View Full Version : Hidden sexual mini-games in GTA: San Andreas
Gamereviewgod
07-17-2005, 10:46 PM
What did the PC version (AO) of Larry have that the console version didn't (M)?
zmweasel
07-17-2005, 10:59 PM
What did the PC version (AO) of Larry have that the console version didn't (M)?
Genitals on display, in the form of Larry's microscopic wiener and various flavors of bush. In the M-rated version, genitals are covered up with "censored" signs, but tits are left on view.
-- Z.
SoulBlazer
07-17-2005, 11:22 PM
And a few other small things. I have the AO version of Larry on my HD.
Although they forgot to remove the 'Censored' sign on one of the scenes -- whoops! :D
The only other AO game that I have is Singles, which is a adult verison of The Sims. That shows a couple in bed, but not any privates. Although you can have a guy/guy and girl/girl scene if you want. :eek 2: THAT ALONE probaly got the AO rating. LOL
Kitsune Sniper
07-18-2005, 09:34 AM
The only other AO game that I have is Singles, which is a adult verison of The Sims. That shows a couple in bed, but not any privates. Although you can have a guy/guy and girl/girl scene if you want. :eek 2: THAT ALONE probaly got the AO rating. LOL
http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2283
Griking
07-19-2005, 09:02 AM
another article about GTA and game ratings (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/games/2005-07-18-graphicgame_x.htm?csp=15)
I found this quote interesting
"I think it is very important for people to realize that this game is rated "M" for mature," Vance said. "This game is not a game that was rated for children. Regardless of what if anything was modified, it's a game that the ESRB has made as clear as it can that it was not intended for anyone under the age of 17."
If you're trying to make it crystal clear to everybody that this game and others like it are not intended for anyone under the age of 17 then what's the big deal about making it illegal to sell the game to anyone under 17? The ESRB and Rockstar can't complain about lost sales to people they claim shouldn't be playing the game in the first place.
another quote from the article
As part of the process, game makers must submit a lengthy form describing the most extreme content, and turn over visual samples and scripted dialogue as each game nears the final stages of development.
The ESRB then hires everyday New Yorkers to test the games and recommend ratings, from "E" for everyone to "AO" for adults only. At least three testers try each game, and recommended ratings are delivered within five days, Vance said.
Its interesting how they say that the games are rated by New Yorkers, that is, people from one of the most violent cities in the nation. I'm sure that they're able to squeeze by questionable games that way that would have never gotten a T or M rating if they were reviewed by people in say, Bismarck, North Dakota. Nothing personal against New Yorkers its just that I'm sure that they've been exposed to a lot more violent than people smaller more rural cities.
zmweasel
07-19-2005, 09:35 AM
If you're trying to make it crystal clear to everybody that this game and others like it are not intended for anyone under the age of 17 then what's the big deal about making it illegal to sell the game to anyone under 17? The ESRB and Rockstar can't complain about lost sales to people they claim shouldn't be playing the game in the first place.
What do you mean by "illegal"? As in, allow the government to arrest anyone who sells an M-rated game to anyone under 17? If that's what you mean, why not also allow the government to arrest any movie-theater employee who sells a ticket to an R- or NC-17-rated film to anyone under 17?
Its interesting how they say that the games are rated by New Yorkers, that is, people from one of the most violent cities in the nation. I'm sure that they're able to squeeze by questionable games that way that would have never gotten a T or M rating if they were reviewed by people in say, Bismarck, North Dakota. Nothing personal against New Yorkers its just that I'm sure that they've been exposed to a lot more violent than people smaller more rural cities.
Surely you have some statistics to back up your claim that New York is one of the most violent cities in the U.S.
-- Z.
felix
07-19-2005, 09:53 AM
I wasn't going to post in this thread because it really isn't going anywhere. Nobody is going to convince the next guy that their opinion is wrong because it is just that.. an opinion.
I think both parties are missing a big point here. Video games have become a mass media much like TV or Movies have over the past 30 years. I look at this as history's loop that naturally happens over the years. If you will, look back at TV and Movies over the span of the last 50 years. Do you remember the controversy over the line in the movie Gone With The Wind? All of that comotion was over the word "damn", a word that is commonplace now and hardly a "swearword" or taboo in nature. Over time, media has evolved and the envelope has been pushed. Now a days its not too uncommon to see a sex scene in a PG13 movie that would have constituted an R rating 10 years ago. Its just the natural evolution of mass media and if you think its going to end here, sorry to say this but your sorely mistaken my friend.
Personally, I think this is just the flavor of the week and will blow over a few weeks. Chances are you will forget about it and have yourself a good giggle when it shows up on VH1 years from now on some special about 2000-2005.
rbudrick
07-19-2005, 10:46 AM
That's pornography, which is illegal to sell to a 17-year-old. M-rated games are 17+.
No, it really doesn't fit in with the legal definition of pronography.
But besides, seeing some tits and a guy's ass is nothing you wouldn't see in a rated R movie...are those porn?
There is no genitalia seen. Also, Who said the game was SOLD to a 17 year old? Nothing says he can't watch/play it.
In fact, it's a badly pixelated cartoony view of nakedness, by any person's standards, I'm sure. Hardly porn.
-Rob
SoulBlazer
07-19-2005, 02:20 PM
I think what he means is that if the publishers and the ESRB SAY they don't want M rated games to be sold to anyone under 17, they should be willing to accept new policies and laws to enforce it.
Right now, enforcing that is a joke. Some stores I know will card kids. Some won't. Never mind the fact if a parent is there, is told all about the game, and buys it for their kid right there anyway. That's a stupid parent. I mean, as that article points out, putting some teeth into the claim that publishers and the ESRB don't want M rated games to be sold to anyone under 17.
It goes back to what I said myself eariler in this thread -- tighten the policies, close the loopholes, 'suggest' to stores that it's in their best intrests to follow the laws. The ESRB can draft new procedures and be a little better at rating games, publishers can threaten to stop shipments to stores that sell M rated games to stores, and states can fine stores that do so anyway.
I don't mind local government being involved in this process. But now the BIG boys want to get into it. Time for the ESRB and publishers to get serious about their claims or things are just going to get a lot worse -- for them AND for all of us gamers.
Oh, and New York is no where as violent as it used to be. ;) But people in large cities will be more accepting of things like guns and drug use because of their enviroment. (just dig up one of the many studies done on the subject).
Griking
07-19-2005, 08:40 PM
If you're trying to make it crystal clear to everybody that this game and others like it are not intended for anyone under the age of 17 then what's the big deal about making it illegal to sell the game to anyone under 17? The ESRB and Rockstar can't complain about lost sales to people they claim shouldn't be playing the game in the first place.
What do you mean by "illegal"? As in, allow the government to arrest anyone who sells an M-rated game to anyone under 17? If that's what you mean, why not also allow the government to arrest any movie-theater employee who sells a ticket to an R- or NC-17-rated film to anyone under 17?
No, I'm not suggesting that people who sell these game to children should be put in handcuffs made to do hard time. I do however support the idea of fining the stores that do so, and harshly for repeat offenders. And to be honest, I see nothing wrong with fining movie theatres who allow unsupervised children into 'R' rated movies either. What's so wrong about enforcing our rules and laws?
Its interesting how they say that the games are rated by New Yorkers, that is, people from one of the most violent cities in the nation. I'm sure that they're able to squeeze by questionable games that way that would have never gotten a T or M rating if they were reviewed by people in say, Bismarck, North Dakota. Nothing personal against New Yorkers its just that I'm sure that they've been exposed to a lot more violent than people smaller more rural cities.
Surely you have some statistics to back up your claim that New York is one of the most violent cities in the U.S.-- Z.
No, I don't have statistics it's just my opinion. It just seems to me that violence would be a bit more expected in a place like New York than in other cities. I live in Connecticut and pick up New York channels. Watching the evening news on a New York station can easily lead one to believe that New York is a war zone.
Answer me this, if you had to choose would you rather your 14 year old son attend public school in Brooklyn, NY or Bismark, ND? What about if your 17 year old daughter's car broke down at 9pm one evening and she had to walk 2 miles to get to a phone booth would you rather that she broke down in New York City or would you prefer that it happened in Provo Utah?
zmweasel
07-19-2005, 11:42 PM
No, I'm not suggesting that people who sell these game to children should be put in handcuffs made to do hard time. I do however support the idea of fining the stores that do so, and harshly for repeat offenders. And to be honest, I see nothing wrong with fining movie theatres who allow unsupervised children into 'R' rated movies either. What's so wrong about enforcing our rules and laws?
There's nothing wrong with enforcing our laws, but we need to determine whether those laws are necessary to begin with. Government should never be given power without careful consideration of the ramifications.
It's onerous enough that government regulates the content of radio and non-cable television broadcasts, and levies fines against indefinable "indecency." I certainly don't want the government, and particularly the current administration, deciding which video games are "indecent" as well.
No, I don't have statistics it's just my opinion. It just seems to me that violence would be a bit more expected in a place like New York than in other cities. I live in Connecticut and pick up New York channels. Watching the evening news on a New York station can easily lead one to believe that New York is a war zone.
Local newscasts in urban broadcast areas famously live by the motto of "if it bleeds, it leads." They feed their viewers grotesque spectacle and irrational fear.
Also, I did your research for you, and dug up a detailed survey of the safest and most dangerous cities in the United States: http://www.morganquitno.com/cit05pop.htm
What's the fifth-safest large city in the United States? New York, New York.
What's the fourth-most dangerous small city in the United States? Hartford, Connecticut.
I hope you don't live in Hartford!
-- Z.
Griking
07-20-2005, 05:53 PM
Well it's official. GTA San Andreas is now an adults only (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050720/D8BFBTN82.html) game
Ed Oscuro
01-27-2006, 05:07 PM
...Rocky Delgadillo?
kainemaxwell
01-27-2006, 06:30 PM
Intresting turn of events...
Wow, and the video of the blowjob and intercourse action was given away on the cover CD of the German Teenie gaming magazine Bravo Screenfun (plus screenshots inside the magazine of same scene), which is read by 8 - 20 year olds (and me).
On the other hand, in Germany, they eager to cut out the violence.
DigitalSpace
01-28-2006, 01:01 AM
The following quote was posted by boxmyth on Kotaku (http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/top/taketwo-rockstar-sued-by-la-151199.php). Thought it was worth posting here:
I'd like to point out that Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo is running for state attorney general, and seems to be trying to win the family vote by speaking out against videogames, as is currently the popular gimmick with ignorant politicians.
I vote. Gamers vote. We shouldn't vote for people like Mr. Delgadillo if he insists on demonizing videogames as part of his political platform.
Go to his campaign site and tell him how you feel:
http://rocky2006.com/rocky2006/contact.html
Rockstar did make misleading comments and proceeded to lie repeatedly after the discovery of the hidden content. I'm not sure there are any legal grounds to sue, though.