboy and they'll send you 3 or 4 mags free before canceling because you didn't pay the bill (as I know because some jocks ordered it for me as a joke in Jr. High - I know they did it because they asked if I got any good magazines lately).

      As for the movie theater not letting you in, isn't that the same as the store not selling or renting the game to you? The parents can tell you if you can or can't have it but ultimately, the store that rents or sells the game has to follow store/state policy. As far as I'm concerned, if the parents feel the kid is old enough to play the game then they can buy or rent if for the kid -- just like an under 21 year old can legally drink in their parent's house under their parent's supervision in most, if not all states (In some states, a husband or wife that's over 21 can serve their under 21 S.O. - I know this is legal in Massachusetts, where I have a friend that did exactly that, but I'm not sure of elsewhere).

    27. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by snuf23 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right, right. That's why three-star Marine general James Mattis stated:

      "Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot, It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up there with you. I like brawling."

      General: It's 'fun to shoot some people'

      To deny that warfare can be exciting is just stupid. When we entered the war with Iraq, I read a number of G.I. blogs which were quite gung-ho. Sure the prospect of getting killed sucks, but a lot of soldiers honestly feel that they are defending freedom and fighting the good fight. They feel good about doing their jobs and take pride in doing it well. Part of that is getting excited when you put the bad guy down.
      Career Military folks tend to be a bit different in perspective from drafted Vietnam era vets.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    28. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by It'sYerMam · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Well, I have to disagree. If you're a parent that needs to restrict your child's access to video games in order to get him or her to not be violent, it's probably too late anyway. The real intervention ought to happen when the child is learning the difference between virtuality and reality, and ingraining moral codes. If this isn't taught and taught well, then violence may well get them anyway, depending on psychological disposition.

      The point is, the age thing is in no way hard-and-fast. First of all, people mature at different rates, therefore what is suitable for one kid may not be suitable for the next. More importantly, right and wrong can be taught at nearly any age, and if it is taught properly, it is highly unlikely that something such as a video game could through a child off the straight and narrow. Certainly, for someone who's either mentally disposed to psychopathy, or for someone whose parents have not taught proper behaviour and so on, video games can have a very detrimental effect, but it's not the game that is the problem.

      I am 16, and play GTA. What I do in the game has no relation to what I do in reality, except perhaps talking about the experience with friends. Killing without fear of retribution is separate enough from reality for me that I can run people over and beat their bloodied corpses while laughing my head off, and not carry that into the real world. At the same time, this gets pretty boring after a while; the real fun comes in doing missions and doing challenging or cool stuff in the sandbox environment. If I can pull off an insane stunt, or go out with a bang, the killing is interesting. The killing itself is actually not the meat of the sandwich.

      There are more realistic games than GTA, but if it is a situation where death is particularly graphic, it's sickening, not enjoyable. If someone finds graphic death fun or amusing, then they're just getting kicks for their mental condition.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    29. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by froschmann · · Score: 2

      Well, what do you think he is going to do next? As a soldier, I would probably be inclined to think that he will be back on the battlefield another day, trying to kill me again. Thus, I would be likely to shoot his ass as a preventive measure. If he were to surrender, that would be a different matter.

    30. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by abandonment · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You obviously weren't at E3 in 2004 - the US Army came in on a half dozen blackhawks and rappelled down outside the conference center as a part of their grand 'entrance' to the game expo.

      Inside the conference, there was a MASSIVE booth with huge screens displaying the 'snipers eye view' of soldiers placed around buildings around the conference center...you got to see the solders, out of sight, aiming & zooming in on random civilians walking around the LA conference center, oblivious...

      All as a part of their multi-million dollar 'Americas Army' marketing campaign - for a GAME that is specifically designed to brainwash kids into thinking that going into the Army is fun and something that is 'Cool' to do.

      As a canadian down for the conference, these scenes were very disturbing, particularly as I noted the rest of the conference attendees reaction (or lack thereof) to this blatant display of military propaganda.

      When the US Army is flying in and running around 'playing army' for a bunch of geeked out gamers, there is something VERY wrong with the way that the game industry is going.

      I can't see how this could possibly be anything BUT glorifying war.

      If there was a game out there telling the 'other side of the story' of the current situation in Iraq, you can guarantee that the US media would be up in arms horrified, but no, we can make all the games in the world about bombing foreign countries, dropping bombs on their citizens, and make them 'Rated E for Everyone'.

      The SOLE reason for the US Army to make their current round of games is marketing & propaganda - even says so on their website & marketing material for the games. They are trying to brainwash people into enlisting, plain and simple.

      And by providing sanitized, video game images of what 'being in the army is like', it both does the soldiers that are actually in these situations a grave injustice, but also continues the cycle of hatred and intolerance that has gotten the US into it's most hated nation status around the world.

  2. Legislation vs. Self-Education by TPIRman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From TFA: Critics say the board's guidance is toothless and does little to help parents trying to protect impressionable children from questionable content.

    It's like clockwork. After "Won't somebody please think of the children!" comes "Won't somebody please think of the parents!" After all, kids can't vote, so it's important that the demagoguery focus on the most politically valuable "victims."

    My question is, what do the parents want? Of course the ratings are toothless. They're just a guide. The "Mature" rating tells parents that a game labeled "M" is considered by the ESRB to be potentially inappropriate for people under 17. The ESRB is basically saying: "If you're in doubt, and your kid is under 17, don't allow this game in your home." If a parent is really in conniptions over video-game sex, violence, whatever, then they only need to exert minimal effort to convert their fears into action.

    For parents that care to be more nuanced and/or involved, there are strategy guides in every game store that present the content of games in great detail. And there's also gamefaqs.com, which is free and convenient. Parents don't have to be gamers to avoid being totally oblivious. Now, I certainly don't expect every parent to be this savvy from the get-go. But the parents who claim to give a shit could educate themselves with what I think is a reasonable amount of time and effort.

    But no, let's legislate the fuck out of the video-game industry because Hillary Clinton is running for president.

  3. Ratings only as good as the child's environment by Bazuul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    According to the article itself, the "unlocked nude sex scene" only applies to the PC version of GTA. That means that any kiddies that get exposed to it must first find and download the mod off the internet, then apply it to the game. If the child can/will do this, then he is already being potentially exposed to all the pornography on the internet. In other words, whats the difference between downloading and applying this mod and just downloading porn off the internet? Ratings are meaningless when children have unfettered access to the internet. It all comes back to parental oversight. Government is not a substitute for parenting.

    1. Re:Ratings only as good as the child's environment by TPIRman · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think you are spot-on. I just wanted to add that the article is wrong, and the sex scene is apparently present in the PS2 GTA as well. This doesn't change your point at all, since you still have to get the cheat codes off the net (and have a device with which to input them, so it's even more cumbersome). Just wanted to clarify the facts of the matter.

    2. Re:Ratings only as good as the child's environment by Tuffsnake · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Government is not a substitute for parenting.

      ...nor tv, movies, or video games. Hell even school isn't a subsitute. Parenting can only come from one place and that is the child's parents (or legal guardians depending on the case). I agree with you wholeheartedly and it just digusts me that the parents are so detached/lazy/ignorant/whatever that taking time out of their lives to spend time with their kids/taking steps to protect their kids as they see fit (restricting cable/internet/etc) is such a burden that they would rather put that responsiblity on all of us.

      "I was too lazy to lock my liquor cabinet and my kid got into it and drank himself to death. It is the alcohol companys' fault for killing my child and they along with all of their supporters should pay." ..... see how stupid that sounds?

  4. Isn't it funny.. by PaxTech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find it quite telling that when GTA only allowed you to pay for sex and then murder the prostitute in cold blood to get your money back, it was commented on but there was no big push to governmentally censor games.

    But now that you can actually see yourself engaging in consensual sex with your in-game girlfriend, we need to "protect the children".

    Doesn't this seem a little backwards? Apparently violence and murder is completely fine, but a little sex and the pols all go batshit.

    --
    All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
    1. Re:Isn't it funny.. by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I find it quite telling that when GTA only allowed you to pay for sex and then murder the prostitute in cold blood to get your money back, it was commented on but there was no big push to governmentally censor games.

      Build a straw man argument, knock it down, and people somehow think you proved your point.

      What planet do you live on? There has been PLENTY of effort to censor games like GTA in recent years. We had US presidential candidates speaking about the game during the 2000 & 2004 elections. Joe Lieberman made it part of his Presidential platform.

      GTA is one of the reasons why the ESRB ratings have become so important. Even the FIRST game is banned in a number of regions throughout the world because of the violence and prostitution, and that game came out years ago.

      This HotCoffee incident is only the latest in a long string of controversy.

      I have no sympathy for Rockstar. They asked for it.

    2. Re:Isn't it funny.. by MindStalker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, had it been included with the game to start with everything would have been fine. Here is the problems.
      1) Group A screams and raves about GTA
      2) Government states that it is already rated M so there is nothing they can do about it.
      3) Group A learns that the game can be changed slightly and gets it into their head that the rating should have been AO
      4) Ratings board states that game would have still been an M
      5) Group A promply ignored this information and continues ranting because thats what they wanted to do in the first place.

    3. Re:Isn't it funny.. by pinchhazard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Reminds me of playing Counter-Strike. There are tons of servers with the gore turned way up, so a headshot results in the bastard's aorta spouting blood all over the place.

      You say, "Holy shit, lookit the blood!" and some admin chastises you for swearing. Seriously, they claim it's for the children! I can't believe some think words are more offensive than graphic, violent imagery. I've gotten kicked from a number of servers for pointing this out.

      --
      Do you love freedom??? Do you love freedom!!! DO YOU LOVE FREEDOM!!!!!!!!
    4. Re:Isn't it funny.. by PaxTech · · Score: 2, Informative

      My point is that when you shoot said prostitute in the head, she dies, and falls to the ground in a pool of blood, i.e. you see the actual acts.

      So apparently committing and seeing the details of cold-blooded murder will cause a bit of a ruckus, but no serious attempt at censorship. Committing and seeing consensual sex however, will force the government to step in.

      These priorities seem more than a little fucked up. By that rationale if Justin Timberlake had punched Janet Jackson in the face at halftime of the Super Bowl, it wouldn't have been a fraction of the problem it was when he flashed her boob.

      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
    5. Re:Isn't it funny.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Funny
      "Nonsense. It's true that there was a controversy when Justin Timberlake ripped off Janet Jackson's clothing on prime time television, but that doesn't mean that there would have been a lesser reaction if Justin had pulled out a gun and shot her dead instead."

      Actually....might have been a bit more 'positive' reaction....

      :-)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  5. For those who missed the boat the first time by OlivierB · · Score: 2, Informative

    ..and have no idea what is going on here's the dirty video

    --
    Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
  6. This is getting out of hand by B11 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know about some parents, but if I was a dad and my kid asked me to pony up $50 bucks for a video game, I'm sure as hell going to find out what its about. Plus most stores have the "M" games on lock down, anybody under 17 can't even buy them. This means a lot of these kids are getting adults that should know better to buy it for them. But as they say, money talks, bull**** walks, and these games are racking in the dough like crazy, more than what some blockbusters make.

    --
    insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
  7. Hilary lost my vote by NineNine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just have to say that I would've voted for Clinton if she made a run for President before she had diarrhea of the mouth and brought up this unrelated shit. She made a completely wrong (as we all know), completely uneducated statement, and based on factually *wrong* information called for a revamp of the whole system. That was a bad move on her part if she was expecting any of the geek vote. We all know what game mods are, and they've been around since the early days of computer gaming. Her statement was ignorant, and irresponsbile.

    1. Re:Hilary lost my vote by ari_j · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hillary is just another modern American liberal. The contrast between that and a classic liberal is that a classic liberal wants everyone to have the same rights and liberties, while a modern liberal wants to decide for you which rights you should and shouldn't have, with an emphasis on being hypocritical.

      Modern conservatives also want to decide for you which rights you should and shouldn't have, but they make their selections using different criteria. Conservatives shoot for traditional moral values, whereas liberals shoot for progressive think-of-the-children moral values. They're both wrong, and the classic liberals and libertarians (lowercase ell) have it mostly right. Your rights and liberties are yours to choose, as long as they don't actually and directly harm those around you.

      Classic examples: Legalize marijuana, but make it illegal as hell to drive while intoxicated by marijuana because it's the intoxicated driving that directly injures other people, not the actual intoxication. Or let me own whatever gun I want, but punish me severely if I shoot someone with it other than in legally justified defense of myself, my property, or others. The list goes on, but just these two work to show that modern conservatives and modern liberals are guilty of the same hypocritical, self-important decision-making about which liberties you and I should have.

    2. Re:Hilary lost my vote by NineNine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're right... it's not huge... but really, even non-hardcore gamers (such as myself) know what a game mod is. I know the difference between a game and something entirely unrelated that is downloaded to alter the game. I understand that nothing inherent in the game was "unlocked". I'd guess that there are a LOT of people who understand this very fundamental difference. I'm guessing that she may actually not be quite so ignorant, and is betting that there are more people who respond to every shrill "But What About The Children?!" comment than there are people who know what the fuck a game modification is. Either way, to me at least, she has proven herself to be as sleazy and underhanded and ignorant as any other politician out there. I was considering voting for her if for no other reason than to see a female President, but now I won't. She's an asshole like the rest.

    3. Re:Hilary lost my vote by CoffeeJedi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      no, he's not

      By that logic, grandparent poster could go out to a crowded area and fire randomly over people's heads, but if he didn't kill anyone, he'd be legal.

      There's a difference between choosing to do something in a responsible way or an irresponsible one. If you choose to smoke marjuanna, you should choose to do so in the confines of your own home and not engage in reckless activity, just as if you choose to own a gun, you should take precautions that it will only be used in the safest manor possible. Driving while high (or drunk) is the same as firing a weapon indescriminantly near people, whether or not someone actually gets hurt, you're endangering them.

      --
      May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
    4. Re:Hilary lost my vote by bobsledbob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. They don't understand economics and don't seem to understand states' rights

      I disagree, I believe the Libertarian party to very much understand economics and believe strongly in states' rights.

      a) Libertarians are very (very) free market oriented. Think Adam Smith. Frankly, the free market can provide solutions to many economic problems we face today, and this has been proven (though I'm blanking on an obvious example).

      The Libertarians, being so focused on free market economics, are very much disciplined and understand economic issues.

      A libertarian would not have supported the New Deal, believing instead that the market would have corrected as it always had. Not that I totally agree, as I think the New Deal was important for the depression. None-the-less, as a general rule, I tend to be persuaded by the libertarian POV that the market should generally be left alone.

      b) Libertarians are also very strong believers of personal property and small local government. These tie together nicely because it's the libertarian's point of view that your property is your property and should not be meddled with at government levels. Basically, you're in charge of your property. Likewise, they believe that the local city and state governments should have a strong hand as well, since they regulate and govern more closely to the actual property owners.

      The libertarians POV of federal government is that it should exist to facilitate market needs / commerce between the states (roads, infrastructure in general) and it should protect national interests (foreign policy) and national borders. This, in my mind, pretty much sums up the original founding father's vision of the federal government. That is, very small and limited in reach and power.

      2. They tend to focus too much on controversial issues

      Absolutely agree with you here. The Libertarian party sure seems, in my opinion, to focus on some whacky and way off issues. Possibly if you follow the libertarian logic to its end, you probably come to these fringe issues. However, because they bring up these fringe issues, they look more like, exactly as you say, a special interest group than a real political party.

      I wish the Libertian party would choose some new leadership, particularly in the PR department. I think a "moderate" Libertarian candidate could really bend a lot of ears. As the Republicans and Democrates have both moved to the middle such that the differences between them are intangible, a Libertarian candidate could really get a lot of attention, imho. He/she would have to deal with all the "extreme" fringe issues though that they seem to have made a charter for.

      Libertarians have hurt themselves by being the party for selfish redneck gun lovers and marijuana smoking potheads.

      --
      Beware of geeks bearing formulas.
  8. just a freaking 3rd party mod by frankie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is such classic "Think of the Children" fever hysteria. And there is a simple solution. Some enterprising game hacker needs to release a mod for the Left Behind Trivia Game that causes it to display explicit hardcore porn photos.

    Either the crazy censors will go much too far and try to ban all video games, or maybe just maybe they will realize that THERE IS NO WAY FOR A COMPANY TO CONTROL WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO TO/WITH THEIR PRODUCTS.

    1. Re:just a freaking 3rd party mod by asoap · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or better yet. You can sneak a playboy into a church. Then go to the media about how your son found a play boy in church. Those no good bible thumping smut peddlers!!!!!

      --
      Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros
  9. The rating systems are stupid. by autopr0n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why 17 and not 18, or 21? Deciding by committee for every child in the US is stupid. They should use a system that lists the 'level' of sex, violence, dirty language or whatever and let parents choose appropriately for their own fears.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:The rating systems are stupid. by Winterblink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why 17 and not 18, or 21? Deciding by committee for every child in the US is stupid. They should use a system that lists the 'level' of sex, violence, dirty language or whatever and let parents choose appropriately for their own fears.

      Why is this moderated as a troll? You moderators need to wake up and learn to read past line 1 before rating something. This post makes a very valid point about how the ratings seem to indicate specific age tolerances relate to content appropriateness.

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
  10. I'm rather tired of all this finger-pointing. by sc0ttyb · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This videogame violence/sex/adult-oriented business has gotten incredibly stale.

    It's really quite simple. This game was rated M, for mature players 17 and older. I'd like to talk to the parents of under-17 children playing GTA. I mean, COME ON. The name of the game is GRAND THEFT AUTO. It has a big ol' M on the front of the box. Who in their right mind thinks this is made for kids?

    Parents are ultimately responsible (and held accountable!) for what their children do and are exposed to until the age of 18, at which point they become personally accountable. That's part of being a good parent. Read the ratings and use them in your purchasing decisions. Keep up on what your child is into and does with his/her time. BE A FUCKING PARENT, for God's sake!

    If little Timmy played GTA at a friend's house, bitch to their parents about the game and then explain to your child why they shouldn't be playing Mature-rated games. You have the ultimate say-so in what your child does, so use that to RAISE THEM!

    The way I see it, this is a complete and total non-issue. The ratings are there, broken down into the actual reasons why the game got that rating. Use them. End of story.

    --
    "Apparently so, but suppose you throw a coin enough times. Suppose one day, it lands on its edge."
    1. Re:I'm rather tired of all this finger-pointing. by Pxtl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Simple solution: next parent who tries to blame their kid's killing spree on M-rated video games gets hauled in by the FBI for criminal negligence causing death, for putting the material in their kid's hands. It doesn't matter whether or not the kid was actually effected by the game - it's enough that the parent *believed* that the game would turn their child into a serial killer, and let it happen anyways.

  11. So who is buying the games? by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the ESRB has already rated a game as Mature, what is it these rabid parent groups expect everyone else to do? It is up to the parents to ensure their children aren't buying these games. It is up to the parents to ensure their relatives aren't giving these games as gifts. It is up to the parents to ensure their children's friends aren't bringing the games over to play.

    It is not society's responsibility to censor such content just in case some parents are too lazy or inept to keep an eye on their own kids.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  12. Re:Rockstar is staffed by idiots. by darkmayo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I must have missed that GTA San Andreas and Manhunt ads during saturday morning cartoons.

    How exactly do they market to children.

    --
    "I am a kernel in the linux army"
  13. Re:This is the beginning of the end by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why stop there? Why rely on some nanny entity to tell you what to do about a game? I, for one, believe that the parents should take an active interest in the products they are purchasing for their kids and know for themselves the "rating" a game should have. Either that or it needs to be a crime to NOT enforce the ESRB ratings. Otherwise, you have a useless system that only gives vague definitions of what a game contains, if even that.

    --
    I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
  14. Internet Explorer - Secret pr0n patch! by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am apalled at Microsoft for their blatent disregard of our children. Apparently, it is possible to enter in a special code into a search engine, and get Internet Explorer to display lude pictures. This is outrageous!

    I was also informed that other Microsoft products have similar problems. Outlook has a built-in feature for detecting pornographic emails and filing them into a separate folder called "junk." The product even comes with a built-in list of keywords to help the search!

    I think we need the government to step in and regulate this stuff.

    1. Re:Internet Explorer - Secret pr0n patch! by snorklewacker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Apparently, it is possible to enter in a special code into a search engine, and get Internet Explorer to display lude pictures. This is outrageous!

      *gasp* You're right!

      Someone think of the children!

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
  15. Please, Oh powerful Goverment..... by polaris20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Parent my children for me, for I cannot do it myself. Protect my children from my laziness and unwillingness to do the 5 minutes of Google research it takes to find out the contents of a game rated M. While you're at it, let's get rid of R rated movies. I know, it has the R rating on there, but somehow my kids are going to see it. After all, I don't keep track of their whereabouts, nor take an active role in their daily lives. Also, get rid of profane music. Tipper was right; the kids will still get their hands on it, and it'll scar my little babies even more than my completely incompetent parenting skills.

  16. Fault is also governments by dsginter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When the rating system became a requirement for the video game industry, everyone seemed to think that the system used for the motion picture industry would be adequate. However, the video game makers could not accept that because it would have been a major hit to their bottom line. So they put a few dollars into the legislative vending machine and out popped a pretty ambiguous rating system.

    Instead of an "R" rating, we have "M" for mature. Of course, every parent would like to think that their child is mature. This probably increases sales, rather than decrease. Had the motion picture rating system been adopted, GTA would have an NC17 rating.

    Thank your congressmen for half of the problem. I agree that the other half is the fault of the parents.

    --
    More
    1. Re:Fault is also governments by alphaseven · · Score: 3, Interesting
      When the rating system became a requirement for the video game industry, everyone seemed to think that the system used for the motion picture industry would be adequate. However, the video game makers could not accept that because it would have been a major hit to their bottom line.

      It's the MPAA's fault. Terms like "R rated" are trademarked by the MPAA and they won't let anyone else use them, they've even sent cease and desist letters to fan fiction writers not to use those terms.

  17. Its a bit of everyone's fault by Solr_Flare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Really, this issue is getting tiresome. It isn't just parents, it is the ratings system and the developers too.

    Yes, absolutely, it is the parents above all else who should be aware of what their children are playing and have them play things they feel are appropriate for their age.

    But, the game industry is *not* helping them. And why should they as long as they can get away with it since they make that much more money because of it. The problems are:

    - Games are not always properly rated
    - Ratings are confusing(why not use the same system as the movie industry?)
    - Stores don't enforce ratings, ever.
    - Stores don't even advise on ratings hardly ever.
    - There are so many games out there all jumbled together, for older parents who are not gamers themselves, its pretty much impossible to tell one thing from another.

    Games need to be rated better, the ratings displayed much more prominently, and ratings checked with each sale. This isn't something hard to do and the game industry could do it without a problem, no government intervention needed. The problem is they aren't.

    Developers are a problem too. I mean come on, Rockstar was an idiot with this whole sex game thing. They obviously didn't include it in the normal game because they felt it was too much. They should have never left that content in the game. And, if they are bound and determined to make an "adult" game, they need to stop being so half way about it and just make an adult content game.

    The government is going to end up getting involved in this unless the industry gets their act together. It is amazing how much of a free pass the game industry has gotten so far actually compared to music and movies. They have been given ample opportunities to just do what they promised: "Self enforce a ratings system". And while I don't want government intervention any more than anyone else, its going to happen and soon if things don't change.

    --
    You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
    1. Re:Its a bit of everyone's fault by kyndig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And while your at it, go ahead and let the government ensure that reporters must release sources of information for "the good of the public".

      And today, we form the Galactic Empire..

      This is a democratic society, built upon the ideals and beliefs that the government works "for" the people, "by" the people; NOT "sanction" the people. For that, go with an Imperalistic government (move to China)

      Games are not always properly rated
      Video games are also sometimes rated too strictly. Movies are sometimes incorrectly rated, as are books. The end result: The concerned parent will research the content prior to exposing their children. I say again the concerned parent will research the content prior to exposing their children to it.

      - Ratings are confusing(why not use the same system as the movie industry?)
      Because we are rating Video Games, not movies. The ESRB ratings are available for full review in many online stores, websites, and storefront retailers to describe the system.

      - Stores don't enforce ratings, ever.
      Oh you are just so wrong here with this statement. Folks, most stores will not sell a video game unless it is ESRB rated. Those stores that _do_ sell non ESRB rated video games are fly by night storefronts, selling fly by night video games. Every respectable video game company has ESRB ratings as part of their publishing standards.

      - Stores don't even advise on ratings hardly ever.
      Stores also don't tell me to read the Surgeon General's warning on a pack of smokes before I purchase them. They don't tell me to read the side effects of medicine before I purchase it. And they definately don't tell me to review the ingredients of multi-syllable words on my can of processed pairs before eating them. Why then are you recommending that stores, of all things, enforce the reading of a rating system for video games?

      - There are so many games out there all jumbled together, for older parents who are not gamers themselves, its pretty much impossible to tell one thing from another.
      Good thing the gaming companies keep their focus on the young adult audience then. The nerve of them though; to focus on a targetted audience and leave a group out. But then again, perhaps they havn't. Maybe they make software games that have practical purposes as well. Dunno


      --
      My Thoughts, Kyndig
  18. Fix the AO rating. by MBCook · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I think the AO (Adults Only) rating is part of the problem here. Because of what the AO rating is usually used for (basically porn), games all try to squeeze into M (Mature); much like you see movies trying to get an R rating but going as far as they can.

    Why? Because no one sells AO games. Block Buster, Circuit City, Best Buy, Walmart, Target, GameStop, etc don't sell AO games (as far as I know). Just like most theaters don't show NC17 movies.

    So games that should be Adults Only like the GTA games (let your kids play them if you want, but it should be your decision since you'd have to buy it) don't get the rating because they wouldn't sell many places (GTA is large enough that it would probably get an exception, but think about other games like Manhunt or State of Emergency (which I think is MUCH worse than GTA)).

    I think the solution is a new ratings classification. Either P (Pornographic), or X (eXplicit). Sex games go under those. Extremely violent wont-someone-think-of-the-children games would go under AO (which stores could sell without having to sell pornographic games) and then this problem would be closer to being fixed. You must be 18+ to buy an AO game (get legal enforcement behind that like the 17 or older rule for R movies).

    Now, I realize that enforcement for R movies isn't perfect (and often VERY shoddy). And I'm only talking about GTA with the violence and "minimal" sex (before Hot Coffee). With the Hot Coffee content in there, my opinion would be it should go under P or X. Without it, AO. Whether you agree with my views or not, that's my theory; and I think it would at least help.

    On a side note: what is wrong with Rockstar? Surely SOMEONE must have thought it would be a good idea to REMOVE THAT UNUSED CONTENT off the discs? That would have solved all this. The only reason I can think of for it to be left on there is either 1) they were going to use it later or 2) they wanted it to be found. They hung themselves on this one (over-reactions not withstanding).

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    1. Re:Fix the AO rating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "On a side note: what is wrong with Rockstar? Surely SOMEONE must have thought it would be a good idea to REMOVE THAT UNUSED CONTENT off the discs? That would have solved all this."

      Sure, someone thought that; then they took into account how close the desired release date was, and whether or not that code could safely be removed without any impact on other code and the amount of qa effort needed to make sure it was in fact removed without causing new bugs. I doubt there is any conspiracy there or anything, leaving the code in was probably seen by management as the cheapest and easiest way to make the release date.

  19. The Army by potpie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As long as you can be drafted at 18 and shipped off to a foreign country to shoot strangers, I think you can handle a videogame with an M rating.

    --
    Esoteric reference.
  20. Or worse... by dasdrewid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What about the theatre?

    Baca said -- "In a video game, you're actually pursuing and simulating a person. You're under hypnosis. You're a person that is dramatizing, that is living the example of what is going on.

    Once, for theatre class, I had to play a character who "liked little girls. Girlfriend: You mean, little women? Me:No, little girls." I was "dramatizing, living the example" that was layed out in the script for me. I was training how to *be* that guy, who just so happened to have a penchant for very young ladies...

    How is are video games like GTA subjected to such reviews when there are so many plays with such infinitely more disturbing content that people not only like, but consider classics? Which is worse, letting a child play a game where he goes on a game-long mission of killing all the drug dealers that have been destroying his town (the *PLOT* of GTA:SA), or letting a child read/see a play where the main idea behind it his the worthlessness of mankind, the pointlessness of existence, or something like that?

    Think about the horrible things that could happen to the mind of an impressionable child if he reads something post-modern, but doesn't quite get the whole self-liberation part of it. Or hell, if he reads something modern and *does* get it! Just like playing this game, I wouldn't let my child read something like that without *my guidance*.

    A little more realistically, what about Tom Clancy? I remember one of his books, the one where Clark goes and kills a bunch of drug dealers (can't remember the name...), has the same basic idea of GTA:SA. Hookers being beaten, raped, and killed. A vigilante going out and killing drug dealers in horrible, horrible ways (the decompression chamber?). No one said a damn thing about that. I managed to check it out my middle school library (I went to an uptight, north-easter style private school in the heart of Texas, the Gay-Straight Alliance wasn't allowed official club recognition even though half the faculty were members because they were afraid of parental retribution) without anyone saying a thing. That is, until my dad read it when I was through with it and banned me from reading Tom Clancy for a few years (which I completely ignored...).

    How is GTA any worse?

    --
    No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
  21. Re:This is the beginning of the end by MindStalker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would hardly say its useless thats like saying that the PG, PG-13, R etc rating at movies is useless. I do allow my children to watch most PG movies and generally watch it with them unless I exactly know what is in the movie. But an R rated movie I will always preview as simply watching it with them is not enough. Having no rating whatsoever would force me to preview every single thing they watch. A good idea yes, but hardly something anyone has the time for.

  22. It's not a mod... by Otto · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well... Not as such, anyway. The "mod" is re-enabling stuff that was left in the game but just sorta edited out.

    That is, they originally programmed the Hot Coffee stuff in there in the first place, then added code later to cause it to skip that bit. The "mod" just makes it not skip that bit.

    How do we know this? Because there are codes for the PS2 version (using a Game Shark or whatever the equivalent is) to do the same basic thing: re-enable these hidden mini-games.

    This isn't stuff added by the hack, it's stuff re-enabled by the hack.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  23. Re:This is the beginning of the end by FLAGGR · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yes, I TOTALLY agree. We need a ratings board that has a secret team of ninja's, that hunt down and kill anyone buying a game rated higher than their age (or buying it for a minor.) That's the problem with society today: we have to much freedom. What happened to good old soviet communisim? Jeez.

    Honestly, the ESRB does what it's meant to do, and does it well. They warn people of what content is in a game. It's the parent's responsibility, and if they want to succum to their childrens pressure, then maybe someoen should call childrens aid. Not the ESRB's problem.

  24. How An Enlightenment Society Works by stlhawkeye · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Give people information.
    Let them make their own decisions.

    This is the most fundamental principle of liberty.

    The information is a self-explanatory game ratings.

    The decision is whether or not to buy this or allow your child to play it.

    I know, I know. Precious Little Johnny (er.. Taylor or Tyler or Hayden or whatever the hell you people name your kids these days) leaves and goes over to his friend's house and plays GTA on little Mikey's (er... Connor or Tanner) computers, and he's out of your control. Well, it's your job as the parent to go meet Mikey's mother and find out if you can trust her to oversee your child for a few hours.

    My girlfriend's son came home the other day and bragged about how his aunt let him play a game that was rating "M". He wanted to throw it in Mom's face that he got to play one. That landed his ass banned from his Game Boy for about a week and then she didn't know what to do. "How do I get him to make good decisions?" I suggested that the KID be made to go talk to Aunt Ignorant and that HE explains to her that he's not allowed to play rated M games and that he should have told her the game was rating M, but he made a bad choice. The kid did it, Aunt Ignorant was horrified at her transgression, and said that it just never crossed her mind.

    I promise you that if it was a movie, Aunt Ignorant would have thought about it, but video games are "kid's stuff" to that generation, so it's not part of their decision-making to consider that the game could be inappropriate.

    Anyway, the point is that my old lady is responsible for her child and trying to teach him how to make good decisions by turning situations like this into learning opportunities for her son. And that's a hell of a lot better for a kid than having some paternal-minded windbag like Senator Clinton spending our tax money on investigating how in the world a video game that is intended and rated for adults ended up having adult-only content.

    --
    "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
  25. You don't know Walmart by nuggz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They will modify and censor CD's movies and magazines to make sure they fit their "family values".

    You're not likely to intimidate Walmart with threats.

  26. The game offends because it's heretical by karlandtanya · · Score: 2, Funny

    It devalues sex as a commodity and puts the woman's sexuality into her own control. In this context, killing the prostitute is not only acceptable, it's preferable. The prostitute is doing something wrong (taking control of her own sex), and gets punished. It's a morality play.

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
  27. Fascinating by mcc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It never ceases to fascinate me the way that "liberal" is a word whose definition is created and defined by absolutely everyone except whoever the liberals themselves are supposed to be. Ever notice that? Practically no one ever stands up and says "I am a liberal, because I believe this". We just get people going "you are a liberal, because you believe [blah]". The word is starting to be like "commie" or "nazi"; it isn't a political category, it's an insult.

    Also fascinating that Bob Dole and George W. Bush are apparently "modern liberals". Who knew?

    Why not choose some less ambiguous terms to describe Hilary Clinton, like "socially conservative"? Or why not just ditch the idiotic "liberal/conservative" dichonomy altogether, stop playing shell games with words that may or may not mean the same thing to different people, and discuss things in terms that actually describe what is going on? Here, I'll give you an example:

    Hillary Clinton supports media censorship and is not worthy of anyone's support. If anyone looks at this in terms of "she's just lost my vote", then this means they weren't paying attention 10 years ago, because she's always been like this.

  28. Can't Exonerate Game Makers, Marketers by reallocate · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most of the posts here, presumably, will be of the "blame the parents" variety, many, I suspect, from children themselves.

    But, such attempts to exonerate game makers for playing to the purient interests of children. Sure, responsible parents ought to ensure that their kids don't buy or play any game they think is inappropriate. But, frankly, parents cannot accompany their kids on every trip to the mall and they certainly cannot stop their kids from playing any game they choose at a friend's home.

    The people who make and market games have as much responsibiility for the impact of their products as do the people who make and market heroin, tobacco, or assault weapons.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  29. Re:This is the beginning of the end by MrCopilot · · Score: 2, Informative
    It is both outdated and, quite frankly, useless in our society. It must now realize it's obsolescence or fail spectacularly as more and more games get higher ratings and still maintain incredible sales

    Isn't it possible, that there are mature(AGE) adults purchasing video games and maintaining sales? Or must it be every sale is from an irresponsible parent. I want to save the children too. I only have the power to save my own. Don't destroy the tools I use to do so. They are NOT outdated or useless. I use them every time I buy. I also watch G4, read GamePro & PC Gamer and, I know its a crazy idea, PLAY GAMES With them.

    My kids respect my decision on games because I speak from an obviously informed position.

    My wife on the other hand is clueless about gaming, and cannot uderstand why I pay so much attention. Fortunately, its not important to me if she understands why I watch/read/play.

    I prefer to uses the systems that we all know and love: MPAA for movies, ESRB for games, TVRB for the telly. Listen to whatever sounds best to you for music. Screw Tipper.

    --
    OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
  30. Re:Please, Oh Sniveling Whiner.... by polaris20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh and you might want to brush up on your ability to understand sarcasm. It helps here at /.

  31. Everyone look at the shiny thing ... by hotspotbloc · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The US Congress could really care less about this whole GTA:SA / "Hot Coffee" issue. They're using it to distract the American populous from and avoid dealing with the real and critical issues facing them:

    - a huge budget deficit

    - thousands of people without health insurance dying each year from treatable illnesses

    - a war in Iraq and Afghanistan that at this point looks like it has no end, killing thousands of US soldiers (both KIAs and other theater related deaths) and over 100k (by some counts) Iraqis

    - "Plan Columbia" that is pissing off most Columbians, causing everything from birth defects to cancer and destabilizing a good chunk of South America

    - Decent, full-time manufacturing jobs being replaced with poor paying, part-time service jobs (many with no health insurance)

    - the "War on Drugs" which costs over 60 billion USD each year with little to no results.

    - public schools that are crumbling right before their very eyes and the best they can do is "No Child Left Behind", which is a piss poor program that is grossly underfunded.

    Gay marriage yesterday, "Hot coffee" today, Bush's announcement of his SCOTUS replacement (which he'll make tonight) next week. It's all "bread and circus" to the US Congress. Most of them only care about their $158k to $203k USD paycheck and getting all the shit they can steal without getting caught.

    Fuck'em. They're doing it to you.

    --
    "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST