First GTA:SA , Now the SIMS 2... Please stop!!

[sealboy6]

Quite frankly, I don't see a problem here. It's about time game developers become accountable to the consumer public. They are reaping the economic benefit of their products, while at the same time not properly labeling the content upon the agreed upon ratings system. I think game developers have a duty to truthfully disclose the content of their product pursuant to the agreed upon ratings system. This allows the consumer to make an educated decision as to whether the product is suitable for either themselves or their families, especially minor children.

If the the game developers want to mass market their product to all levels of the consumer market, then they shouldn't place such content in their products. On the other hand, there is nothing preventing them from selling the product "as is", as long as they truthfully disclose the content. It's no different than cigarettes, alcohol, NC-17 movies or adult magazines. Nothing's preventing the producers of any of those products from manufacturering and selling their goods. They simply can't sell their items to minors.

Am I missing something here? Why is this a big deal to some of you (other than the fact you may be 17 years old or younger). This is not censorship. Nothing is stoping any of these developers from selling their product "as is." They simply have to disclose its content or otherwise make the product conform to the agreed upon ratings system if they want to sell to the target audience. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

First of all, before you post, you should know what you're talking about. Video game developers DO properly label the content of their products. It's called the ESRB Ratings and Content Descriptors, which say in bold black text on the back of every video game for sale what is in the game and what age the game is recommended for. It is not the developer's fault at all what the consumer purchases, because it is up to them to read the information provided by the developers and the ESRB and to make their own rational decision whether to purchase or not. It is also not the fault of developers if a child goes out and copies what they see in video games for this is not the intention of the developers. This is caused by overactive imaginations, poor judgement, and poor parenting. Any child in trouble for playing and/or mimicking a mature-rated game is the fault of the parent because the parent decided to purchase said game for the child, since NO RETAIL STORE IN AMERICA will sell a Mature-rated title to ANYONE UNDER THE AGE OF 17.

As for the sexual content in GTA SA, this stuff was not openly available in the game. This is content that could only be unlocked if you used an Action Replay. Rockstar did not fully intend average consumers to access this information. You have to go very out of your way to actually access this sexual content. The ESRB made the decision to only grade video games on the content they could readily access while playing the game normally, and they've been doing this ever since the ESRB was founded. Any unlockable content should not be up for question in the rating process.

And this most certainly is censorship. Since no retailer will carry an Adults Only rated game, that means that the government has told us what we can and cannot buy, therefore taking away our free will, which is the worst kind of censorship you can impress on a human being.

In my personal opinion, I don't think you deserve to be on this website. You're siding with "The Man" and not fighting for your freedom of choice. I'm not saying you shouldn't believe what you want to believe, I'm just saying that this isn't the area for those kind of beliefs. You should be in the comforts of others who think like you, and not among people who adamantly disagree.

But again, before you post next time about such an important topic, think before you say something, make sure what you say has truth to back it up, cuz you just made yourself sound like an idiot.


Just so you know, the developer/publisher, Rockstar and 2K games, don't have a say in how the game is rated. The ESRB gets the full game, a written statement fromthe company, and videos of the worst gameplay to make their judgement on. Rockstars only problem was not taking out the code due to laziness, I would guess.

[sealboy6]

So if we don't like this video game witch hunt, what can *we* do to stop it?

I don't think we can do much. Thompson has money and power as a lobbyists, and any congressman or senator would we stupid to vote against a bill to stop bad video games. Most people don't want bad video games, so obviously, somebody speaking out against them will be able to gain power among the people of this nation.

The only thing, I think, that we can do is to show how illogical this is. When I was 10 years old, I read Rising Sun by Michael Crighton. I think there were about 300 f words and a rape was talked about. This would definitely be rated R or M, but I was 10 and read it. This is where we come in. If video games should be rateed more harshly because of "bad" things, then we can also say that books and tv and movies even more should be rated more harshly. It is illogical to try to rate and keep away from people everything bad from happening, because it is against our first ammendment rights. I don't think we can come across too bold though, so I think we need an intelligent way to stop them, and to try to show that video games are our friends, not our foes.

You'd be amazed what the power of the internet can do. Some people claimed it changed the results of the election. The bloggers made the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth what they are, nowadays you can really make ground through internet.

Yes, but the internet works both ways. The SBVFT were countered by MoveAlong.org, which actually had some pretty damn good commercials against Bush. If the video gamers try to go through the internet to attack Thompson, people who agree with him can do the exact same thing.

[esquire]

Just so you know, the developer/publisher, Rockstar and 2K games, don't have a say in how the game is rated. The ESRB gets the full game, a written statement fromthe company, and videos of the worst gameplay to make their judgement on. Rockstars only problem was not taking out the code due to laziness, I would guess.

Either that or disclosing the code/minigame was in there to begin with. I highly doubt they did.

[esquire]

Quite frankly, I don't see a problem here. It's about time game developers become accountable to the consumer public. They are reaping the economic benefit of their products, while at the same time not properly labeling the content upon the agreed upon ratings system. I think game developers have a duty to truthfully disclose the content of their product pursuant to the agreed upon ratings system. This allows the consumer to make an educated decision as to whether the product is suitable for either themselves or their families, especially minor children.

If the the game developers want to mass market their product to all levels of the consumer market, then they shouldn't place such content in their products. On the other hand, there is nothing preventing them from selling the product "as is", as long as they truthfully disclose the content. It's no different than cigarettes, alcohol, NC-17 movies or adult magazines. Nothing's preventing the producers of any of those products from manufacturering and selling their goods. They simply can't sell their items to minors.

Am I missing something here? Why is this a big deal to some of you (other than the fact you may be 17 years old or younger). This is not censorship. Nothing is stoping any of these developers from selling their product "as is." They simply have to disclose its content or otherwise make the product conform to the agreed upon ratings system if they want to sell to the target audience. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

First of all, before you post, you should know what you're talking about. Video game developers DO properly label the content of their products. It's called the ESRB Ratings and Content Descriptors, which say in bold black text on the back of every video game for sale what is in the game and what age the game is recommended for.

No shit sherlock. And Rockstar disclosed the sex minigame was in the game and accessible by a cheat code? Apparently not.


It is not the developer's fault at all what the consumer purchases, because it is up to them to read the information provided by the developers and the ESRB and to make their own rational decision whether to purchase or not. It is also not the fault of developers if a child goes out and copies what they see in video games for this is not the intention of the developers. This is caused by overactive imaginations, poor judgement, and poor parenting. Any child in trouble for playing and/or mimicking a mature-rated game is the fault of the parent because the parent decided to purchase said game for the child, since NO RETAIL STORE IN AMERICA will sell a Mature-rated title to ANYONE UNDER THE AGE OF 17.

Your assuming the ESRB rating is accurate based upon the content. The rest of your rant has nothing to do with the topic. Of course its not the developers fault if some jackass parent lets their kid play games that have sex minigames in them. The whole point of pulling GTA San Andreas to begin with was the fact that ROCKSTAR DIDN'T DISCLOSE THAT THEY HAD LEFT THE CODE FOR MINIGAME IN THE FREAKIN' GAME. Don't believe me, read the ESRB's position on the subject here (http://gamespot.com/news/2005/07/21/news_6129557.html)

From the article....


. . . What we're saying is that if you, as publisher, produce content that's pertinent to a rating, and leave it on a disc--risking that it might be accessed by a modder--then it's your responsibility. And if it undermines the accuracy of the rating, it's your responsibility.

It's up to publishers to take action against third-party modders, not ours. Our only obligation is to make sure that the rating is accurate. The publisher is responsible for creating content. If they then leave it on the disc and it undermines the effectiveness of the rating, then we have no choice but to take action. We're actually putting responsibility solely in the publishers' hands.

. . .


Do you believe Rockstar knew that this undisclosed content was on the disc that was submitted for duplication?


That doesn't matter to the ESRB. That's never been a factor that we weigh. If it's on the disc, it's on the disc, whether you're aware of it or not. The publisher is always responsible for disclosing all the content on the disc; that [responsibility has] got to lie with the publisher.

Seems to me that you are the one that is clearly misinformed and not aware of the very facts that you purport to have knowledge of.


As for the sexual content in GTA SA, this stuff was not openly available in the game. This is content that could only be unlocked if you used an Action Replay. Rockstar did not fully intend average consumers to access this information. You have to go very out of your way to actually access this sexual content. The ESRB made the decision to only grade video games on the content they could readily access while playing the game normally, and they've been doing this ever since the ESRB was founded. Any unlockable content should not be up for question in the rating process.

And you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about. You better do a little research yourself buddy. As stated above, the ESRB feels otherwise.

Regardless, why would Rockstar even risk such a thing like this happening when they could have easily taken the code out. It seems to me that they wanted it left in, and can now conveniently blame it on "hackers."


And this most certainly is censorship. Since no retailer will carry an Adults Only rated game, that means that the government has told us what we can and cannot buy, therefore taking away our free will, which is the worst kind of censorship you can impress on a human being.

Again, the pot calling the kettle black. You clearly don't know what censorship is. No one (i.e., the govertment, or the "man" in your case) is telling Rockstar they can't publish GTA San Andreas in its original form, or that they can even sell it. Whe I was 15, I wanted to buy Playboy magazine, but I couldn't. That's not censorship. Now that I am an adult, I would like to buy Hustler at Border's Bookstores, but chances are I can't because Border's, a private company (publicly traded stock) chose not to carry Hustler. That is not censorship you ignoramus. That is freedom of choice. Border's decides what types of products they want to sell, because they want to be portrayed as a certain type of business.

Now, if there is a market for a product and the demand is high for a game like GTA San Andreas, believe me someone will decide to carry it.


In my personal opinion, I don't think you deserve to be on this website. You're siding with "The Man" and not fighting for your freedom of choice. I'm not saying you shouldn't believe what you want to believe, I'm just saying that this isn't the area for those kind of beliefs. You should be in the comforts of others who think like you, and not among people who adamantly disagree.

Strong words coming from someone with 6 posts to their name. Funny that you say that as well, because you my friend are advocating for the same thing which you apparently abhor - censoring other people's speech.


But again, before you post next time about such an important topic, think before you say something, make sure what you say has truth to back it up, cuz you just made yourself sound like an idiot.

Seems to me like you made yourself look like an idiot. You attacked another member's post, when your counter-argument was not based on any facts (in fact the position of the ESRB is completely contrary to the very position you would have us believe that they would take). You don't know what censorship is, and although you are against it, you want to tell me what I can and cannot post. Lastly, you as a "noob" want to tell me that I shouldn't be on this forum. Yeah, I'm the one that's the idiot. Right... :roll: :hmm: :roll: :hmm:

[evildead2099]

esquire: Calm down, and look up the definition of "censorship" in a dictionary before you criticise others for misunderstanding the term and its implications. You're not as on the mark as you think you are.

[The Brown Eye]

And Rockstar disclosed the sex minigame was in the game and accessible by a cheat code? Apparently not.

The minigame cannot be unlocked without a third-party device. It CANNOT be unlocked with any device made or licensed by Sony or Rockstar, or with any in-game cheat code. IMO if you can't buy the game and access it with any of the above-mentioned things, then it is not Rockstar's fault what some horny people do with unused code. Same scenario applies for EA with The Sims. EA does not supply any device, patch or mod to allow nudity. Thus, they are not at fault.

Rockstar's lie is a different matter entirely.

[FantasiaWHT]

(haven't read past the first page)

First, Jack obviously doesn't know enough about how video games to make these claims. He apparently doesn't know (or possibly chooses to ignore) the difference between a hack/mod that actually changes or adds to the game code, and one that unlocks something already in the game.

Second of all, NOBODY SHOW THIS GUY DARKWATCH!

I want that game too much please thank you :)

[FantasiaWHT]

Interesting discussion on censorship

censorship at its most literal is actually forcing change to the CONTENT of something, or forbidding its distribution.

At its broadest definition, censorship can also include forbidding ACCESS, which is different. In this form, a parent not letting a child see a rated R movie or buy a Playboy is censorship.

In regards to the first ammendment right to free speech/expression (which is what we're really focusing on here, tho nobody has quite brought it up) this isn't an issue. The first ammendment guarantees you the right to express yourself but NOT the right to be heard. Nobody is forbidding Rockstar to make their game, and nobody is forbidding Take 2 to publish it. Nobody is forcing them to change it either (Rockstar is making that choice themselves to get a different rating). Individual companies are exercising THEIR own right to freedom of expression by refusing to sell it.

To compare it to Dixie Chicks... nobody stopped them from making their music, but individual companies used their freedom to choose not to promote their product.

Or another good one, if any of you know who Ward Churchill is, he is a professor who has publicly applauded the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a justified action, calling the victims "little Eichmans," comparing them to leaders in the Nazi campaign. He travels to other campuses to speak, inciting quite a bit of controversy. But of course, anybody that protests his paid engagements is, ironically, labelled as a "free-speech obstructionist" and the act as "censorship". This is ridiculous; the Bill of Rights guarantees your right to speak, not to speak at a specific locaton for a specific audience. Choosing not to hire Churchill is not an abridgement of his free speech. I wouldn't be allowed to speak to a crowded lecture hall of college students even if I did it for free, are my rights being "trampled on"?

[fpstream]

Just so you know, the developer/publisher, Rockstar and 2K games, don't have a say in how the game is rated. The ESRB gets the full game, a written statement fromthe company, and videos of the worst gameplay to make their judgement on. Rockstars only problem was not taking out the code due to laziness, I would guess.

Either that or disclosing the code/minigame was in there to begin with. I highly doubt they did.

Yes, but the people who agree with Thompson are parents, who aren't friendly to the internet. Plus it's MoveOn.org not Movealong.org.

[esquire]

And Rockstar disclosed the sex minigame was in the game and accessible by a cheat code? Apparently not.

The minigame cannot be unlocked without a third-party device. It CANNOT be unlocked with any device made or licensed by Sony or Rockstar, or with any in-game cheat code. IMO if you can't buy the game and access it with any of the above-mentioned things, then it is not Rockstar's fault what some horny people do with unused code. Same scenario applies for EA with The Sims. EA does not supply any device, patch or mod to allow nudity. Thus, they are not at fault.

Rockstar's lie is a different matter entirely.

Did you even read through the entire post, or did you just selectively pick something out? By the ESRB's own guidelines, developers are responsible for all content in their product, whether its accessible by mods, hacks or whatever. It doesn't matter. And even more important, the developer is responsible whether they knew it was left in or not. After all, it is the developer that is in the best position to know what code is in its product, not the ESRB.

But let's be honest here. Rockstar developed the code. It just didn't appear out of nowhere. What were they even thinking when they developed it? That was their first mistake. Their second mistake was that they were either extremely stupid by "accidentally" leaving it in there, or seeing if they could get away with leaving it in there. We as gamers know that developers leave easter eggs and hidden items in their games only accessible by cheat codes, and these are created for a reason. The developer wants you to access them. otherwise, why even leave them in to begin with? It amazes me that many of you want to blame lazy parents for not monitoring their kids behavior and letting them play games like GTA to begin with, and you are correct there. But that does not excuse Rockstar from their own responsibility to truthfully disclose all content on their product to the ESRB.

[esquire]

esquire: Calm down, and look up the definition of "censorship" in a dictionary before you criticise others for misunderstanding the term and its implications. You're not as on the mark as you think you are.

Why not just give me your explanation. Better yet, please tell me who is censoring Rockstar? Who is preventing Rockstar from putting that code in the game? You are confusing censorship with freedom of choice. Retailers get to pick and choose what products they sell in their stores. Using your logic, since I can't find Nanostray for the DS at EB Games, Majesco is being censored by EB Games.

According to Webster's, censorship is "the institution, system, or practice of censoring." And censoring is "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable." So tell me how is Rockstar being suppressed and by whom? There was no edict or court order requiring retailers to pull the item from their shelves. In fact, last time I checked, Amazon.com was still selling the game. But here's the greatest point. If the code was never meant to be accessed, how is that requiring Rockstar to either A) properly disclose the content and take the consequences of a stricter ESRB rating, or B) remove the content from the game in order to get the desired ESRB rating to sell to the mass market, censorship? Nothing has been suppressed, save maybe the code that was either never supposed to be there in the first place, or never supposed to accessible. Again what is being censored? If Rockstar wants to sell products under a ESRB rating that will allow them to reach the broadest market posssible, they have to abide by those guidelines. They didn't. Plain and simple.