Nah, it's just that children the world over have rediscovered the pleasures of the great outdoors, of playing in the street and exploring the neighbourhood. They'd rather play in the real world than a virtual one. oh... wait...
I doubt grandma watched the 14 year old play GTA. If she did.. she ruins her own case because she could've pulled the plug as soon as she found it offensive.
For a 14 year old? hah, it shouldn't have made it past the intro in that case;) Hell some of the game *I* was thinking "wow, that's f'd up." and I'm more than 'old enough' to play!
People need to.. I dunno, take responsibility for their own actions, or read ratings labels, or parent their children or something.. but that's probably asking waaaaay too much these days.
It's not Rockstar's fault that you're a bad parent, that GTA "taught your kid how to kill cops" or whatever that other story/lawsuit was, it's not rockstar's fault that you can't comprehend what a 'mature' rating means, or what the laundrylist of reasons for said rating on the back of the box, and it's not rockstar's fault that someone hacked the game and found a way to 'unlock' or 'add' a 'hidden' sex game. Rockstar put out a game, with a fair rating, and a ton of warnings about why it was rated the way it was, the game starts out with plenty of swearing and violence, and if you can't tell within the first 10 minutes of watching this game, after reading the box and the warnings that this game is not suitable for your child, then you have no room to go after Rockstar once you find out that 'everybody's doing it'.
From what I've heard, the "Hot Coffee" scene show no nudity. It does show a brief scene of "humping" but clothes are on.
This reminds me of something I forgot to mention when I posted earlier.. So they're REMOVING this content which caused the community to demand an AO rating, THEN they're giving it an AO rating, and in the description on the back, they've added 'NUDITY' to their list of reasons for the rating... Well, I hope this means that they're not really removing the content, but actually ENABLING it.
What's unfortunate is Rockstar is REMOVING THE CONTENT, -and- changing the rating to AO... where's the sense in this? If it's being told they need an AO rating because ofo this content, I say they unlock that shit and rerelease the game as AO. If they're removing said content, they should be left with their M rating, in either case it's absolutely ridiculous. Especially in this case, say if she bought her 17y/o a copy of the game then realized it had sexual content then maybe there'd be room for her to argue, because as you stated, that one year makes a difference in legal terms, but he was 14!! and it SAYS all of the reasons why it's rated as such ON THE BOX, that's what I don't get... "Strong Sexual Content"...wait there's sex in this game!? They show people having sex!? Why didnt' they say so!? I'm offended!
Yeah. I can buy Roger Water's "In The Flesh" concert DVD for 9 bucks at deepdiscountdvd (excellent DVD, BTW), and it's 20 bucks for the CD of the same performance. And the DVD has 5.1 sound.
That's what I'm talkin' about, it's all about the value. I just picked up "Lightning In A Bottle" and it's the same story, great Blues DVD (basically any blues legend who's still alive was in this concert) and the DVD is 30 (15 on amazon) and the CD is 15.. which would you pick if they're both 15 bucks and one is the exact same thing, only you can watch it and hear it in 5.1? That's a no brainer.. part of the reason why I think CDs are overpriced.
Oh I absolutely agree with you, and you won't be hearing me pulling out the 'low allowance' argument, I found ways to buy music with mine, they can make due with theirs. I also agree with the argument of "Buy from the artists you enjoy" which I've been doing all along, why would you get anything else? The $20 CD price is available at most Virgin Megastores and Sam Goody stores in southern California, it's ridiculous, and I'm shocked that these places are still in business. I myself stick to the cheaper stores who push somewhat reasonable prices. I agree with your $11-$15 mark, if they were all this price I wouldn't complain, but I still think $15 may be slightly high, but not by much. Then again, I guess that just means I value my music at under $15, whereas others value it to a point where they would be willing to pay $20 for a CD of a band that they like. I don't think we'll ever have a community viewing this the same way. Everyone applauded Universal for dropping their CD prices to $10, but as soon as they're all $10, people will be saying they should only be $5... some people will be impossible to please on this front..
When did the music itself stop being something of value?
Very good point, and I'm not sure when that happened, and I'm sure everybody will have a different answer for this. For some people "once spears/aguilerra became popular" or for some "when rap CDs became half skits and half garbage with 2 songs worth listening thrown in" however, some of these CDs will still be 'of value' to some people, that's why they sell. However I personally think -all- CDs are overvalued these days, the price tag just does not justify what you get.. But then again, like I already mentioned, everybody's opinion will vary on this one, everyone's got different taste. Personally I think $10 would be the 'sweet spot' for CD pricing for me, I'll still pay $15 for a CD from a band that I like, I think they're worth that much. But when you go to a place like Virgin where CDs are 20 bucks a pop, now that's just getting out of hand.
Yeah, losers like you choose #2. Others would just look around, organize, hell learn to play music yourself.
Nowhere did I say that _I_ choose #2, nor did I even imply it, I'm more than happy with ITMS. Hell, I've got 2 free songs from 'buymusic.com' in front of me from Del Taco, and 7-11 is giving away free ITMS downloads, you don't really need to even pay for the songs you DO download with all of the free giveaways these days. In any case, no, I don't 'choose #2', it's faster and easier to find a clean clear legit copy of a song I would be able to download if I just fire up ITMS, hit search and download it that way.
Then what do you do when 2 of those 3 things (1,3) are not true, and there are no alternatives to move to? Well, most people will go with option 2, even if it is considered theft, because it's easy, and they'll more than likely not get caught. Because the only other alternative is to live without, and we all know that just won't fly in society today;)
20$ is not good for CD, nor is 20$ for 200 mins or air time or 0.10$ per SMS or 49.95$ per month for net or 92.5 cents/litre for fuel or 2.60$ per litre of pop or...
What's your point?
I think the point could probably be summed up with the fact that DVDs are only 15 bucks for new releases at BestBuy or (your local cheap dvd shop) or 20 bucks for the 'expensive' titles, and even 9.99 for 'older and still popular (or very very unpopular)' titles. Hell, some are even 5 bucks for movies you'd actually watch.
These DVDs have a ton more content than these $16/$20 CDs. CDs should be (IMO) $9.99 for the average disc, maybe $20 for the 'super duper double disc box thingy'.. These discs offer you nothing for your money, 10 songs, 15 songs, 10 songs with 5 'skits', it's silly to pay so much for these things, add some value or drop the price. And to show that I'm not just a 'all this shit costs too much' kinda guy, I would gladly pay the $100 they were asking for Johnny Cash Unearthed because of the book it comes with, it's about value, getting what you pay for.. frankly, none of these CDs are worth $16. That's the point, and that's why people still download them. $9.99 for a full CD on ITMS, VERY good start, they need to follow suit in the stores.
I don't want people on my morning commute watching videos, especially on close-packed public transport. Who knows what they're watching?
Well there's always going to be someone who thinks the opposite, so I'm not going to say I'm right and you're wrong (or vice versa) but I see your point as well. However if I were one of the people watching something I'd be the type to kinda shield it because I don't want anybody watching over my shoulder, because that's equally annoying to me. So I guess it's got its ups and downs, but still a useful feature so long as you're not being an ass about it y'know?
And while everybody's talking about the whole 'screens too small!' angle, the iPod is made for a portable music device, for use on walks, at the gym, on the bus or the train... the reason I say this is the last 2 I think would be a great target for this. If I have a long morning/afternoon bus or train commute then being able to watch a couple videos on my iPod would be a nice option as well as listening to music... So I think it's a positive thing, so it's a small screen, if you're commuting either fire up your laptop and watch there, or be content to sit there and relax and look at your little portable screen and be happy. I'd like that.
See, the thing is: the rating is supposed to represent what a person would experience playing the game. The sex scenes are NOT what a person would experience playing the game, unless you use the hot coffee mod to do it on purpose, after finding out about it.
You're partially right, -these- sex scenes are not what a person would experience playing the game, but there are a couple..'sexUAL" scenes, and foro that they hav in the Mature label "Strong Sexual Content"... whether it needs to be unlocked or not, you're warned that there is "Strong Sexual Content" in the game. So uhhh, all complaints about 'sex' in GTA, should be completely ignored, If you (or your child) bought the game, you were warned DIRECTLY ON THE BOX, that there was "Strong Sexual Content" so uhh... As they said earlier in this thread "What's the big deal?"
The "big deal" is that San Andreas was given a M- Mature rating for all the "mature" content in the game, but it managed to just squeak by with that. Now that there's this in the game, the game has pushed well beyond into an AO - Adults Only game, and I don't believe there's been an AO game to date since the ESRB formed.
It's also a "big deal" because Rockstar lied about the content being in the game at all, so this it's possible this could lead to criminal charges brought forth against the company and it's execs.
The "big deal" about the M-Mature rating for all the "mature" content was listed -right on the box-, and I never really saw the "Strong Sexual Content" in the game that they warn you about until this hack. I think it was appropriately rated at M.
I think this has been blown entirely out of proportion and all of the people bitching about it non stop need to shut the fuck up, to put it bluntly.
Look, the game PREVIEWS on tv have people doing drive bys with gang colors on, firing rockets at people, gunning people down, sex in this game is a side-game in every instance aside from the chick who works at the casino, and even then you don't need to get to a 'sexual' point with her. You can blow people up, most of the early missions consist of gang related driveby shootings, you can nail hookers and do missions for pimps and there's enough swearing in this game you'd think it were a Joe Pesci movie....and this is what gets a rise out of people? Jesus this is f'ing ridiculous, there's so much sex and violence and language in this game if you're 'shocked' by the recent stories alone, then you obviously have no experience with the game (or the previous games) anyway. If your kids are playing this game and you're offended by this, maybe you should have been paying more attention and realized that this was not an appropriate game to begin with after hearing the INTRO before the game even STARTS.
PS:
"Mature 17+ Blood and Gore Intense Violence Strong Language Strong Sexual Content Use of Drugs"...So, where was Rockstar Neglegent again?
I never thought about this before, but, now that you mention it I've realized something:
Back when I was using a PC I got win98, then upgraded to win2k, then that's it, there was never any reason to upgrade. Since moving to Apple ('99) I've upgraded straight through to 10.4, that's 4 versions that i've bought in the past 5 years, because Apple makes you -WANT- to upgrade.. Microsoft really doesn't give you a reason. Win2k was a great advancement over 98, XP was a 'new' and 'polished' version of 2k, and LH.. I don't see any convincing reasons as to upgrading to that one at any point in the near future..
What MS needs to do is give people things to look forward to. "Our new OS with the revolutionary Expose'!" or Dashboard, or OS X itself (from the os9 move).. What is LH going to bring to the table? So far we've heard "now with all new restrictive DRM! In combination with Intel's DRM! and now new and innovative VIDEO DRM!!!"..they need some positive things to throw in there somewhere to entice people to buy. Then again, it's so far from being ready now that I can't really say they won't have their marketing dept pushing out the Pros for the OS once it's closer to release. But as of now?
Now that you mention it... In this game, the 'official release' of this game, you already run missions for pimps by beating up non-paying johns and such, plus you can get health back by picking up hookers (which is followed by no 'graphics' but the rocking car and plenty of moaning and such... Is this 'fully clothed sex game' really THAT much more offensive?
Yeah, but the sex game was never meant to be found by anyone, so why should they release that info? PLUS, the whole point of the ratings is that people won't be surprised by content they weren't expecting.
Somebody else had already brought this up in another post, but I think it is -very- important, have you seen the ratings box on the game box?
Mature 17+ Blood and Gore Intense Violence Strong Language Strong Sexual Content Use of Drugs
If this minigame was on the disc, whether it's easily accessible or not, Rockstar should have made the ESRB aware of it. If developers are allowed to leave things like this out of what they show the ESRB, then the whole rating system simply breaks down.
But the thing is, we don't even know their reasons for leaving it on the disc, it's not part of the game, it was probably some part that they scrapped in order to not 'go too far' so they just decided "let's not use this" and put a patch over it. Who's to say they ever expected anyone to find it, it's not officially part of the game, and it took a lot of time on somebody's part to uncover the fact that it was actually there, why should they be expected to tell the ESRB "Hey there's this part of the game on that disc that may never see the light of day, and is not accessable by any normal means, but..." I mean, have you seen what it takes to enable that on the PS2 version!? (the primary platform for this game..?) You actually have to copy your save game off of your memory card and onto your computer, hack some files, copy it back to the memory card and then load it up, this is not every day practice by any means and should really be considered a non-issue by any standards.
But if the all the violence is only CGI, and isn't real, where's the real harm?
Because it allows children to (virtually) DO it, as opposed to just seeing it done... Not much of a difference because either way you slice it it's still simulated/virtual, but there is a line there.. I'm not a parent, but I don't look forward to having to find out where to draw that line, guarenteed my (young) kids won't be playing GTA or watching Scarface, though.
Darn tooting right, it's a double standard. "Ao" means "Sex Game", e.g. Leisure Suit Larry or those wacky Japanese "dating sims". No amount of violence will put a game there... but a single tit (or any other form of nudity) will force the game there.
And As seen here even LSL:MCL was rated M and not AO.
Those are very different actions. Turning something off is one thing - removing it entirely is another.
I completely agree here..
I don't care about this issue at all but if ratings are to be taken literally then Rockstar should have completely removed the content (not disabled it) if they didn't want an AO rating.
Why? It took some smart hacker people to figure out that the content even existed and then they had to find a way to reenable it, then they had to make those changes and bring it to the forefront, maybe Rockstar had reasons that it couldn't be deleted entirely so they just hid it? Maybe they had other reasons to leave it in? The point is they (responsibly?) removed the content from the purchased game, so without modification (which is what ESRB -should- base things on) this game rated a solid M, and was nowhere near worthy of an AO rating.
Games with such sexual content are supposed to get an AO rating as far as I remember, not a mere M.
I touched on this in a post of mine just a second ago.. Until I just looked it up I thought M -was- the highest rating, but even though it's not, this game doen't HAVE 'such sexual content' unless someone goes through a whole lot of trouble (initially, installing the 'patch files' will be a lot easier) to unlock such behavior in the game.. Either way, nobody should be bashing the ESRB -or- rockstar here, the content was locked but not deleted, the fact that someone found out that this content exists and managed to unlock it.. sure, i'm sure we all know that if there's something like this left in the game it will be found and set free (Halo NMP anyone?) somehow, which this will probably work for Rockstar (there's no such thing as bad publicity right?) but I doubt it was their INTENTION.. I still think that this game doesn't deserve an AO rating as it can't be rated on content that needs to be unlocked by hacking save game files in order to even make it exist. If anything the VIOLENCE should bring the rating up, but I doubt even that begs it to be an AO title.
Actually this is getting to be re-godamned-diculous. A couple points here:
1) the ESRB gave this game the highest age rating possible aside from "Adults only" which I think should be reserved only for X rated type stuff anyway, which GTA (although some may disagree) falls short from this. If anything it would qualify for an NC-17 in film ratings standards, so M for Mature is more than acceptable.
1a) This guy is an ASS for blasting the ESRB for this, as they gave it a rating that dictates it shouldn't be sold to anyone under 17 anyway (essentially, NC17) what's he expect them to do? Now if they gave it an E for Everyone or something, then yeah, he may have a point.
2) "or their apparent slip-up in examining all the content in the game." now I read about this 'hack' for the ps2 version of GTA:SA and if I remember correctly in order to do it you had to copy a savegame from your memory card to your computer, edit some content on it, copy it back over to the memory card, and you're good to go. My guess is the PC version required a lot of the same hacking, it's just easier to 'enable' it due to the release of install packages for it that just modify your savegames on your HDD. Either way, Does this asshat REALLY expect the ESRB to go through this trouble to find easter eggs (for lack of a better term) like this and rate THEM as well? People had to go through A LOT of trouble in order to get their games to have these scenes in it, you can hardly hold the ratings board accountable for people doing things like this. This guy is absolutely ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, it's just that children the world over have rediscovered the pleasures of the great outdoors, of playing in the street and exploring the neighbourhood. They'd rather play in the real world than a virtual one. oh... wait...
DAMN Nickelodeon and VERBNow.com!
I doubt grandma watched the 14 year old play GTA. If she did.. she ruins her own case because she could've pulled the plug as soon as she found it offensive.
;) Hell some of the game *I* was thinking "wow, that's f'd up." and I'm more than 'old enough' to play!
.. I dunno, take responsibility for their own actions, or read ratings labels, or parent their children or something.. but that's probably asking waaaaay too much these days.
For a 14 year old? hah, it shouldn't have made it past the intro in that case
People need to
It's not Rockstar's fault that you're a bad parent, that GTA "taught your kid how to kill cops" or whatever that other story/lawsuit was, it's not rockstar's fault that you can't comprehend what a 'mature' rating means, or what the laundrylist of reasons for said rating on the back of the box, and it's not rockstar's fault that someone hacked the game and found a way to 'unlock' or 'add' a 'hidden' sex game. Rockstar put out a game, with a fair rating, and a ton of warnings about why it was rated the way it was, the game starts out with plenty of swearing and violence, and if you can't tell within the first 10 minutes of watching this game, after reading the box and the warnings that this game is not suitable for your child, then you have no room to go after Rockstar once you find out that 'everybody's doing it'.
From what I've heard, the "Hot Coffee" scene show no nudity. It does show a brief scene of "humping" but clothes are on.
This reminds me of something I forgot to mention when I posted earlier.. So they're REMOVING this content which caused the community to demand an AO rating, THEN they're giving it an AO rating, and in the description on the back, they've added 'NUDITY' to their list of reasons for the rating... Well, I hope this means that they're not really removing the content, but actually ENABLING it.
Unfortunately, in a court of law it does.
...wait there's sex in this game!? They show people having sex!? Why didnt' they say so!? I'm offended!
What's unfortunate is Rockstar is REMOVING THE CONTENT, -and- changing the rating to AO... where's the sense in this? If it's being told they need an AO rating because ofo this content, I say they unlock that shit and rerelease the game as AO. If they're removing said content, they should be left with their M rating, in either case it's absolutely ridiculous. Especially in this case, say if she bought her 17y/o a copy of the game then realized it had sexual content then maybe there'd be room for her to argue, because as you stated, that one year makes a difference in legal terms, but he was 14!! and it SAYS all of the reasons why it's rated as such ON THE BOX, that's what I don't get... "Strong Sexual Content"
Yeah. I can buy Roger Water's "In The Flesh" concert DVD for 9 bucks at deepdiscountdvd (excellent DVD, BTW), and it's 20 bucks for the CD of the same performance. And the DVD has 5.1 sound.
That's what I'm talkin' about, it's all about the value. I just picked up "Lightning In A Bottle" and it's the same story, great Blues DVD (basically any blues legend who's still alive was in this concert) and the DVD is 30 (15 on amazon) and the CD is 15.. which would you pick if they're both 15 bucks and one is the exact same thing, only you can watch it and hear it in 5.1? That's a no brainer.. part of the reason why I think CDs are overpriced.
Oh I absolutely agree with you, and you won't be hearing me pulling out the 'low allowance' argument, I found ways to buy music with mine, they can make due with theirs. I also agree with the argument of "Buy from the artists you enjoy" which I've been doing all along, why would you get anything else? The $20 CD price is available at most Virgin Megastores and Sam Goody stores in southern California, it's ridiculous, and I'm shocked that these places are still in business. I myself stick to the cheaper stores who push somewhat reasonable prices. I agree with your $11-$15 mark, if they were all this price I wouldn't complain, but I still think $15 may be slightly high, but not by much. Then again, I guess that just means I value my music at under $15, whereas others value it to a point where they would be willing to pay $20 for a CD of a band that they like. I don't think we'll ever have a community viewing this the same way. Everyone applauded Universal for dropping their CD prices to $10, but as soon as they're all $10, people will be saying they should only be $5... some people will be impossible to please on this front..
When did the music itself stop being something of value?
Very good point, and I'm not sure when that happened, and I'm sure everybody will have a different answer for this. For some people "once spears/aguilerra became popular" or for some "when rap CDs became half skits and half garbage with 2 songs worth listening thrown in" however, some of these CDs will still be 'of value' to some people, that's why they sell. However I personally think -all- CDs are overvalued these days, the price tag just does not justify what you get.. But then again, like I already mentioned, everybody's opinion will vary on this one, everyone's got different taste. Personally I think $10 would be the 'sweet spot' for CD pricing for me, I'll still pay $15 for a CD from a band that I like, I think they're worth that much. But when you go to a place like Virgin where CDs are 20 bucks a pop, now that's just getting out of hand.
Yeah, losers like you choose #2. Others would just look around, organize, hell learn to play music yourself.
Nowhere did I say that _I_ choose #2, nor did I even imply it, I'm more than happy with ITMS. Hell, I've got 2 free songs from 'buymusic.com' in front of me from Del Taco, and 7-11 is giving away free ITMS downloads, you don't really need to even pay for the songs you DO download with all of the free giveaways these days. In any case, no, I don't 'choose #2', it's faster and easier to find a clean clear legit copy of a song I would be able to download if I just fire up ITMS, hit search and download it that way.
Again none of my arguments are based on the following assumptions
;)
1. They're worth it
2. Piracy == theft
3. RIAA == fair
Then what do you do when 2 of those 3 things (1,3) are not true, and there are no alternatives to move to? Well, most people will go with option 2, even if it is considered theft, because it's easy, and they'll more than likely not get caught. Because the only other alternative is to live without, and we all know that just won't fly in society today
20$ is not good for CD, nor is 20$ for 200 mins or air time or 0.10$ per SMS or 49.95$ per month for net or 92.5 cents/litre for fuel or 2.60$ per litre of pop or ...
What's your point?
I think the point could probably be summed up with the fact that DVDs are only 15 bucks for new releases at BestBuy or (your local cheap dvd shop) or 20 bucks for the 'expensive' titles, and even 9.99 for 'older and still popular (or very very unpopular)' titles. Hell, some are even 5 bucks for movies you'd actually watch.
These DVDs have a ton more content than these $16/$20 CDs. CDs should be (IMO) $9.99 for the average disc, maybe $20 for the 'super duper double disc box thingy'.. These discs offer you nothing for your money, 10 songs, 15 songs, 10 songs with 5 'skits', it's silly to pay so much for these things, add some value or drop the price. And to show that I'm not just a 'all this shit costs too much' kinda guy, I would gladly pay the $100 they were asking for Johnny Cash Unearthed because of the book it comes with, it's about value, getting what you pay for.. frankly, none of these CDs are worth $16. That's the point, and that's why people still download them. $9.99 for a full CD on ITMS, VERY good start, they need to follow suit in the stores.
I don't want people on my morning commute watching videos, especially on close-packed public transport. Who knows what they're watching?
Well there's always going to be someone who thinks the opposite, so I'm not going to say I'm right and you're wrong (or vice versa) but I see your point as well. However if I were one of the people watching something I'd be the type to kinda shield it because I don't want anybody watching over my shoulder, because that's equally annoying to me. So I guess it's got its ups and downs, but still a useful feature so long as you're not being an ass about it y'know?
And while everybody's talking about the whole 'screens too small!' angle, the iPod is made for a portable music device, for use on walks, at the gym, on the bus or the train... the reason I say this is the last 2 I think would be a great target for this. If I have a long morning/afternoon bus or train commute then being able to watch a couple videos on my iPod would be a nice option as well as listening to music... So I think it's a positive thing, so it's a small screen, if you're commuting either fire up your laptop and watch there, or be content to sit there and relax and look at your little portable screen and be happy. I'd like that.
See, the thing is: the rating is supposed to represent what a person would experience playing the game. The sex scenes are NOT what a person would experience playing the game, unless you use the hot coffee mod to do it on purpose, after finding out about it.
..'sexUAL" scenes, and foro that they hav in the Mature label "Strong Sexual Content" ... whether it needs to be unlocked or not, you're warned that there is "Strong Sexual Content" in the game. So uhhh, all complaints about 'sex' in GTA, should be completely ignored, If you (or your child) bought the game, you were warned DIRECTLY ON THE BOX, that there was "Strong Sexual Content" so uhh... As they said earlier in this thread "What's the big deal?"
You're partially right, -these- sex scenes are not what a person would experience playing the game, but there are a couple
(This wasn't bashing you, I agree wth you.)
The "big deal" is that San Andreas was given a M- Mature rating for all the "mature" content in the game, but it managed to just squeak by with that. Now that there's this in the game, the game has pushed well beyond into an AO - Adults Only game, and I don't believe there's been an AO game to date since the ESRB formed.
...and this is what gets a rise out of people? Jesus this is f'ing ridiculous, there's so much sex and violence and language in this game if you're 'shocked' by the recent stories alone, then you obviously have no experience with the game (or the previous games) anyway. If your kids are playing this game and you're offended by this, maybe you should have been paying more attention and realized that this was not an appropriate game to begin with after hearing the INTRO before the game even STARTS.
...So, where was Rockstar Neglegent again?
It's also a "big deal" because Rockstar lied about the content being in the game at all, so this it's possible this could lead to criminal charges brought forth against the company and it's execs.
The "big deal" about the M-Mature rating for all the "mature" content was listed -right on the box-, and I never really saw the "Strong Sexual Content" in the game that they warn you about until this hack. I think it was appropriately rated at M.
I think this has been blown entirely out of proportion and all of the people bitching about it non stop need to shut the fuck up, to put it bluntly.
Look, the game PREVIEWS on tv have people doing drive bys with gang colors on, firing rockets at people, gunning people down, sex in this game is a side-game in every instance aside from the chick who works at the casino, and even then you don't need to get to a 'sexual' point with her. You can blow people up, most of the early missions consist of gang related driveby shootings, you can nail hookers and do missions for pimps and there's enough swearing in this game you'd think it were a Joe Pesci movie.
PS:
"Mature 17+
Blood and Gore
Intense Violence
Strong Language
Strong Sexual Content
Use of Drugs"
And creating a cycle which gets people to upgrade
.. I don't see any convincing reasons as to upgrading to that one at any point in the near future..
..they need some positive things to throw in there somewhere to entice people to buy. Then again, it's so far from being ready now that I can't really say they won't have their marketing dept pushing out the Pros for the OS once it's closer to release. But as of now?
I never thought about this before, but, now that you mention it I've realized something:
Back when I was using a PC I got win98, then upgraded to win2k, then that's it, there was never any reason to upgrade. Since moving to Apple ('99) I've upgraded straight through to 10.4, that's 4 versions that i've bought in the past 5 years, because Apple makes you -WANT- to upgrade.. Microsoft really doesn't give you a reason. Win2k was a great advancement over 98, XP was a 'new' and 'polished' version of 2k, and LH
What MS needs to do is give people things to look forward to. "Our new OS with the revolutionary Expose'!" or Dashboard, or OS X itself (from the os9 move).. What is LH going to bring to the table? So far we've heard "now with all new restrictive DRM! In combination with Intel's DRM! and now new and innovative VIDEO DRM!!!"
Now that you mention it... In this game, the 'official release' of this game, you already run missions for pimps by beating up non-paying johns and such, plus you can get health back by picking up hookers (which is followed by no 'graphics' but the rocking car and plenty of moaning and such... Is this 'fully clothed sex game' really THAT much more offensive?
So, parents who buy their kids GTA should be arrested?
Psst! Don't give them any ideas!!
Yeah, but the sex game was never meant to be found by anyone, so why should they release that info? PLUS, the whole point of the ratings is that people won't be surprised by content they weren't expecting.
Somebody else had already brought this up in another post, but I think it is -very- important, have you seen the ratings box on the game box?
Mature 17+
Blood and Gore
Intense Violence
Strong Language
Strong Sexual Content
Use of Drugs
Looks like they covered it pretty well to me.
Hahahah, that'd be devistating for sales having nothing but AO titles available, even Super Mario Bros would be AO if you go by that criteria!
If this minigame was on the disc, whether it's easily accessible or not, Rockstar should have made the ESRB aware of it. If developers are allowed to leave things like this out of what they show the ESRB, then the whole rating system simply breaks down.
..." I mean, have you seen what it takes to enable that on the PS2 version!? (the primary platform for this game..?) You actually have to copy your save game off of your memory card and onto your computer, hack some files, copy it back to the memory card and then load it up, this is not every day practice by any means and should really be considered a non-issue by any standards.
But the thing is, we don't even know their reasons for leaving it on the disc, it's not part of the game, it was probably some part that they scrapped in order to not 'go too far' so they just decided "let's not use this" and put a patch over it. Who's to say they ever expected anyone to find it, it's not officially part of the game, and it took a lot of time on somebody's part to uncover the fact that it was actually there, why should they be expected to tell the ESRB "Hey there's this part of the game on that disc that may never see the light of day, and is not accessable by any normal means, but
But if the all the violence is only CGI, and isn't real, where's the real harm?
Because it allows children to (virtually) DO it, as opposed to just seeing it done... Not much of a difference because either way you slice it it's still simulated/virtual, but there is a line there.. I'm not a parent, but I don't look forward to having to find out where to draw that line, guarenteed my (young) kids won't be playing GTA or watching Scarface, though.
Darn tooting right, it's a double standard. "Ao" means "Sex Game", e.g. Leisure Suit Larry or those wacky Japanese "dating sims". No amount of violence will put a game there... but a single tit (or any other form of nudity) will force the game there.
And As seen here even LSL:MCL was rated M and not AO.
Those are very different actions. Turning something off is one thing - removing it entirely is another.
I completely agree here..
I don't care about this issue at all but if ratings are to be taken literally then Rockstar should have completely removed the content (not disabled it) if they didn't want an AO rating.
Why? It took some smart hacker people to figure out that the content even existed and then they had to find a way to reenable it, then they had to make those changes and bring it to the forefront, maybe Rockstar had reasons that it couldn't be deleted entirely so they just hid it? Maybe they had other reasons to leave it in? The point is they (responsibly?) removed the content from the purchased game, so without modification (which is what ESRB -should- base things on) this game rated a solid M, and was nowhere near worthy of an AO rating.
Games with such sexual content are supposed to get an AO rating as far as I remember, not a mere M.
I touched on this in a post of mine just a second ago.. Until I just looked it up I thought M -was- the highest rating, but even though it's not, this game doen't HAVE 'such sexual content' unless someone goes through a whole lot of trouble (initially, installing the 'patch files' will be a lot easier) to unlock such behavior in the game.. Either way, nobody should be bashing the ESRB -or- rockstar here, the content was locked but not deleted, the fact that someone found out that this content exists and managed to unlock it.. sure, i'm sure we all know that if there's something like this left in the game it will be found and set free (Halo NMP anyone?) somehow, which this will probably work for Rockstar (there's no such thing as bad publicity right?) but I doubt it was their INTENTION.. I still think that this game doesn't deserve an AO rating as it can't be rated on content that needs to be unlocked by hacking save game files in order to even make it exist. If anything the VIOLENCE should bring the rating up, but I doubt even that begs it to be an AO title.
Actually this is getting to be re-godamned-diculous. A couple points here:
1) the ESRB gave this game the highest age rating possible aside from "Adults only" which I think should be reserved only for X rated type stuff anyway, which GTA (although some may disagree) falls short from this. If anything it would qualify for an NC-17 in film ratings standards, so M for Mature is more than acceptable.
1a) This guy is an ASS for blasting the ESRB for this, as they gave it a rating that dictates it shouldn't be sold to anyone under 17 anyway (essentially, NC17) what's he expect them to do? Now if they gave it an E for Everyone or something, then yeah, he may have a point.
2) "or their apparent slip-up in examining all the content in the game." now I read about this 'hack' for the ps2 version of GTA:SA and if I remember correctly in order to do it you had to copy a savegame from your memory card to your computer, edit some content on it, copy it back over to the memory card, and you're good to go. My guess is the PC version required a lot of the same hacking, it's just easier to 'enable' it due to the release of install packages for it that just modify your savegames on your HDD. Either way, Does this asshat REALLY expect the ESRB to go through this trouble to find easter eggs (for lack of a better term) like this and rate THEM as well? People had to go through A LOT of trouble in order to get their games to have these scenes in it, you can hardly hold the ratings board accountable for people doing things like this. This guy is absolutely ridiculous.
-matt