"That's not true. The movie theater makes it a condition of serving you that you won't bring food in. If the manager's around, they won't let you in with food or they will make you throw it away."
They have that rule because they want you to buy the food & drink they're selling. They do not want you "cheating" them out of potential profits by bringing your own.
"Television is shown to you (hence the word "broadcast") regardless of whether any individual tapes it, goes to the bathroom, etc."
Apparently, you missed the news stories concerning the networks and/or advertisers wanting things like TiVo and DVR "outlawed" because they believe the viewers are "stealing" their programming when they skip commercials.
"Nobody but you is calling it "theft" to take food into a theater, but you are entering private property under false pretenses. I believe it could be considered trespassing."
This doesn't even -begin- to make sense. It's nice to think that you know what everyone else thinks, but you obviously don't. The theater considers it "theft" simply because you're "cheating them out of" the profit they would have otherwise made from you buying their refreshments.
It may be privately-owned property, but as long as it's business hours, the theater is open to the public, and they cannot possibly be accused of "trespassing" when they're freely invited to come in, as long as they've bought their ticket(s).
Trying to sneak in without would paying be "entering under false pretenses."
Or, even better, let's make this the era of perpetual whiney, overreactive hyperbole and narrow fields of perception!
Really, dude.. get a grip. There are plenty of "new and unique" games out there, and waiting in the wings.
Yes, there is a lot of re-re-rehashed stuff, and it really needs to stop. Too bad it won't, as long as "creativity" is dictated by the quest for cash.
The newer iterations of old franchises are not (usually) "the same old formula" and "the same old story".
Every Final Fantasy game has been different from the previous ones, and only one (that I know of) has actually been a direct sequel to one before it.
Super Mario has always changed and evolved from game to game, adding new and different powers, goals, stories.. Heck, Mario Sunshine was a hell of a leap from Mario 64!
I've only played Splinter Cell 1, so I can't speak to that, but I do know the three of them are by no means "the same game."
The Unreal Tournament/Championship games... what do you expect from an FPS geared specifically toward deathmatching? Shakespearean plots?
Unreal 2 was most definitely not a straight rehash of Unreal.
In short, the fact that they use the same old popular characters in new adventures does not make the games any less "new and unique."
Which, of course, makes breaking the rules "right," right?;)
Now, before I get flamed for being a 'stick-in-the-mud' (or worse)... I really don't care if you want to take your own stuff in. The only reason the theaters have that rule is to prevent patrons from "stealing" potential profits from them. (which is just as valid an argument as saying TV viewers are "stealing" the shows because they don't sit and watch the commercials with rapt attention.;) )
"Sure, I can explain to her that it's fantasy, and that it's a movie, and that Juliette Lewis didn't *really* just kill the man that was giving her oral sex, but why would I want to put either of us into a situation where I had to? I wouldn't, it's called "parenting"."
No, it's called, "I'd prefer not to have to deal with something that I personally find very embarrassing.":P
"As long as you tell a child what the controls on a car do, there's no reason not to let them drive". It's overly-simplistic, and it ignores the reality that is child-rearing."
It also ignores the fact that you also have to teach them -how- to use those controls, not just tell them what they do and let them have at it.
"Kids always try to stretch the limits of what they're allowed to see and do. Parents always try to reign the kids in and keep them from doing things that might cause them pain. It's the same today as it was in 2005 B.C."
The best way to ensure that they "try to stretch the limits of what they're allowed to see and do" is to hide it from them/them from it and insist that it's "bad" or "evil", thereby turning it into a mystery that they are going to be bound and determined to solve, simply because that's how human minds work.
Nevermind that it's hypocritical to, essentially, say "Sex and cigarettes are bad. Don't do them. Now, go play while daddy smokes and watches some porn.";)
If you put the "bad" thing up front and tell them about it, they'll see that, "Oh. What's the big deal about this?" and move on. Making it taboo only increases the attractiveness and alure of it.
"BYOS. Bring your own soda. Chances are there is a nearby gas-station or perhaps your own fridge that is stocked to the gills with 20oz Mt. Dew. One of these babies will only run you $1.25 where I live, and will save you about $4."
You do know that theaters have a "no outside food or drinks" policy, right?:P
Some of us still have our (large) libraries of NES carts, y'know.
Revolution will support downloading of old NES and SNES games via your internet connection, some free and some for pay, according to the last thing I read from Nintendo on it.
I've read nothing at all that mentions whether you get to -keep- those downloaded games(saved to a memory card, say), or if you have to download them --and possibly pay again-- each time you want to play them.
I still have my NESv2 (top-loader model), but it certainly cannot play Famicom carts, and I cannot sit across the room to play it.
I, for one, am definitely interested in the NEX, simply because of the wireless controllers and Famicom cart port.:)
*tries to see a logical connection between this and anything mentioned before it*
*fails*
Are you implying that "gizmo" is pronounced "jizz-mo" in Europe?
To answer your entirely left-field question, though, I spell it "humor," as the 'u' is silent and extraneous, and does nothing to modify the pronunciation of the word, unlike the 'h' in "ghost," which changes what would otherwise be a short vowel into a long one.:)
Sounds like a plan. How 'bout you divert the energy invested in your vitriolic hyperbole into helping make this happen?
See, when you lock out any and everyone else from making ANYthing even REMOTELY similar to your design/formula/whatever, you are preventing them from competing with you.
That's where the "competition" part comes in.
You kinda -have- to have more than one person in the race, or it's just you, out for a run by yourself.
Of course, if everyone could just get over the "money, and the acquirement therof, is the most important thing in life," idea, and create a truly "civilized" society, we could get on with the business of actually making progress and enjoying life.
Until then, I guess this "precious, sacred gift," will continue to only be worth the $20/month I spend for insulin and syringes (which I -must- have to continue living in this lovely world), and whatever I spend each month on "this stuff called 'food'."
*cue the blind/naive/ignorant/brainwashed "you're crazy" naysayers spouting more self-serving, venomous rhetoric*
1. As long as everyone is enjoying my book, I couldn't care less.
2. There can be no competition if nobody else is allowed to make the same or similar product because they would be in danger of a "patent-infringment" lawsuit.
I was not "forcing" my opinion on anyone. I was explaining the point of my bringing up the religious argument. It was a (very) simple explanation of why that argument is bunk.
As I told the other guy, the entire paragraph was intended cut off anyone who felt inclined to try to play the "But my Bible says it's WRONG!" card, regardless of whether it was relevant to anything else.
The only thing I "told others" was right or wrong was the poster I originally replied to: their blanket statement of "it is offensive to all parties involved" is wrong.
As I told them, it is offensive to -them-. NOT "all parties involved." If it was at all offensive to everyone involved, the ones in question would never have become involved in it in the first place.
Therefore, in the scope of this argument, the only one offended by the hypothetical "tasteful nudity" IS the original poster.
Also, at no time did I "insult some others' personal/religious beliefs." Of course, "insulting" and "offensive" are equally subjective perceptions, so I should probably thank you for proving my original point.
"And for those"
Operative phrase in my second paragraph.
Only my first paragraph pertained to you. The rest was to the general audience; a preemptive strike, if you will, before someone jumped in--as they inevitably do/will--to tell me that it's a "sin against god," or some other such thing.
Secondly, "offensive" and "harmful" or "damaging" are entirely different things. Something may or may not, in fact, be "harmful" or "damaging". Its (perceived) level of "offensiveness" is a completely subjective concept, wholly dependent on the individual's perception thereof. (i.e. you percieve nudity as offensive. It offends you. Others do not find it offensive to them.)
You find nudity offensive. Fine. That makes it "harmful" to you. Not necessarily everyone else. Claiming that something like nudity or porn is "damaging" to anybody based soley on the subjective perception of "offensive," is naive, at best. In fact, I find that sort of thinking "offensive," and believe that it is actually "harmful" to society as a whole.
I like nudity. I like porn. My perception of "sex and sexual relationships" is perfectly normal. This is because I know full well that what is portrayed in such material isn't real, and that it is not how sex or relationships actually work.
Just like the argument that "violent media causes individuals to become violent," the idea that "seeing naked people fscking" warps the mind(s) of any and everyone who sees it is laughable. If it adversely affects their perception of reality, it's because they had problems (emotional, mental, or otherwise) to begin with. The media experience d is not the cause. Although it may be the trigger, the warping was already in place.
Correction: It's offensive to -you-. Do not deign to tell me, or anyone else around you what is or is not "offensive".
I'd be willing to bet it's "offensive" to you, simply because you've been taught all your life that it is. That doesn't make it a fact.
And for those who somehow believe "God" thinks nudity is a sin, for whatever reason or by whatever rationale: according to your own scripture, he created Adam and Eve -naked-. They were neither ashamed of their nudity, nor aware that it was bad. Only after they tasted the apple did they suddenly decide, "OMG, I'm NAKED! OMG, don't look!"
The point here is, nudity is not "sinful". Being ashamed of it is.
As to the originating article of this discussion..
1. The.xxx TLD is entirely voluntary, and must be paid for by whomever wishes to use it. Do any of you -really- believe that someone whose livelihood is based on their porn-site business is gonna willingly move into an easily-filterable location, then pay for the privilege of being blocked out?
2. Man, it's a good thing that our President and his administration don't have anything important to be worrying about, eh? Like, say, poverty, drugs, violent crime... maybe a "war" that needs tending to?
"ID removes this random factor, and theorizes that "God" chooses these mutations and changes, according to whatever plan "God" is following."
The second I read this, I was reminded of an old Far Side cartoon, in which a scientist has one end of his blackboard filled with a complicated equation, the answer on the other end, and "And then a miracle happens..." in the middle.
This strikes me as an accurate representation of exactly how much like science ID truly is.;)
"The ESRB age rating is a recommendation. That's all it is. She judged her grandson to be mature enough to handle material that the ESRB thinks a typical 17-year-old can handle.
She is suing because Rockstar misled the ESRB, and her, and included content that she believes is not appropriate for a typical 17-year-old (who she believes her grandson to be as mature as)."
Maybe so, but you're assuming that's what she did. However, assuming that argument is true, then she did, in fact, judge that her 14-year-old could handle "Strong sexual content." (nevermind the violence, blood, gore and drug use) If so, she has no valid complaint, since that is exactly what she is now upset about. She's also now indicating that she -doesn't- judge the boy to be mature enough to handle said content.
"IANAL. But, seems to me that whether her grandson is 8, 14, or 17, she is allowed to judge what material is appropriate for him to view. But if Rockstar misled her, then they should be held liable.
The real issue is whether or not Rockstar is liable for material that they distributed, although said material is not legally accessible."
Again, that's true, -assuming- that the programmers weren't told, late in the game(so-to-speak) to remove the Hot Coffee minigame, because management decided that it was just too much. If that's what happened, and the programmers (or director, or whomever) decided to ignore that and simply put a lock-out on that part of the program, then it's really -their- screw-up, and they should be disciplined.
However, regardless, the ESRB assigns their ratings according to the content that is intended to be accessible to the end user, not what may or may not be locked away, with or without the knowledge of the people in charge.
If Rockstar -did- know the Hot Coffee code was still in there and potentially accessible to players with a modicum of savvy, then they are at fault. However, as far as I know from reading about the "mod," the most graphic thing(s) you see are naked digital breasts and "sex" such as you'd see on a late-night soft-porn movie on Showtime or Cinemax-i.e. two people going at it, but never showing more than the guy between the woman's legs and some grunting and groaning. All of which should be more than covered by the "Strong sexual content" warning.
To your analogy: Yellow Pages is not responsible, as they can only print what their advertisers provide them to print. This would be like Wal*Mart being responsible for Hot Coffee being included in the software. They had nothing to do with programming the game, coming up with the mod OR cheat-device codes, or anything else. They (hopefully) conscientiously abided by the ESRB rating, which they in no way broke, since it was a "little old lady" purchasing a game rated "17+".
The video store could be faulted for possible false-advertising, but they'd have a decent argument in that the general impression is that "porn" means "explicit, hardcore sex acts." AFAIK, "softcore" is the fluff that, again, is seen on Showtime and Cinemax late at night, and that usually has an 'R' rating because of language and sexual content.
"the child then sneaks into the adult section"
Keyword here being "sneaks". The video store should be keeping watch on their 'adult' room, which they (usually) do via CC monitors. However, it is the parents' responsibility to watch and control their underage child, not the store's, just as with everything else.
"The answer is simple. Tell the grandmother to shove it, since she can't demonstrate damages caused by Rockstar. Tell the ESRB to get it's act together; they must start verifying gamemakers' claims as to content. FULL verification.
Force Rockstar and other game publishers to disclose more information about content."
You are absolutely correct. She should be told to shove it. The package is clearly marked as to the content. Either she didn't read it, or she didn't understand it. Per
No, because the instructions for the codes explitly state not to save with the codes on, 'cause it will corrupt the data and make the saved game(s) un-usable.
This means that it will "modify" a saved game, but only if you re-save the game after starting it, 'cause the new save file will include the changes to the in-memory code for Hot Coffee, which is why the save will be corrupted.
Also, AR Max only alters the memory addresses of the currently-running program code--i.e. the game as it exists in the system's memory while you're playing.
All the codes do is unlock the part of the program that allows access to the Hot Coffee mini-game(s). That's also why you have to use a button combination to free C.J. from the "invisible box" he's stuck in after you done one of the Hot Coffee games, 'cause the game doesn't actually have a mechanism for returning to the main game. That's probably why the save game(s) will be corrupted with the codes on.
It does not require a 'modded save game', or a chipped console. It only requires an AR Max(or other cheat device) and the proper codes to unlock it.
(I won't post a link to said codes, for fear that I'll be lynched by the holier-than-thou morality police for possibly contributing to the delinquency of minors who really shouldn't have the game to use the codes on in the first place. Ask properly, and Google shall provide.;) )
Also, Grandma has a very unstable base for her case, if any at all, simply because it clearly states on the ESRB warning that the game is for players 17 years and older, nevermind the blatantly-spelled-out descriptions of WHY it was rated as such. The real question here is, why did she buy it for her 14-year-old grandson?
Slashdot Mirror
"That's not true. The movie theater makes it a condition of serving you that you won't bring food in. If the manager's around, they won't let you in with food or they will make you throw it away."
They have that rule because they want you to buy the food & drink they're selling. They do not want you "cheating" them out of potential profits by bringing your own.
"Television is shown to you (hence the word "broadcast") regardless of whether any individual tapes it, goes to the bathroom, etc."
Apparently, you missed the news stories concerning the networks and/or advertisers wanting things like TiVo and DVR "outlawed" because they believe the viewers are "stealing" their programming when they skip commercials.
"Nobody but you is calling it "theft" to take food into a theater, but you are entering private property under false pretenses. I believe it could be considered trespassing."
This doesn't even -begin- to make sense. It's nice to think that you know what everyone else thinks, but you obviously don't. The theater considers it "theft" simply because you're "cheating them out of" the profit they would have otherwise made from you buying their refreshments.
It may be privately-owned property, but as long as it's business hours, the theater is open to the public, and they cannot possibly be accused of "trespassing" when they're freely invited to come in, as long as they've bought their ticket(s).
Trying to sneak in without would paying be "entering under false pretenses."
Or, even better, let's make this the era of perpetual whiney, overreactive hyperbole and narrow fields of perception!
Really, dude.. get a grip. There are plenty of "new and unique" games out there, and waiting in the wings.
Yes, there is a lot of re-re-rehashed stuff, and it really needs to stop. Too bad it won't, as long as "creativity" is dictated by the quest for cash.
The newer iterations of old franchises are not (usually) "the same old formula" and "the same old story".
Every Final Fantasy game has been different from the previous ones, and only one (that I know of) has actually been a direct sequel to one before it.
Super Mario has always changed and evolved from game to game, adding new and different powers, goals, stories.. Heck, Mario Sunshine was a hell of a leap from Mario 64!
I've only played Splinter Cell 1, so I can't speak to that, but I do know the three of them are by no means "the same game."
The Unreal Tournament/Championship games... what do you expect from an FPS geared specifically toward deathmatching? Shakespearean plots?
Unreal 2 was most definitely not a straight rehash of Unreal.
In short, the fact that they use the same old popular characters in new adventures does not make the games any less "new and unique."
Which, of course, makes breaking the rules "right," right? ;)
;) )
Now, before I get flamed for being a 'stick-in-the-mud' (or worse)... I really don't care if you want to take your own stuff in. The only reason the theaters have that rule is to prevent patrons from "stealing" potential profits from them. (which is just as valid an argument as saying TV viewers are "stealing" the shows because they don't sit and watch the commercials with rapt attention.
So, did you explain it to him, and tell him what the boss's wife's name was? :D
:)
:P
Basically, though, what you're saying is that everything's about avoiding personal embarrassment for yourself?
*cue the accusations of "troll"*
"Sure, I can explain to her that it's fantasy, and that it's a movie, and that Juliette Lewis didn't *really* just kill the man that was giving her oral sex, but why would I want to put either of us into a situation where I had to? I wouldn't, it's called "parenting"."
:P
;)
No, it's called, "I'd prefer not to have to deal with something that I personally find very embarrassing."
"As long as you tell a child what the controls on a car do, there's no reason not to let them drive". It's overly-simplistic, and it ignores the reality that is child-rearing."
It also ignores the fact that you also have to teach them -how- to use those controls, not just tell them what they do and let them have at it.
"Kids always try to stretch the limits of what they're allowed to see and do. Parents always try to reign the kids in and keep them from doing things that might cause them pain. It's the same today as it was in 2005 B.C."
The best way to ensure that they "try to stretch the limits of what they're allowed to see and do" is to hide it from them/them from it and insist that it's "bad" or "evil", thereby turning it into a mystery that they are going to be bound and determined to solve, simply because that's how human minds work.
Nevermind that it's hypocritical to, essentially, say "Sex and cigarettes are bad. Don't do them. Now, go play while daddy smokes and watches some porn."
If you put the "bad" thing up front and tell them about it, they'll see that, "Oh. What's the big deal about this?" and move on. Making it taboo only increases the attractiveness and alure of it.
"BYOS. Bring your own soda. Chances are there is a nearby gas-station or perhaps your own fridge that is stocked to the gills with 20oz Mt. Dew. One of these babies will only run you $1.25 where I live, and will save you about $4."
:P
You do know that theaters have a "no outside food or drinks" policy, right?
By removing your anterior from your posterior, and stop trying to "protect" them from "naughty" words and possible flashes of breast or butt.
Just watch the movie. It's not going to hurt the children, who are either gonna lose interest, or not comprehend the "bad" parts anyway.
AvP is/was a mainstream Darkhorse Comics property, usually sold in general-audience comic book stores.
The game(s) were based on the comics, as was the movie.
And it's "Predator". *sigh*
Yup. :)
Some of us still have our (large) libraries of NES carts, y'know.
:)
Revolution will support downloading of old NES and SNES games via your internet connection, some free and some for pay, according to the last thing I read from Nintendo on it.
I've read nothing at all that mentions whether you get to -keep- those downloaded games(saved to a memory card, say), or if you have to download them --and possibly pay again-- each time you want to play them.
I still have my NESv2 (top-loader model), but it certainly cannot play Famicom carts, and I cannot sit across the room to play it.
I, for one, am definitely interested in the NEX, simply because of the wireless controllers and Famicom cart port.
Glad you could contribute something useful and constructive to the discussion, rather than the self-serving venomous rhetoric I mentioned elsewhere.
Way to go!
*tries to see a logical connection between this and anything mentioned before it*
:)
*fails*
Are you implying that "gizmo" is pronounced "jizz-mo" in Europe?
To answer your entirely left-field question, though, I spell it "humor," as the 'u' is silent and extraneous, and does nothing to modify the pronunciation of the word, unlike the 'h' in "ghost," which changes what would otherwise be a short vowel into a long one.
Sounds like a plan. How 'bout you divert the energy invested in your vitriolic hyperbole into helping make this happen?
See, when you lock out any and everyone else from making ANYthing even REMOTELY similar to your design/formula/whatever, you are preventing them from competing with you.
That's where the "competition" part comes in.
You kinda -have- to have more than one person in the race, or it's just you, out for a run by yourself.
Of course, if everyone could just get over the "money, and the acquirement therof, is the most important thing in life," idea, and create a truly "civilized" society, we could get on with the business of actually making progress and enjoying life.
Until then, I guess this "precious, sacred gift," will continue to only be worth the $20/month I spend for insulin and syringes (which I -must- have to continue living in this lovely world), and whatever I spend each month on "this stuff called 'food'."
*cue the blind/naive/ignorant/brainwashed "you're crazy" naysayers spouting more self-serving, venomous rhetoric*
1. As long as everyone is enjoying my book, I couldn't care less.
2. There can be no competition if nobody else is allowed to make the same or similar product because they would be in danger of a "patent-infringment" lawsuit.
That's the second response I've seen to this article implying... less than nice connotations about the name of the magazine..
*eyeroll*
It's a hard-G. "guh," not "juh".
As in "good," "ghost," and "great".
Judging by the other article links down the side of the GizMag page, "Giz" is short for "Gizmo".
Good thing you can read, huh?
Nevermind using out-of-context quotes.
I was not "forcing" my opinion on anyone. I was explaining the point of my bringing up the religious argument. It was a (very) simple explanation of why that argument is bunk.
As I told the other guy, the entire paragraph was intended cut off anyone who felt inclined to try to play the "But my Bible says it's WRONG!" card, regardless of whether it was relevant to anything else.
The only thing I "told others" was right or wrong was the poster I originally replied to: their blanket statement of "it is offensive to all parties involved" is wrong.
As I told them, it is offensive to -them-. NOT "all parties involved." If it was at all offensive to everyone involved, the ones in question would never have become involved in it in the first place.
Therefore, in the scope of this argument, the only one offended by the hypothetical "tasteful nudity" IS the original poster.
Also, at no time did I "insult some others' personal/religious beliefs." Of course, "insulting" and "offensive" are equally subjective perceptions, so I should probably thank you for proving my original point.
"And for those"
Operative phrase in my second paragraph.
Only my first paragraph pertained to you. The rest was to the general audience; a preemptive strike, if you will, before someone jumped in--as they inevitably do/will--to tell me that it's a "sin against god," or some other such thing.
Secondly, "offensive" and "harmful" or "damaging" are entirely different things. Something may or may not, in fact, be "harmful" or "damaging". Its (perceived) level of "offensiveness" is a completely subjective concept, wholly dependent on the individual's perception thereof. (i.e. you percieve nudity as offensive. It offends you. Others do not find it offensive to them.)
You find nudity offensive. Fine. That makes it "harmful" to you. Not necessarily everyone else. Claiming that something like nudity or porn is "damaging" to anybody based soley on the subjective perception of "offensive," is naive, at best. In fact, I find that sort of thinking "offensive," and believe that it is actually "harmful" to society as a whole.
I like nudity. I like porn. My perception of "sex and sexual relationships" is perfectly normal. This is because I know full well that what is portrayed in such material isn't real, and that it is not how sex or relationships actually work.
Just like the argument that "violent media causes individuals to become violent," the idea that "seeing naked people fscking" warps the mind(s) of any and everyone who sees it is laughable. If it adversely affects their perception of reality, it's because they had problems (emotional, mental, or otherwise) to begin with. The media experience d is not the cause. Although it may be the trigger, the warping was already in place.
"It's offensive to all parties involved"
.xxx TLD is entirely voluntary, and must be paid for by whomever wishes to use it. Do any of you -really- believe that someone whose livelihood is based on their porn-site business is gonna willingly move into an easily-filterable location, then pay for the privilege of being blocked out?
Correction: It's offensive to -you-. Do not deign to tell me, or anyone else around you what is or is not "offensive".
I'd be willing to bet it's "offensive" to you, simply because you've been taught all your life that it is. That doesn't make it a fact.
And for those who somehow believe "God" thinks nudity is a sin, for whatever reason or by whatever rationale: according to your own scripture, he created Adam and Eve -naked-. They were neither ashamed of their nudity, nor aware that it was bad. Only after they tasted the apple did they suddenly decide, "OMG, I'm NAKED! OMG, don't look!"
The point here is, nudity is not "sinful". Being ashamed of it is.
As to the originating article of this discussion..
1. The
2. Man, it's a good thing that our President and his administration don't have anything important to be worrying about, eh? Like, say, poverty, drugs, violent crime... maybe a "war" that needs tending to?
No, but I maliciously rearrange their data to give the tracking system(s) an aneurism...
*evil laughter*
There isn't one, except for the "saved money," because, as always, -that- is the primary driving force behind these types of decisions.
Personally, I think we'd see the same money-saving power-usage drop simply by everyone using energy-saving light-bulbs/fixtures.
"ID removes this random factor, and theorizes that "God" chooses these mutations and changes, according to whatever plan "God" is following."
;)
The second I read this, I was reminded of an old Far Side cartoon, in which a scientist has one end of his blackboard filled with a complicated equation, the answer on the other end, and "And then a miracle happens..." in the middle.
This strikes me as an accurate representation of exactly how much like science ID truly is.
That would so totally rock.
I'm not big on MMO games, but I would gladly fork over my laser and swear fealty to the Computer!
Heck, I'd love a single-player Paranoia Action-RPG, too.
"The ESRB age rating is a recommendation. That's all it is. She judged her grandson to be mature enough to handle material that the ESRB thinks a typical 17-year-old can handle.
She is suing because Rockstar misled the ESRB, and her, and included content that she believes is not appropriate for a typical 17-year-old (who she believes her grandson to be as mature as)."
Maybe so, but you're assuming that's what she did. However, assuming that argument is true, then she did, in fact, judge that her 14-year-old could handle "Strong sexual content." (nevermind the violence, blood, gore and drug use) If so, she has no valid complaint, since that is exactly what she is now upset about. She's also now indicating that she -doesn't- judge the boy to be mature enough to handle said content.
"IANAL. But, seems to me that whether her grandson is 8, 14, or 17, she is allowed to judge what material is appropriate for him to view. But if Rockstar misled her, then they should be held liable. The real issue is whether or not Rockstar is liable for material that they distributed, although said material is not legally accessible."
Again, that's true, -assuming- that the programmers weren't told, late in the game(so-to-speak) to remove the Hot Coffee minigame, because management decided that it was just too much. If that's what happened, and the programmers (or director, or whomever) decided to ignore that and simply put a lock-out on that part of the program, then it's really -their- screw-up, and they should be disciplined.
However, regardless, the ESRB assigns their ratings according to the content that is intended to be accessible to the end user, not what may or may not be locked away, with or without the knowledge of the people in charge.
If Rockstar -did- know the Hot Coffee code was still in there and potentially accessible to players with a modicum of savvy, then they are at fault. However, as far as I know from reading about the "mod," the most graphic thing(s) you see are naked digital breasts and "sex" such as you'd see on a late-night soft-porn movie on Showtime or Cinemax-i.e. two people going at it, but never showing more than the guy between the woman's legs and some grunting and groaning. All of which should be more than covered by the "Strong sexual content" warning.
To your analogy: Yellow Pages is not responsible, as they can only print what their advertisers provide them to print. This would be like Wal*Mart being responsible for Hot Coffee being included in the software. They had nothing to do with programming the game, coming up with the mod OR cheat-device codes, or anything else. They (hopefully) conscientiously abided by the ESRB rating, which they in no way broke, since it was a "little old lady" purchasing a game rated "17+".
The video store could be faulted for possible false-advertising, but they'd have a decent argument in that the general impression is that "porn" means "explicit, hardcore sex acts." AFAIK, "softcore" is the fluff that, again, is seen on Showtime and Cinemax late at night, and that usually has an 'R' rating because of language and sexual content.
"the child then sneaks into the adult section"
Keyword here being "sneaks". The video store should be keeping watch on their 'adult' room, which they (usually) do via CC monitors. However, it is the parents' responsibility to watch and control their underage child, not the store's, just as with everything else.
"The answer is simple. Tell the grandmother to shove it, since she can't demonstrate damages caused by Rockstar. Tell the ESRB to get it's act together; they must start verifying gamemakers' claims as to content. FULL verification. Force Rockstar and other game publishers to disclose more information about content."
You are absolutely correct. She should be told to shove it. The package is clearly marked as to the content. Either she didn't read it, or she didn't understand it. Per
No, because the instructions for the codes explitly state not to save with the codes on, 'cause it will corrupt the data and make the saved game(s) un-usable.
This means that it will "modify" a saved game, but only if you re-save the game after starting it, 'cause the new save file will include the changes to the in-memory code for Hot Coffee, which is why the save will be corrupted.
Also, AR Max only alters the memory addresses of the currently-running program code--i.e. the game as it exists in the system's memory while you're playing.
All the codes do is unlock the part of the program that allows access to the Hot Coffee mini-game(s). That's also why you have to use a button combination to free C.J. from the "invisible box" he's stuck in after you done one of the Hot Coffee games, 'cause the game doesn't actually have a mechanism for returning to the main game. That's probably why the save game(s) will be corrupted with the codes on.
The content is already part of the game.
;) )
It does not require a 'modded save game', or a chipped console. It only requires an AR Max(or other cheat device) and the proper codes to unlock it.
(I won't post a link to said codes, for fear that I'll be lynched by the holier-than-thou morality police for possibly contributing to the delinquency of minors who really shouldn't have the game to use the codes on in the first place. Ask properly, and Google shall provide.
Also, Grandma has a very unstable base for her case, if any at all, simply because it clearly states on the ESRB warning that the game is for players 17 years and older, nevermind the blatantly-spelled-out descriptions of WHY it was rated as such. The real question here is, why did she buy it for her 14-year-old grandson?