Slashdot Mirror
Hot Coffee Cooling Off
The storm of media and cynicism that was "Hot Coffee" is, thankfully, coming to an end. To wrap things up, reactions were mixed to the re-rating of GTA. Some thought it too much, some too little too late. With the removal of the M rating, ESRB president Patricia Vance considers the matter closed. Even those in the industry itself seem glad that it's over, though the folks quoted for the 1up story seem cynical about the whole thing. "[Rockstar] TOTALLY screwed the modding community, as far as I am concerned. Because they could have just removed the content. They tried to get cute and leave it in. In my experience that sort of thing is always deliberate. Anyway, the point is that most game developers are recalcitrant and immature jerks. When mom tells us we can't do something, we're sure as hell going to do it. If you get my meaning. I think 'mom' in this case was the ESRB." As a sidenote, stock in Take-Two Entertainment dropped by almost five percent at close of market today, on the news that even Gamestop is dumping the now AO-rated GTA title.
And as a keepsake for all of the madness... be sure to pick up your very own Hot Coffee t-shirt from ThinkGeek!
As soon as they're actually in stock, that is.
I wouldn't say America, more like those stuck up Holier-Than-Thou retards at the ratings board.
I can't see how sex is more evil than violence. Think of the utopia they want to have. A world with violence and no sex. Wait... wouldn't that be the fuckin apocalypse?
Live forever, or die trying.
I'm just waiting for the lawsuits. I'm sure that some offended conservative group is trying to find distress Moms who's little babies downloaded the patch to modify the game and were sullied. Poor little Johnny.
How do you know it was consensual?
I think the programmers made them do it!
No, Rockstar didn't deceive anyone. When you went out and bought the game, there was no possible way that you were going to get exposed to this "sex scene" without knowingly going out of your way to enable it. No possible way. Therefore, the sex scene was not part of the "content of the game", and therefore Rockstar did not deceive anyone about the content of the game.
People's reaction to this is "greater than if you had told them the same thing upfront" because they don't understand what it's all about. They hear that there's a sex scene in the game and they pull out their pitchforks and torches. They probably think this is actually a scene you'd come across during normal gameplay, and therefore they do feel deceived.
Hell if I'm going to buy an AO game I better be getting what is promised on the box!
Next weeks headline : "Geek sues Rockstar for false claims of explicit sex in GTA".
Quote from the article "Steve purchased GTA:SA hoping to get a glimpse of naked women engaged in sexual acts, but instead found himself searching Rockstar's website for a 'patch'. Turns out Rockstar didn't live up to their promise of hot sex and coffee - the only way to get to that content is from a program made by some Swedish guy who doesn't even work for the game developer."
My favorite thing to do in GTAIII was sit up in the parking garage (that way the helicopters couldn't get you) and shoot people in the head with the sniper rifle. My roommate enjoyed doing that so much I eyed him suspiciously him when the DC sniper stuff started.
A world with violence and no sex. Wait... wouldn't that be the fuckin apocalypse?
Uhm, no it wouldn't. The fucking apocalypse will have sex. I think you're thinking of the regular apocalypse.
Fact: The developers at Rockstar thought that it might be fun to include a sex mini-game. Fact: This mini-game was built, but ultimately scrapped. Maybe this was because it pushed the game over the line with the ESRB, or maybe it's because the mini-game is not really funny and not very fun. Fact: There is no sex mini-game included in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas as shipped.
I repeat: There is no sex mini-game included in Grant Theft Auto: San Andreas as shipped. I've played the entire game, end to end, and while it does let me beat people down with a giant black dildo if I feel so inclined, the sex mini-game is just not in there.
That is not to say that the code for the sex mini-game is not on the DVD, but it is not in the game. This is an important distinction. If the mini-game is present on the DVD, but there is no way to access it while playing the game as shipped, then that sequence isn't really part of the game, any more than a deleted scene on a DVD is part of the movie.
It is common practice in software projects to strip out features as the release date approaches. Maybe the feature just doesn't work right, or it does work right but isn't really as good as everyone thought it would be, or maybe it introduces bugs, or maybe it pisses off media decency watchdogs. For whatever reason, features are disabled. This is usually done not by deleting the feature from the project entirely, but rather by deleting the calls that activate it. Deleting large chunks of code carries a huge risk in the later stages of software development, because it's easy to make a mistake that will break the build. If someone makes a mistake and deletes the wrong class file when they're taking out un-used code for something like, say, a sex mini-game that management has decided not to include in the final product, they could all too easily cause just such a problem.
Breaking the build is a Very Bad Thing, especially in gigantic projects like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, which cost $50 million to develop and employed hundreds of people. At the end of the software development cycle, new builds of the program are made every night. These are copied and sent out to teams of testers, sometimes hundreds of them, who run through the program and look for bugs. These bugs get fixed, a new build is made that night incorporating those bugfixes, and the cycle continues.
If the build is broken, nobody works. If the testers don't get a new build, then they can't find new bugs, because they're still running into the old ones. If the developers don't get a new build, they can't fix other bugs, because they don't know how their changes will interact with changes they've already made. Everyone winds up sitting idle, getting some sleep, talking to their significant others, and maybe realizing that working 20 hours a day for 7 days a week at substandard wages sucks. Maybe they begin to question their sexless and empty lives, and maybe they start chatting with each other about how a union would fix all this mess before their jobs are shipped off to China, and it's too late to do anything about it.
Morale suffers, the whole project slips, deadlines are missed, analysts revise your publisher's stock downwards, and you suddenly need a new job.
So instead of making a major change like deleting the entire mini-game, it's much safer to make a small change, like deleting the parts of code that start the mini-game. If there is no way to invoke certain parts of a program, then those parts may as well not exist. This is so common in software projects, both for business and entertainment programs, that the current controversy surrounding Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas seems from the perspective of the software world like a tempest in a teapot. Grand Theft Auto III had code for a half-completed fourth island on the DVD. Knights of the Old Republic II, which is notorious for its terrible and seemingly unfinished ending, had the voice acting and artwork for
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.