GTA? Logic and reason, MIA
by Steve Parsons 
{ Jul 22nd 2005 at 4:11PM }
So the GTA saga is at an end. Oh no! The dreaded Adults Only label. Stores pulling the game from
shelves. Politicians foaming at the mouth. Even Hilary
Rodham-Clinton stepped up, realizing there was a bandwagon to hop on to fame and fortune. (Apparently being linked to a
President doesn't work well enough anymore. After all, where's Lewinsky these days?)
This entire debacle has made me sick to my stomach. Just when you think you've seen it all, the fates like to go "Oh
no you haven't!" and pull something like this. You couldn't make this crap up! The dumbest, most asinine nonsense you
could think of, and the real world goes and tops it.
Some modders with too much time on their hands find a way to activate some of the most horrendously awful sex ever seen in a game, and release their little hack for bragging rights. The media got hold of it, politicians start feeling a moistening in their pants at the possibility of riding the fame train, and start blowing their bloated little horns to anyone wholl listen. Now weve seen the game taken from M rating to an AO rating, and all the other nonsense thats surrounded this entire, sorry situation.
Whats hugely ironic is for all the condemnation GTA has received over the years, its ultimately sex that got it pulled from the shelves. Not violence.
If the game had shipped with the pathetic sex scene intact, then fair enough, though its probably PG13 at best, and about as stimulating as a dead badger. The fact that you have to download a mod to access it is ridiculous.
By this logic, every game that has a nude patch floating around the net should be put under the microscope by the fame whores of Washington. After all, its a mod that activates sexual content, right? Okay, so its a slightly different circumstance with GTA, but where is the line drawn? Are developers going to have to start encrypting their textures so people cant sex their game up?
The fact is, this small victory for the bad guys could be the in they need so they can get their greasy little paws
on games and achieve their holy grail of censoring them how they see fit. The ESRB has failed our children, we hear.
Now they not only have violence to wave at people, they have pornography! Heaven forbid anyone should see the sex act!
Next theyll be shoving breasts in my face! ... Erm Sorry, kinda drifted off there Wont someone think of the
children! I am, thanks, and I dont want my kids growing up in a world where every entertainment medium is controlled
by whores like yourselves, whose interests are sold to the highest bidders.
All parties involved in this debacle should hang their heads in shame. Rockstar, the politicians, and the ESRB. If
this were a sport, all parties would be had up by the governing body for bringing it into disrepute. This is the gaming
equivalent of what Formula One did at Indianapolis last month. (To quote a recent sporting example.) Idiots. All of
them.
NetJak also have a great editorial up on the entire issue, which raises the point I made the other day, about how other games, ones with far worse content, are ignored. For now, though, Im going to get a very stiff drink, and begin contemplating how this entire fiasco could very well be exactly what the weasels in Washington have been waiting for to ruin gaming.
Cheers
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
saycheese @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Hey Steve.. cut the theatrics, and be practical. It has been confirmed by Gamespot that the unaltered game code indeed has the circumstances where you could simulate 'teh secks' if you can pull off certain gameplay elements correctly.
This was in an unmodded PS2 game, which proves that it was put in by RockStar themselves, and the modders in the PC domain just discovered it. The PS2 game merely needed cheat codes to unlock this minigame, without the need for any "modifications to the game code". I am sure Rockstar did this intentionally to create controversy and to generate publicity. Otherwise, what reason is there to put those gameplay elements in the game?
Now, every little high schooler is getting all bent up against the politicians and ESRB for taking action against Rockstar and making laws that could prevent sale of games with explicit content to non-adults. I am not being a prude, and enjoy pr0n myself, but this kind of cheap marketing gimmicks irritate the hell out of me. If the game code contained unlockable 'teh secks' minigames, ESRB should have been informed of it.
brett @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
You need to calm down. How will this affect you? So you can't buy GTA in Walmart now, buy it online. The only people this should affect are the ones who shouldn't have had access to this game in the first place, minors. No politician can ban a game from being made, so this only changes ratings. I'm over 18 so I couldn't care less.
Next story please, this one has gotten boring.
Andrew Kaufmann @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
I'm with saycheese.
They put the code in the game. Skins are not in the game -- they're a complete add on. The game developers did not put in the nude skins. Rockstar DID put in that sex scene. I don't buy that they're surprised and shocked that this scene was actually accessible -- if you put code into a game, hex editors find it. They always do.
It bugs me that politicians have hopped on the bandwagon, as they always do when there's a parent vote to be gained (just look at the baseball steroid hearings), but Rockstar had it coming. My pity-o-meter for Rockstar is reading a 0.1.
If you're going to put content into your game, have the balls to just do it. Fly in the face of ESRB if you want. You're already making a violent and (in my opinion) stupid game, so go ahead and put in the sex scene you want, and deal with the ratings. Don't hide behind the facade of high morals and claim hackers ruined your game. That's a load.
Dan Dickinson @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
The Sims 2 is next on the chopping block.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/22/news_6129609.html
Chad @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
The content was likely left in the game, but disabled, so Rockstar wouldn't have to re-test the whole damn game. They probably made a last minute decision to remove the content, because they knew it would affect the rating. If I were Rockstar, I'd sue the people modding the game for using the software in a way that was never intended.
As a tax payer, I'm pretty upset that my tax dollars are being spent on this non-issue.
SparkStalker @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Sorry guys, but if you think this ends with GTA, you're just being naieve. Next on the hitlist, The Sims 2:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/22/news_6129609.html
Yeah Rockstar was extremely stupid in all of this. They gave the attention whores all the ammo and bravado they needed. And it's going to change gaming as we know it.
saycheese @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
@ #4:
Chad,
It is not that big of a gameplay mode that would have necessitated testing the whole game if it were removed. It is a damn mini-game for gods sake. There seems to be no justification for including that gameplay element in the first place.
So, what's next for the GTA franchise? A threeway or a group orgy? I'm sure Rockstar could just leave that code in the game, but lock the key away, and sell the game as a mature-rated title. But the mere fact that there is a lock means that it will be broken sooner rather than later.
And no, Rockstar cannot sue people, as I believe they didn't have a terms of use for playing the game.
Baron Vas Deferens @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
So, does this mean that Rockstar will modify subsequent AO-rated versions of GTA:SA to FULLY UNLOCK and INCLUDE the hidden material ("Hot Coffee", etc)?
I hardly think so.
And that's MY contention: if it's gonna be rated AO, then take off the kid gloves and bring on the adult content.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm dreaming.
Sheikh Yerbouti @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
I was exactly like you Mr. Parsons, but I gave the issue a lot of thought. I don't disagree with the actions of the ESRB. I disagree with the political hype and 'protect the children' hysteria over this.
It was hidden content that Rockstar should have disclosed and removed the content. They should have been honest and fortwright when it was discovered.
I don't fault the ESRB for anything they have done or not done. I fault the politicians (for being politicians?), and Rockstar even more.
saycheese is numb @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Sorry saycheese...but you are wrong. There is licensing to every piece of software on the planet today that is being sold. That includes XBox, PS2, PC, etc. Rockstar has every right in the world to sue the modder and Action Replay if they choose as the "mod" in question flies against the agreed upon license. By the way, if you play the game then you agree to the license whether you read it or not.
Reggie Jack @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
SAycheese you're wrong, you also need an action replay, so no, you can't "just do it with cheat codes"
Alkaiser @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Uh, they have no legal grounds against Action Replay. And in fact, legal precedent supports Action Replay. (See Lewis Galoob v. Nintendo of America...it's the case of when Nintendo sued Genie and got served in court.)
The basic thrust of the decision was, after you have the game, you can do whatever the heck you want with it, short of copying it.
I think they DO have the grounds to sue the guy who released the hack, though.
JAB @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
First off if you read the story from Gamespot yes they did indeed get the ps 2 version to play the mini game. But they also need to get an Action Replay Max device. So you need to put in a lot of effort to do this cheesey mini game.
Second, This wholes stupid stuff came out because of the mods in the pc version. NOt to say it wasn't in the ps2 version, but who cares must people who will be playing this game will aready have access to much more graphic sex.
Third, it is a waste of time for the US Senate to addressed stupid sex min games in a video game. Let's focus on more pressing issue like our friends and family members dying in other countries and in our own.
What really more important.
This is Jesus, Kent @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Humans, silly humans.
Palmer @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Well said, it's becoming stupid. Especially since they said "These kids can access this on the internet!!!" The internet you say? THE FUCKING INTERNET!!!! THE INTER-FUCKING-PORNO-NET?
Chris @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
I think some of you may be missing the point Steve is trying to make. The sexual content in GTA: San Andreas is laughable at best, and cartoonish at worst. It's hardly worth getting upset about -- unless you're an opportunist hell-bent on demonizing a thriving industry. Why is Jack Thompson so bloody concerned with games? Should he not be directing his rage at stores who sell guns? Or better yet, the gun manufacturers? And what about the pornography industry? Or ISPs, even, who by offering the ability to access the Internet provide a channel with which minors can access sexual content?
Steve's point is clear -- this is not about the crude sexual content in GTA: SA and the convoluted process of unlocking it. It's about finger pointing, posturing and righteousness. It's about power. And the more people that listen to "crusaders" like Jack Thompson, the more power he collects. It's simply stomach churning.
Sonic_Extreme @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
I think the problem is rockstars themselves.
http://xbox.ign.com/articles/635/635261p1.html
This is one of the questions
IGN: Didn't Rockstar expect gamers to hack into their game, seeing as how popular GTA has become, and how much piracy and hacking goes on these days? I mean, did Rockstar want consumers to see the sexual content?
Rockstar: We are obviously aware of the mod community, but the skill, expertise and knowledge of Grand Theft Auto code required to create this mod surprised all of us. These elements were never meant to be found.
Mean how dum can they be. "These elements were never meant to be found" but yet they left the code there. You cannot blame no one else other then them for their judgement. Reality is Rockstar has take the blame plain and simple. They will learn for a little mistake and o well its just part of life. Now move on to GTA5
Danny Boy @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
All this rubbish doesn't effect us in the UK at all :)
Gaijin @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Why are people still calling this a mod? It changed none of the code at all, it just unlocks code that was already there. Action replay is not a modding device, nor was game genie. If something is not already there Action Replay can't make it. This is not a mod, not a hack, its a code used in a cheating device.
Jamaicanbwoydre @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
I seriously hate Jack "Thumper" Thompson with every fiber of my being. I don't think his wife (if he is married)is giving him any, so he likes to get off on trying to topple the game industry. I wonder if he was into games at one point and was trying to work in the industry and found out that he just couldn't cut it and got angry and wants revenge? I would like to know what his motivation is. Cus he just seems hell bent on taking the industry down, here's and excerpt of a reader and game fan who simply wants to interview Jack about the whole alabama shooting incident, with that 18 year old kid who shoot the cops.
from:http://keepyourkillingclean.blogspot.com/2005/02/jack-thompson-is-douche-bag.html
----- Original Message -----
From: shaunmccormack
To: jackpeace@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 6:11 PM
Subject: interview questions
Jack, I'm working on an article about video game violence. I've read alot about your crusades against video games and the Devin Thompson trial and wanted to get you to clarify your position for me. With Thompson, do you believe that he would not have committed these murders had he not played these games? Is there a law in Alabamma that forbids retailers from selling M-rated games to minors? Do you have as much of a problem with less realistic violence, like with games from the 1980s? What about Dungeons and Dragons, which was demonized in the 80s and blamed for several youth murders and suicides? What about violent sports game simulations; hockey, football, boxing, wrestling? How much consideration do you give to the idea that the responsibility for shielding kids from violence should lie with the parents instead of game developers or retailers? I need to get this story in over the next few days, so please email me back soon. Feel free to call me at 201-239-0449 if you need more details. Thanks,Shaun McCormack
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Thompson
To: shaunmccormack
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: interview questions
kiss the game industry good-bye
----- Original Message -----
From: shaunmccormack
To: Jack Thompson
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: interview questions
do you care to answer any of my questions?
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Thompson
To: shaunmccormack
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: interview questions
nope
----- Original Message -----
From: shaunmccormack
To: Jack Thompson
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: interview questions
why do you have a web site urging people to contact you if you don't want to talk about this stuff?
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Thompson
To: shaunmccormack
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 4:14 AM
Subject: Re: interview questions
read again whom I want to have contact me. have the games so disabled your frontal lobes that you can't understand the site?
----- Original Message -----
From: shaunmccormack
To: Jack Thompson
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: interview questions
"This site's purpose is to give you the means to contact Miami attorney Jack Thompson if you know of someone harmed as a result of violent entertainment, including violent video games." I'm writing about Devin Thompson and the three officers he allegedly killed. In your opinion, don't these people fall under the umbrella of "someone harmed as a result of violent entertainment"? Why are you resorting to personal attacks?
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Thompson
To: shaunmccormack
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 4:36 PM
it says if you are harmed. bug off
It is clear that his intentions are to no longer have a Game Industry and that this man has no communication skills whatsoever and he is simply just an ignorant moron. His next target?: The Sims 2. By the way how the hell does he know whats going on these games if he does'nt play games himself, does he have a mole in the industry he's trying to topple or what?
vaylen @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Good work, Hillary! You just decided my vote in 2008... Welcome President John McCain...
klinko @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
"All parties involved in this debacle should hang their heads in shame."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
LaughingTarget @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
Specifically: abridging the freedom of speech
Politicians have no business talking about this stuff.
Andrew Kaufmann @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
This isn't a case about free speech. The free speech clause in the Bill of Rights is the first thing people point to in an argument when they disagree with something. It's a weak argument.
The government is not trying to mandate that Rockstar not make the game. If they were doing that, then yes, it would be an affront to freedom of speech. What they are saying is there need to be regulations, and effective regulations, that give parents an effective means of knowing what games they should not allow their children to buy. When a parent walks into a bookstore, and their child wants a copy of Playboy, it's pretty obvious that it's an adult magazine that should not be viewed my minors -- and stores are obligated to not allow minors on their own to purchase the magazines. The government appears to be looking for a similarly effective means of keeping younger audiences from accessing content without the consent of their parents.
This is why what Rockstar did was wrong -- they included the content and hid it in such a way that it would be found. They circumvented the rules.
Now, should a parent allow their kid to play a game with rampant violence but say "whoa! that's SEX! KEEP THAT AWAY!"? I say it's quite hypocritical to raise the moral flag on sex but not on violence. But that's a debate not against the government, but against hypocricy.
I also agree that a lot of the representatives in on this are looking for a soapbox. But I think they're well within their rights as representatives to be upset. I just happen to also think they're attention grabbers.
I agree with klinko (#21). It's all stupid on a lot of fronts.
But to Chris (#15), I think it is worth getting upset about. It's not that it's crappy adult content. It's that it's adult content inserted into a game in such a way as to try to avoid blame. That, to me, is worth getting upset about. Make your content, and be up front about it. Don't hide behind "oh, it was disabled!" I've done coding, and I know the difference between disabling a function call and removing a function call. At worst, it's deceitful -- at best, it's sloppy and still something you are responsible for.
LaughingTarget @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
They are mandating the industry to change its rules based on hidden content. As such, they are entering into some ugly ground by telling them how to apply their own rules. Besides, there is no proof that raunchy video games causes adverse behavior. The studies always leave out a major factor: a supervisory figure. Children always fight, regardless if it is GTA or My Little Pony. These politicians are pressuring the industry to censor itself, and as such is an indirect violation of the 1st amendment.
Besides, as Maddox said, what the hell is the difference between not suitable for under 17 and not suitable for under 18 anyway?
Jim Daschle @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
The idiot who calls Sims 2 "worse than hot coffee" clearly has no idea what in hell he's talking about. If anyone wants to see what Sims look like uncensored, hold [ctrl]-[shift]-c and type "intprop censorgridsize 0" (no quotes). They do indeed look like Mannequins, or Barbies, or whatever you want to call them. If Sims 2 is inappropriate for teenagers, better make sure I confiscate my 9-year-old sister's Barbie collection.
Geez. Thompson pisses me off.
Imp @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
"They are mandating the industry to change its rules based on hidden content"
Were companys never responsible for hidden code in their games prior to this?
I think you're an idiot, but you may prove me wrong.
LaughingTarget @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Actually, until now, no, they were never responsible for hidden codes.
And as Eldridge Hubberd once said: "If you cannot answer a man's arguments, all is not lost, you can still call him vile names."
Imp @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
I find that hard to beleive. Can you cite proof, or are you speaking out of your ass?
"A fact without proof is far from the truth"
-Me
See, I can put quotes up too!
You mean to tell me, that if in an unnamed E rated PS2 game, you could enter R2 L2 X O X O L1 X and open up a bloody massacre mode, and the game would still be E just because the M rated material was a hidden code?
mikeo @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
does full frontal nudity require an AO rating? if so, then magna cum laude got away with murder too. unlike sims2 the content is there, just difficult to get to - and unlike gta, does not require a mod or a cheat or anything. maybe since LSL doesn't have much violence it can fly under the radar.
i like the post from the UK about this being a non-issue over there.
Andrew @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
What about God of War
BMX XXX - Video of Strippers
The Guy Game
What about M corresponding to R.
Shane @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
I think it is stupid how these people seem to make a bigger deal about sex than violence. Sex is natural whereas violence isn't (if you don't count the fact that it seems to be these days.)
WizarDru @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Actually, I think a large part of the problem isn't the sex...it's the juxtaposition of sex WITH violence in such close proximity. Sleeping with a prostitute is one thing, doing that and then beating her to death with a baseball bat and robbing her with NO consequences is another thing altogether.
Part of this stems from a simple abuse of the system. Rockstar could have removed the code for the game: they chose not to...but then failed to report it to the ESRB. In so doing, they have devauled the whole process; if the self-policing of an industry-board fails, then someone will demand regulation...and that way leads madness. Rockstar is being a bad corporate citizen, and the rest of the industry would suffer if they aren't punished in some fashion. Rockstar, of course, doesn't care at this point: they've made the majority of their sales on the game. But they're acting in bad faith; if this same stunt were pulled in some other industry, people would still be deeply upset.
And for the record: God of War has boobs and a mini-game that IMPLIES a sexual encounter, but never shows anything remotely close to one. The only nudity are some breasts that are shown a couple of times during cinematics, and one character model who never actually engages in even remotely sexual activity.
BMX XXX and the Guy Game featured mostly topless girls, as far as I heard, though I wouldn't waste money on tripe like those. But in those games, there's no violence. There certainly isn't a hardcore sex simulator (however unrealistic) coupled with a different KIND of gangbanging. ;)