Be reasonable and aggressive - The GTA Controversy

[lendelin]

Reading through the various GTA threads, I'm amazed how many of us gamers while opposing the babble of politicians still fall nevertheless for some stereotypical myths and old strategies of anti-gaming activists.

1. The videogame business is not a kids business anymore. Period. Even in '93 it wasn't. GTA has nothing, but absolutely nothing to do with little "kids" playing the game. A 17 year old is not a child, he is not a third grader.

The strategy of anti-gaming activists such as parental groups, so called watch groups and various institutes is a very simple one: articulate the concern about "our children." Make the gamers younger than they actually are, this way the crusade against games can be more effective by stirring up emotions. It is a non-sensical strategy in order to avoid the biggest blow against non-gaming activists: namely that games are simply rated.

Watch groups put pics of ten year olds on their sites, and then deliver biased information about games who are rated M. Empirical researchers focus on children 12 years and younger because the effect of so called "violent media" on behaviour completely disappears for older children and cannot be even skewed like it is the case with younger age groups.

Politicians do the same. Hilary Clinton: "The ability of our children (sic!) to access pornographic (sic!) material on an “M” rated video game is spiraling out of control."

Do not fall for it by being defensive when it comes to this issue. Go into the offense and take a stance!

2. Rockstar is neither legally nor morally responsible for the mini-game on the disc. The game as it is purchased does not allow to play the sequence. Period.

What is the strategy of the non-gaming activists: it was left there to be discovered, it was a deceiving act by the developer/publisher. The bad intentions of morally irresponsible game developers are assumed.

The mini-game is well hidden. It is not like a record that can be played easily backwards. You have to use a game-altering device, and then go through lenghty measures to play it. The responsibility is with the 17year-old who plays this sequence, with no-one else. It is NOT easily accessible like anti-gaming activists want you to believe.

Do not blame Rockstar and assume evil intentions, and do not assume that a ten-year old will play the game and demand from the game industry to watch our children.

3. Please do not make a conservative/liberal issue out of the controversy according to your own political position. It is not.

The real danger for the gaming industry and the resulting hysterical pressure comes from the simple fact that the anti-gaming stereotypes cut across party lines. If it were a conservative/liberal issue, it wouldn't be dangerous.

Conservatives and liberals alike have the same stereoeotypical opinions about games; it is a result of the same stereotypes repeated over and over again for over fifteen years now.

Gamers should be concerned about the fact that politicians can use the GTA controversy as a "soft" issue; that is exactly what Hilary Clinton does for the sake of her future track record, and that is exactly what Kohl and Lieberman do since '93. To speak ot against the game is a win-win situation. To speak out against hysteria and remind the public of prudence is a loose-loose situation.

The real danger is the resultant pressure on legislators. Someone who opposes hysterical legislation will face in his next election campaign statements by his opponents like "He supported pornography in violent games and failed to protect our children."

My real concern is that this nonsense won't die. It is out there since the end of the '80s and hasn't changed a bit. Games are under much more scrutiny than music, TV and movies. These never-learning, simple-minded and simplistic thinking reactionaries lost their 'educational-concerned' battles against literature, paintings, comic books, movies and music. It is up to us to fight against their attempt to restrict the freedom of an entertainment form by putting common sense against it NOT by falling for their cheap strategies.

[Lothars]

Well looks like the US goverment is getting involved in this

wow shows how pathetic it is when they are not looking at facts and are just pressured

piss me off at this crap that they are bothering rockstar

grrr...drives me crazy

here's the link for the gamespot article.
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/gta4/news_6129723.html

[SoulBlazer]

Good post.

I disagree with you strongly on Number 2 -- Rockstar CAN and SHOULD have known this would happen if they left the mini game on the disc, and the ESRB feels the same way -- but I allready said my thoughts on this in the 'San Andreas: AO!' thread and don't see a need to say it again here.

I totally agree with you on 1 and 3, though. :)

[lendelin]

I disagree with you strongly on Number 2 -- Rockstar CAN and SHOULD have known this would happen if they left the mini game on the disc, and the ESRB feels the same way.

You shift the responsibility predominantly to Rockstar. This is exactly the longstanding strategy of anti-gaming activists -- according to them the individual behaviour of gamers isn't important, it is the game offerings by developers. Gamers are viewed as passive consumers, easily influenced, and they don't have choices -- they just go after everything that is offered. An ideal set-up to "victimize" poor immature gamers. Gmae dvelopers lay out bait, and gamers just fall for it.

Reality is put on its head. The very active gamers who CAN make up their minds caused the problem, not Rockstar.

If something is well hidden, who is to blame? The one who hid it well, or the one who desparately looks for it and discovers it?

If this mini-game was on the source material or had to be created is completely besides the point for our discussion. (it plays a role for Rockstars' PR startegy after their dumb mistake with their first PR statement, however)

Michelangelo painted naked men and women in the Sixtine Chapel for the Last Judgement. There was outrage and concern about it, and the pressured Pope hired an artist who painted little pieces of clothing over the genitals.

The pieces of clothing were centuries later removed. Who is to blame? Michelangelo or the ones who decided to remove the "covers"? I don't think Michelangelo is to blame even --in stark contrast to Rockstar -- he intended the paintings to be seen uncovered and didn't hide the 'outrageous' body parts himself.

Rockstar made a decision that this mini-game shouldn't be played. It is not part of the game as it was sold. From this moment on all the responsibility shifts to the ones who have to go through lenghty measures to uncover the mini-game becasue they WANT to play it. It is not Rockstars responsibility to watch 16 year olds, it was certainly not a 'deceiving' act, and it is not Rockstars responsibility to think in terms what shoulda or coulda have been.

[evil_genius]

Rockstar should have known that when it came out on PC it would be discovered.

[SoulBlazer]

Which is exactly how I still feel. They should have just realized the problems it would cause -- and give the anti-gamers something to crow about -- and removed it before releasing the game.

But I've allready said all of this in the other thread, so I really don't want to repeat myself, or look like I'm arguing, because I'm not. ;)

Really, a good post, and some interesting thoughts. Thanks for sharing with us.

You may also want to read Gamespot's recent interview with the woman who runs the ESRB, also. Very interesting and informative article on how the ESRB sees things.

[MegaDrive20XX]

Politicians do the same. Hilary Clinton: "The ability of our children (sic!) to access pornographic (sic!) material on an “M” rated video game is spiraling out of control."


Okay, since when Hilary? It took us forever to get some decent attention towards the Adult audience of gamers currently.

I don't honestly think it's spiraling out of control, that is over-exaggerating the issue.

First off, Hillary did this for the publicity and money, she only attacked Rockstar Games because they are making the most money in the US Market at the moment. Do you see her attacking ID Software's DOOM? Midway Game's Mortal Kombat? No, because they don't make that much money as Rockstar Games has reached in the past 4 years

Second, she's a goddamn hypocrite, not only is she supporting this, but also supporting Military actions.

Now this tells the public a few mixed messages I think. For example:

"It's okay to kill someone in the name of your country, but not in a video game fantasy-like world for our children" Is pretty much the message I'm understanding from her.

And what about every other video game out there that has just the equal amount? Conker? DOOM 3? Playboy Game? Leisure Suit Larry?

Here's the reason why they won't attack them...Conker has a cute image of a furry squirrel, if you disguise the character with an image like that, it can easily be ignored unless you bring it to the attention of the people. Leisure Suit Larry? Why he looks like Elmer Fudd! Nobody hates a cartoon character! Yet little do they know how much went on in the actual game. So these two games go ignored...

DOOM 3, this issue was discussed with an employee of mine. DOOM has also been under fire since 1993 and the Columbine bullshit. Which I'm frankly sick of that everyone compares every school shooting to that, when there has been many more that have been ignored by the media and each school shooting I've seen is by far much more worse, only reason they focus on Columbine so damn much because it's a vacation spot and Aspen is close so it's convienent for all the famous news teams to swoop down there with a camera crew because the Motel is so close by...it's all about the money!

Now for the reason I bring up DOOM 3, is that there is a thin line between Violence and Porn. People keeping slapping them in the same area of "What's wrong with games". Yet each game rating tells you straight up what the game focuses on more. "Contains Violence" or "Contains Breif Nudity".

If the soccer mom's cannot understand the simple ratings or can't read...Not Rockstar's fault...not Sony's fault...it's their own damn fault for not reading the damn back of the box!

Like "Larry Tate" from the movie Cable Guy once said "Someone has to kill the babysitter!"

Meaning, Soccer Mom's need to get off their asses and pay attention to their kids for once! I swear I will put the smackdown on the next lady who comes in and says "I Don't care! As long as they get out of my hair!"

The parents do not care! I'm telling ya! As an employee of GameCrazy the parents do not give a damn about what those kids do! It's pathiec!

[fpstream]

Funny Hillary Clinton fearing that children will be exposed to sex when they're too young. Didn't hear her say anything during 1998. But that's not the point. The demographic for video games is 18-24 is the most popular demographic. Parents buy video games for their children, kids don't have $50 to shell over for a video game. In the end the parents make the desicion, even what console to get for their kids. It's nothing but the parents fault if their kid ends up with a copy of GTA:SA, this whole thing is looking for a way to deflect blame for bad parenting. Bloguyavich, however you spell it, the governor of Illinois, just passed a video game bill that resulted in anyone selling a M game to a minor to recieve a $1000 fine. It was passed by 97-2 I believe. It's becuase no one dares to vote against it. Politicians that do vote against have lost votes from both Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives. It's really a losing battle though, because who dares to vote against children in a bill that will only help them...

[goatdan]

Bloguyavich, however you spell it, the governor of Illinois, just passed a video game bill that resulted in anyone selling a M game to a minor to recieve a $1000 fine. It was passed by 97-2 I believe. It's becuase no one dares to vote against it.

I don't understnad how anyone is arguing that laws like the one you reference don't make sense. Unless, of course, those people are under-age and their parents won't buy them games.

If you whine and bitch about wanting parents to be parents, but then you whine and bitch when laws are passed so that parents are forced to be parents more -- this law wasn't against a retailer selling the game to a parent to give to their child -- then you aren't arguing straight. There are laws against selling tobacco products, alcohol and pornography to kids under the age of 18 with repurcussions too -- but if you as a parent want to buy a copy of Hustler and a pack of smokes and give it to your son or daughter, that's up to you.

Laws like this are fine, and quite frankly something that I think is necessary for video games to start to be treated more seriously.

[kainemaxwell]

You may also want to read Gamespot's recent interview with the woman who runs the ESRB, also. Very interesting and informative article on how the ESRB sees things.

Got a link for it, I couldn't find it. Also came across this though over in Japan:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/25/news_6129701.html

[goatdan]

Oh yes... one more reply I wanted to do...


2. Rockstar is neither legally nor morally responsible for the mini-game on the disc. The game as it is purchased does not allow to play the sequence. Period.

R* is legally (although not morally, since I don't think they care about that anyway) responsible for the mini-game on the disc because _they_ put it there. If it was a mini-game created to look like the GTA world by a third party, then they wouldn't be.

Even with saying that, R* isn't so much in trouble for putting it there, but then for coming up with the excuse that hackers put it there. How stupid do they think gamers / politicians are? If R* would've come up with a better excuse or just defended the "it wasn't supposed to be accessable" route, they wouldn't have so much egg on their face. But by lying to try to shift blame away from them, it makes everyone wonder why and makes them look much worse.


3. Please do not make a conservative/liberal issue out of the controversy according to your own political position. It is not.

This is probably directed at me from the other side, and I again apologize. I mentioned Republicans in the other thread because they usually come up with the stuff that has to do with protecting people, although lately the Democrats have been jumping on that boat much more than the Republicans (the Karl Rove thing highlights this perfectly -- if it didn't further their agenda, the Democrats would usually be the ones bitching that free speech was SOOOOOO important, while the Republicans would be trying to protect the people that he spoke out against. Since it is reversed...)

Anyway, while I said that it was a mistake -- it is the Democrats leading this attack although the Republicans are on board too. And just if anyone is wondering, I really, honestly hate both sides equally and don't really have an agenda against either... or I do, but it is against both equally. I want to see a third, "I think for myself" party.


The real danger is the resultant pressure on legislators. Someone who opposes hysterical legislation will face in his next election campaign statements by his opponents like "He supported pornography in violent games and failed to protect our children."

Yup. There are constantly bills around that do this. Edward Markey (Democrat from Massachuetts, I believe) has it out for amusement parks because the rides are SOOOOO dangerous. He published a report linking brain tramua that happened while roller coasters that had serious errors (wrong locations, not roller coasters, injuries determined to have nothing to do with the ride, pre-existing conditions, etc) that made it look like the industry was getting much more dangerous. But if you took the other facts, and looked at them, you found that the amount of people riding rides had gone up tenfold and the injuries were at a rate ten times _lower_ than what they were... But he's out to save the children!


My real concern is that this nonsense won't die. It is out there since the end of the '80s and hasn't changed a bit. Games are under much more scrutiny than music, TV and movies. These never-learning, simple-minded and simplistic thinking reactionaries lost their 'educational-concerned' battles against literature, paintings, comic books, movies and music. It is up to us to fight against their attempt to restrict the freedom of an entertainment form by putting common sense against it NOT by falling for their cheap strategies.

Sadly, it isn't just video games. As I highlighted, amusement parks are under the same scrutiny, and so are many, many other things. While I believe that some new things are okay (see my above post), I don't believe that any sort of bans should be put into place. There are other ways that the industry can move forward... and I hope they do.

I think that the R* case just brings a huge problem with the ESRB to light, and it is time to fix the problem now. Either the ESRB will fix it properly and politicians won't be able to attack it any further without coming off like morons, like they do with all of the other free speech things that you mentioned above.

[Matt-El]

Like "Larry Tate" from the movie Cable Guy once said "Someone has to kill the babysitter!"

Actually it's Ernie Douglas. But his friends call him Chip ;)

[portnoyd]

*snippie*

Could you go around wearing a placard with that post on it? I mean, it's pretty much the killer if Hilary was confronted with it.

I agree with all points, but I think some blame goes on Rockstar (as you said), how they handled this awfully PR-wise, which hurt everyone, even though it was not accessible.

Whether or not they knew what they saying was the truth at the time is the question, but they shouldn't come out and say it's a hack if they're not sure it's a hack.

My guess, is that the dev team had this cooked up, and said 'There is no way this will ever see the light of day, but it makes the GTA series more real and full'', and, programming wise, boarding it up, never to see the light of day. Figuring no one would find it (a gross error), the game was shipped. Time passes, and the internet does its thing and finds it.

Word of mouth spreads, and before the dev team can say 'Yeah, it's us', the PR team flaps its jaws and sticks foot, directly in mouth.

Sorry if this has already been posted, but there are about 8 or 9 GTASA posts, and I don't have the energy to read all of them.

[Gamereviewgod]

I don't understnad how anyone is arguing that laws like the one you reference don't make sense. Unless, of course, those people are under-age and their parents won't buy them games.

Government control isn't neccesary. If they're that worried about it, they should regulate movies too, but they don't. That's the problem.

[Matt-El]

Like "Larry Tate" from the movie Cable Guy once said "Someone has to kill the babysitter!"

Actually it's Ernie Douglas. But his friends call him Chip ;)

[evil_genius]

"It's okay to kill someone in the name of your country, but not in a video game fantasy-like world for our children" Is pretty much the message I'm understanding from her.



Meaning, Soccer Mom's need to get off their asses and pay attention to their kids for once! I swear I will put the smackdown on the next lady who comes in and says "I Don't care! As long as they get out of my hair!"

The parents do not care! I'm telling ya! As an employee of GameCrazy the parents do not give a damn about what those kids do! It's pathiec!

Some good points, I feel the same way. I heard a father tell his son months ago that he could not have San Andreas because of the sexual content or whatever. This was funny to me, funny because he did not mention the violence but rather the sex. Maybe he doesn't want his 11 yr old son getting a boner over some sexual noises and I understand that. But why shelter your kids from sex instead of violence?? Does that make sense? I don't want my son to be violent, I want him to get laid every weekend though (just like daddy used to). And no I don't think violent games make kids violent, well maybe the dumb ones. LOL

[goatdan]

I don't understnad how anyone is arguing that laws like the one you reference don't make sense. Unless, of course, those people are under-age and their parents won't buy them games.

Government control isn't neccesary. If they're that worried about it, they should regulate movies too, but they don't. That's the problem.

As far as I know, admitting minors at a movie theater into an R rated movie is against the law, and can draw the movie theater fines.

If the kid wants to see an R rated movie, he / she must be accompanied by a guardian.

I'm not saying that everyone enforces this, but you could buy ciggarettes at the corner shop less than a block from my middle school too. That doesn't necessarily mean that what they were doing was right.

[goatdan]

As far as I know, admitting minors at a movie theater into an R rated movie is against the law, and can draw the movie theater fines.

If the kid wants to see an R rated movie, he / she must be accompanied by a guardian.

Okay, I found out that it seems that I'm wrong about the above. Instead, when Congress / the President was getting really pissed at movie theaters for letting people in, the movie industry basically demanded that anyone with theaters start enforcing the codes themselves. Since then, they have been, and I wouldn't doubt if the MPAA would fine / restrict sending movies to theaters that don't agree.

The game industry so far has been pretty slow to reply to things like this, and I don't see the legislation in question doing anything to undermine free speech.

[badinsults]

Quite frankly, I am sick of people who are complaining about this crap on message boards and such. If you are truely angry about how politicians are handling issues, send them a fucking letter telling them that you are displeased. Quite frankly, if I saw a politician trampling on my free speech rignts in Canada, I would give them a call, write them a letter, or go to the local constiuency office, and tell them off. As far as I can tell, nothing of this magnitude has happened in Canada that would piss me off, but the instant it does, I will be protesting. I mean, mailing a letter only costs a few cents, and they do listen, if the protest is big enough. Now if you want to protest, here is some websites:

Jack Thompson
http://www.stopkill.com/

Hilary Clinton
http://clinton.senate.gov/contact/

Send them shit, and let them know. This is a democracy. Do you think Canada would have gone to war with Iraq if there hadn't been massive amounts of protest? Do you think the Liberals would have got away with the Sponsorship Scandal if there hadn't been protest? No. Don't just complain, shout to these elected officials!

/rant

[evildead2099]

Congratulations for transcribing such an articulate argument, lendelin.


If something is well hidden, who is to blame? The one who hid it well, or the one who desparately looks for it and discovers it?

That's a very good point. As much as some people may HATE depictions of sexual activity, the fact of the matter is that as far as GTA:SA is concerned, they'll never see the sexual mini-game in question unless they want to see it. For all we know, Super Mario Bros. could have had an ultra secret mini-game locked away in which the Mario Bros. have an orgy with Princess Peach and Toad. Since none of us have ever been able to unlock the said mini-game through typical sessions of game-playing, the mini-game is as non-existent as far as we're concerned.

The hypothetical situation that I just described is something that I made up, and I seriously doubt that there are sexual mini-games hidden in the Mario Bros. series, but that possibility does exist. Unless you are capable and willing to personally hack into the data of each and every Mario game, there's no way that you can be totally certain that a Mario game officially published by Nintendo (or perhaps Hotel Mario on CD-i) do not contain sexual mini-games. We can be reasonably assured, however, that since these mini-games are seemingly impossible to unlock via normal gameplay, we have nothing to worry about. It ultimately comes down to the individual and what he / she wants to DELIBERATELY subject him/herself to.

[evildead2099]

Thanks to Evan for that advice as well. Evan gets at the point that I made in a related thread: that online petitions are typically ineffective and that, considering the ignorance which the demonstrate toward the media which they scapegoat, politicians like Hillary Clinton obviously don't visit websites like the Retrogaming Roundtable. Most of those who've spoken on the issue helped confirm a sense of solidarity amongst the gaming community, but solidarity ain't worth shit if you're not bringing it to the attention of 'da man' (or, in this case, 'da bitch').

[Gamereviewgod]

If you are truely angry about how politicians are handling issues, send them a fucking letter telling them that you are displeased.

Done and done multiple times.

If you're going to do this, MAIL it, not e-mail. Make the letter stand out. Print it on nice stock. Check for typos!

[goatdan]

If you are truely angry about how politicians are handling issues, send them a fucking letter telling them that you are displeased. Quite frankly, if I saw a politician trampling on my free speech rignts in Canada, I would give them a call, write them a letter, or go to the local constiuency office, and tell them off.

Some of us have (myself included -- I even got about 30 people to send letters to the Markey idiot I was describing before), but the fact is that they don't listen nor care about what you are saying. I sent him all of these letters -- carefully worded to not sound like people were pissed off -- and not one of the people sending them ever got a reply from him.

The government (sadly) isn't for all the people. It is for the people who have the most money or who can pay them (or their parties) the most money.

[MegaDrive20XX]

Like "Larry Tate" from the movie Cable Guy once said "Someone has to kill the babysitter!"

Actually it's Ernie Douglas. But his friends call him Chip ;)

No...it was Ricky...Ricky...Racardo..Babbalooooo!!

[lendelin]

Oh yes... one more reply I wanted to do...


2. Rockstar is neither legally nor morally responsible for the mini-game on the disc. The game as it is purchased does not allow to play the sequence. Period.

R* is legally (although not morally, since I don't think they care about that anyway) responsible for the mini-game on the disc because _they_ put it there.

According to you logic it doesn't make a difference at all if a game sequence is taken out by programmers with the intention not to be played or if the game sequence is left in the game to be played. Does this make sense?

I have no clue about the legal situation, but every good lawyer will argue that the game sequence was taken out for a good reason -- namely NOT to be played. I can't see in which way Rockstar is legally responsible. That it CAN be played by altering the code isn't the responsibility of Rockstar -- they didn't alter the code and therefore changed the game. If a game is cahnged, the responsibility lies with the one who changes it.

In order to make a case of legal responsibility deceiving INTENT has to be proven . This won't happen. However, to proof the intent that this sequence should not be played is clearcut.

Rockstar has also no legal obligation whatsoever as I understand it to disclose to the ESRB gaming sequences which were made unplayable unless other game devices are used. The discussion about it is purely driven by public pressures, not legal views. ESRBs hyppocritical views are driven by political pressures as well.

My point is that we should take a stance against this strategy by anti-gaming activists. To hold a game publisher responsible for intended non-playable sequences would open floodgates. It would be censorship par excellence. Censorship in free societies are not driven by clearcut rules, they are driven by unclear situations for developers IF they have to think about MAYBE SOMEHOW IN A CERTAIN WAY a sequence could be construed as too violent or too "sexual" by altering codes or patches. This would be the functional equivalent of the muddy situation before '93 when every anti-gaming activist could scream "this is no toy for our children."


Even with saying that, R* isn't so much in trouble for putting it there, but then for coming up with the excuse that hackers put it there.

That is exactly right. First, the first public statement restricted Rockstars' options to handle the situation when the PS2 sequence was discovered; second, it fueled the "deceiving" thesis which anti-gaming activists wanted to create anyway. Rockstar put the best weapon in the hands of their enemies.


This is probably directed at me from the other side, and I again apologize. I mentioned Republicans in the other thread because they usually come up with the stuff that has to do with protecting people,...

nah, wasn't directed at you, you were just included. :) It is a natural thing to do which Political Psychology knows for a long time. If you are a liberal and you don't like something/someone, the other "camp" is blamed, true or not. If you are a conservative and you don't like something/someone, the other camp is blamed also. We human beings are very selective creatures, we like to harmonize in our brain uncomfortable conflicts.

Someone newly in love always assumes that the partner they like so much has the same political convictions as he/she. In most cases this is not the case. This euphemistic thinking even overrides racial stereotypes. Someone who doesn't like in the abstract blacks or hispanics or Germans but meets a black or hispanic or a German he does like automatically assumes that he or she has the same political convictions.

Outcasts are created the same way, and negative election outcomes are accepted with euphemistic thinking also. We always try to make something less negative or even something positive out of negative experiences.

Hilary Clinton jumps on this issue BECAUSE it is not a partisan one, becasue it is a soft, non-controversial issue; and she jumps on it becasue it is 1) a 'value' issue in order to counteract the opinion that Democrats are weak in this compartment, and 2) she can be SPECIFIC about a poltical unimportant issue in order to follow easier her strategy to be UNSPECIFIC about important controversial issues. It is a typical Clinton strategy, perfected hyppocritical vote hunting. :)


I think that the R* case just brings a huge problem with the ESRB to light, and it is time to fix the problem now. Either the ESRB will fix it properly and politicians won't be able to attack it any further without coming off like morons, like they do with all of the other free speech things that you mentioned above.

What should be done after this ridiculous episode is over is a difficult Q. I'm very ambigious. I tend to go into the direction of clearcut AO ratings as buying guidelines IF they become common as the other ratings, are not associated with pornography and if major retailers will carry the games. This will give developers more freedom for game content and would further de-fuel anti-gaming startegies like the ratings of '93 did. Unclear situations are the worst for game developers.

[goatdan]

According to you logic it doesn't make a difference at all if a game sequence is taken out by programmers with the intention not to be played or if the game sequence is left in the game to be played. Does this make sense?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying in fact. Reasons below...


I have no clue about the legal situation, but every good lawyer will argue that the game sequence was taken out for a good reason -- namely NOT to be played. I can't see in which way Rockstar is legally responsible. That it CAN be played by altering the code isn't the responsibility of Rockstar -- they didn't alter the code and therefore changed the game. If a game is cahnged, the responsibility lies with the one who changes it.

But the problem is that if the lawyer tries to argue that the game was taken out so that it would not be played, it wouldn't be on the disc. It does not matter if R* intended it to never be found or not -- the intent is hard to find anyway, since it could've been something they wanted played. The game sequence can be played without altering the code -- you can get to it on the PS2 version with an Action Max. Even though R* didn't alter the code, it is still their code being accessed.


In order to make a case of legal responsibility deceiving INTENT has to be proven . This won't happen. However, to proof the intent that this sequence should not be played is clearcut.

But it isn't. As have been pointed out, lots of games have stuff like this in them -- parts not quite finished (world -1 on SMB even), but none of them would change the game's ratings. This is something that would and does, so findng the code in the game even if it isn't normally accessable puts the guilt onto R*.

And then you have the problem that they said that hackers had to change the code to get it to work. I hope that no one here actually believes that -- the games for the PS2 and Xbox are on DVD, and you can't change the code... but by unlocking it with an Action Replay you can get to the part in it.

It wasn't necessarily meant to be found, but not removing it was a dangerous decision. R* should've known that if the game sells 2 million copies, someone will try finding something like that in it.


Rockstar has also no legal obligation whatsoever as I understand it to disclose to the ESRB gaming sequences which were made unplayable unless other game devices are used. The discussion about it is purely driven by public pressures, not legal views. ESRBs hyppocritical views are driven by political pressures as well.

The ESRB rating thing asks (asked, now) for video of the most offensive material contained within the game. That is completely up to interpertation of course. What the ESRB is now saying is that regardless of intent, if there is stuff that could be unlocked, you have to show it. They clarified their rule that R* failed to live by -- whether purposely or mistakenly.

Again, the problem here was R*'s shitty defense. If R* hadn't lied, everyone would look so much better right now.


My point is that we should take a stance against this strategy by anti-gaming activists. To hold a game publisher responsible for intended non-playable sequences would open floodgates. It would be censorship par excellence. Censorship in free societies are not driven by clearcut rules, they are driven by unclear situations for developers IF they have to think about MAYBE SOMEHOW IN A CERTAIN WAY a sequence could be construed as too violent or too "sexual" by altering codes or patches. This would be the functional equivalent of the muddy situation before '93 when every anti-gaming activist could scream "this is no toy for our children."

So if I made a game that was about two people playing hopscotch and intended it for children, but by typing in a codeword at the start it would be about having sex, by your argument I shouldn't be responsible because although I coded it and included it, I didn't "intend" people to find it.

I'm not saying that we found something in Elmo's Number Adventure here, but if such a thing could be unlocked...

And this isn't a form of censorship. If they wanted to censor the game, the ESRB could tell R* that they can no longer sell it with an ESRB rating on it. An AO rating is not "censorship." It just limits -- by the choice of the retailers -- where you can get the game.


That is exactly right. First, the first public statement restricted Rockstars' options to handle the situation when the PS2 sequence was discovered; second, it fueled the "deceiving" thesis which anti-gaming activists wanted to create anyway. Rockstar put the best weapon in the hands of their enemies.

Well, as we have since found out it was decieving and it was their attempt at making it quietly go away before anyone caught on... but once the floodgates are open, it's too late. Had R* started by stating that the scene was unintentionally left accessable, but was not intended to be ever made playable, I don't think many people would have their panties in a bundle over this. But by lying about it and trying to blame it on others, they opened themselves for investagation and deceipt.


nah, wasn't directed at you, you were just included. :) It is a natural thing to do which Political Psychology knows for a long time. If you are a liberal and you don't like something/someone, the other "camp" is blamed, true or not. If you are a conservative and you don't like something/someone, the other camp is blamed also. We human beings are very selective creatures, we like to harmonize in our brain uncomfortable conflicts.

Heh. And I seriously just don't like either of them most of the time ;) But anyway, you were spot-on with all of that...


What should be done after this ridiculous episode is over is a difficult Q. I'm very ambigious. I tend to go into the direction of clearcut AO ratings as buying guidelines IF they become common as the other ratings, are not associated with pornography and if major retailers will carry the games. This will give developers more freedom for game content and would further de-fuel anti-gaming startegies like the ratings of '93 did. Unclear situations are the worst for game developers.

The problem though is that if the AO rating becomes a rating that is sold everywhere and doesn't include pornography (by the way, what is pornography? Personally, I'm much more offended by some of the language in GTA:SA than I am by naked people (see current avatar that I've still been lazy to return to normal ;) ). But seriously, that's a whole different can of worms...). If it happens that the AO rating is "all games that aren't pornographic," we're basically at the same point we are now.

Rob Zombie's House of 1000 Corpses was supposed to be released like four different times rated X, but no movie theater would pick up the distribution rights because no movie houses would carry it. Finally, after years of it being ready to go, he recut it to make it R so he could release it to movie theaters.

So anyway, I'm fine with the ratings, I'm fine with people not carrying the AO games, and I'm fine with an age limit on M games (and it would actually be better, IMHO, if either the goverment did more things like IL with the fine for selling a game to underage kids or the ESRB stepped up and FORCED that on game stores). Something that seems to be lost in all of this is that by restricting the sales of certain items, it gives people a certain creative license to push things further.

If the sales of M rated games were restricted thanks to this, R* will probably lose some sales on the next GTA... but those are the kids who don't have their parents permission and aren't old enough to get the game anyway. So little Timmy who goes to the mall with his friend can't grab it without his parents knowing. Suddenly, it opens the gates for M rated games to deal with sex in a more mature way. It opens up opportunities that aren't there if a kid can possibly walk into a store and grab a game.

Is the Hot Coffee mod to push the game into an AO rating? Currently, yes... I think so. If the sales of M rated games were regulated... I doubt it. The virtual blowjob would be pushing it (Team America: World Police had one with puppets that had to be taken out to get an R rating, I believe), but the rest isn't much of anything.

Change the way the ratings are, give the ESRB some teeth to fine people if they lie and decieve about their game ratings, and then the floodgates for creativity open, in my opinion.

[classicb]

what is this thread a "my points are too important to be in the middle of another thread" I really don't see why this topic hasn't been locked yet as their are already plenty of threads on the topic.

[lendelin]

what is this thread a "my points are too important to be in the middle of another thread" I really don't see why this topic hasn't been locked yet as their are already plenty of threads on the topic.

Nah, my points are certainly not too important to appear in another thread; the other thread asked about the justification of AO rating and posts focused on it. I wanted to go beyond that, furthermore, I wanted to go beyond the GTA controversy by emphasizing the underlying anti-gaming discussion strategies.

Another one of these strategies is to refresh proven nonsense when new console generations with improved graphics come out; and lots of gamers fall for it, too.

SNES: games are now so realistic and human beings in games are recognizable to a much higher estent than Contra on the NES, we have to be concerned now about violence in games (as in it will be imitated by gamers); empiricical research results of gaming on behavior: none.

PS/N64: now the violence topic is a new game; graphics are so realistic now, and we have a virtual 3D reality so we have to be concerned...blah blah; Empirical reasearch result: none.

Current consoles: NOW the graphics are so realistic, it is a new ballgame, so we have to be concerned about..blah blah; empirical reasearch results: none.

We'll hear the same as soon as the 360 is out. NOW we really have to be concerned about the violence our children are being exposed becasue the graphics are so incredibly realistic, the games cannot be compared to the games from five or ten years ago.

...and even very often outspoken pro-gaming people fall for this reasoning. Anti-gaming activists ran gainst a wall about 'violence in games causes violent behavior,' so every five years they find a new starting position to keep the nonsense alive. It is a smart little strategy for anti-gaming propaganda in order to ignore facts. I found this strategy in articles by Walsh and Anderson and many others, newspapers, and websites.

If Contra didn't make children and teenagers violent, Killzone won't either. Games won't achieve that comic books in the 50s couldn't. The assumption that 'people play, read, watch and hear and then people do' just doesn't apply.

[lendelin]

But the problem is that if the lawyer tries to argue that the game was taken out so that it would not be played, it wouldn't be on the disc...

The game sequence can be played without altering the code -- you can get to it on the PS2 version with an Action Max.

...so findng the code in the game even if it isn't normally accessable puts the guilt onto R*.

It wasn't necessarily meant to be found, but not removing it was a dangerous decision. R* should've known that if the game sells 2 million copies, someone will try finding something like that in it.


I think to shift the responsibility to Rockstar is just plain nuts because common sense is lost in a hysterical atmosphere created by anti-gaming propagandists for years now; and we gamers fall for it because we are getting used to their assumptions.

We look automatically in this situation to the publisher, ignoring the responsibility of gamers because propaganda depicts gamers as kids, immature teenagers, and victims "exposed" to terrible sex and violence.

The crucial point is accessibility and the resultant responsibility following common sense ignoring speculations about intent.

Lets assume someone gets periodically naked in his/her own house in front of a big window. The house is on a busy street; even if pedestrians don't look for the naked pleasure or displeasure, they unavoidably see some nudity.

We certainly would held the person responsible who gets naked, it is justified to talk about "exposure" and being exposed to something we don't want to see.

Lets assume a person gets naked in the bathroom on the second floor in order to take a shower. It is commonly known that about 20% of men and women (among them teenagers) go around in different neighborhoods, climb trees and use binoculars in order to watch naked people.

Should we held the naked person responsible? Yes, say you and anti-gaming activists, because the man or woman should have and could have known that watching naked people is a fad. She knew she would be discovered and watched at some point. She might even want to be watched. In any case, why didn't she put different glass on the window, or even better a curtain, or even better uses a bathroom without a window in order to play it safe? As soon as she knew that watching naked people is common, the mere fact to be naked in the bathroom without taking precautions makes her guilty. It is her fault.

Nobody talks about the people who climb trees and use binoculars. They are obviously driven, they can't help themselves. More importantly, most of them are 15 and 16 year old boys and girls who "naturally" look for naked people; they just can't help themselves to go for it when they see such an opportunity. They are exposed to this outrageous behavior. This naked man or woman did not think about our children.

I cannot find any responsibility by Rockstar simply becasue the mini game was on the disc. It cannot be played as the game was sold. It was well hidden. It took months and a PC version that this mini-game on the PS2 was discovered although millions played the game. It is only playable by using a game altering device (climbing the tree) and do A, B and C in the game (using binoculars);

and what about the guy who created the patch for the PC version and made it public to download? No responsibility whatsoever; and what about gamers who download it, or use a game altering device, and do A, B and C so they can play the mini-game? No responsibility, they are kids, our children exposed to porn easily accessible in games and on the Internet.

It isn't porn, it is not easily accessible, and responsibilty lies with the gamers who desparately look for it;

we don't see the obvious anymore in this hysterical atmosphere and culture of victimization, exposure, and the attempt to make everything fool-proof and absolute secure for "children" and teenagers created by anti-gaming propagandists; instead we focus on Rockstar, on game developers what shoulda and coulda they have done and known, and even assume deceiving intent; the entire responsibility is with them, not with the actions and behavior of consumers as adults and teenagers, not with the parents, not with peer groups.

Instead of speculating about questionable intent of Rockstar, we should focus on the clear-cut intent of gamers.

I'm opposed to this shift in responsibility, and without this assumed responsibility details of the discussion about Hot Coffee would be only lukewarm, not hot at all.

[goatdan]

The crucial point is accessibility and the resultant responsibility following common sense ignoring speculations about intent.

Okay, while I liked your explanation, here is another:

Let's say that a toy company is making lots and lots of stuft animals. After they have been selling for half a year, someone opens one up and finds out that the insides are stuft with marijuana leaves and the animals internals can be smoked to get high.

The company that made the toys said, "It must have been others who put the marijuana into our bears. We can't be responsible for their actions."

Two days later, it is found out that all of the bears coming out of the factory already have the marijuana in them.

Now, the company says, "Well, they might have marijuana in them, but we made them for kids to play with, not for people to smoke, so we can't get in trouble for it."

Obviously, this situation isn't as cut and dried as that, but it also isn't as cut and dried as the nudity issue you had either. We don't know if the company in my example was putting marijuana in the bears to up sales when it was found. We don't know if they figured it was the cheapest and softest material they could find to stuff the bears with. But the problem is that the company came up with an excuse that was a lie.

R* lied about where the game came from. Why? Who knows. They could've easily said, "Oops, how did anyone find that. It wasn't supposed to be found." and the mess would be a lot different. By trying to blame others for it, it meant that when they were found out to be lying the scrutiny falls much harder. Remember, the ESRB is basically rating the games as they tell them they are. Since R* was lying about where the game came from, what other intent did they have but to decieve the ESRB and / or the Government?

To put it in the context of your example with how I feel this happened:

A person changes clothes every day in front of a window that he or she doesn't realize gives a great view to everyone outside. One day, a police officer sees this and stops by to say, "Just so you know, you shouldn't change in front of the picture window with it open." The person who was naked, instead of saying "Whoops, I made an error, I didn't realize people would see me!" says instead, "Well, it isn't my fault. The window that you claim to see me through isn't there. And if it was, it was added by someone without my knowledge or permission, and I never saw it there."

The problem is that the window exists, and the person always knew the window was there. The police officer saw the window, and saw the person. Instead of it being more of a, "Oh my gosh, whoops!" :embarrassed: moment like it should be, this person is clearly lying and trying to cover their butts.

And that doesn't even cover the half of it, as the ESRB isn't like the police.


Instead of speculating about questionable intent of Rockstar, we should focus on the clear-cut intent of gamers.

Could the intent of gamers to play the Hot Coffee mini-game be there if it didn't exist? If someone made a game just like it and released it as a patch, it would be obvious the intent and the originators of the game. Since R* coded it and released the discs, and then tried lying about it, their intent is very cloudy, and something has to be done.


I'm opposed to this shift in responsibility, and without this assumed responsibility details of the discussion about Hot Coffee would be only lukewarm, not hot at all.

If R* hadn't lied about it, I think that the shift in responsibility wouldn't be there. Think about this:

What was the intent of their lie?

Here are what I can think of:

1) Covering their butts so they don't have to recall the game or have it become re-rated.
2) Making it sound like hackers made the whole thing so it would get a ton of attention for such a racy addition being done so professionally.
3) Decieving the ESRB because they knew they broke the rules by not making note of it being there.

Beyond that, I can't think of a reason for the lie. If it was #1, R* should've known better because the darn code is on a DVD, and hackers cannot change code on a finalized DVD. If it was #2, then they still have the problem with #1. And if it was #3, then they were breaking the rules anyway.

R* screwed up. If R* hadn't lied about it all, I'd be the first one sitting here claiming they aren't responsbile if they were doing everything in their power to stop it from happening. But how they tried covering it up is inexcusable, and it really undermines how the ESRB rates games. That's where I feel the problem comes in.

[Aswald]

The sad reality is, over the years the game and entertainment corporations have been relying more and more on shock value than ever before. Thus, this is not the end of it; it must get worse and worse in the coming years.

That "hidden game" was in fact waiting to be discovered- unless it wasn't there at all in the first place. But since, evidently, it was, then yes, Rockland is to blame.

Today's kids are, if nothing else, techno-savvy. This HAD to happen soon enough, and the company knew it. And, thanks to the Internet, it would be all over in no time. "Complex, hard to find?" Not for many techno-nerds out there. It's like burying metal in a place where quite a few people have and use metal detectors.

Rockland sounds like Justin Timberlake during the SuperBowl fiasco. At first, they take on the yo-yo-yo-yo-YO we got the `TUDE, our games are on the edge, they got it all, yoyo!
But now, they are whining about how, golly gee, cannot blame them, it's not their fault.

The hell it ain't.

This company gets rich by selling mindless violence- play a murderous thug in GTA3, yeah, that 1980s thing was such fun for those of us who actually had to deal with it day after day- then pulls this? Hopefully, kids and teenagers will see how "tough" such people really are when someone turns up the heat, and finally realize that they have been "punk'd" all along.

[SoulBlazer]

It's actually Rockstar. ;) Kind of hurts a otherwise well written post when you can't even get the company name right. :)

And have you actually played any of the GTA games? That's one thing that pisses me off -- how many people out there complaing about the game have actually sitten down with it for 30 minutes and PLAYED it?

I NEVER bash a game until I have had a chance to play it for AT LEAST that long. It's not right.

[lendelin]

If R* hadn't lied about it all, I'd be the first one sitting here claiming they aren't responsbile if they were doing everything in their power to stop it from happening. But how they tried covering it up is inexcusable, and it really undermines how the ESRB rates games. That's where I feel the problem comes in.

You shifted your reasoning dramatically in abstract and in your specific examples. Now it is no longer the fact that the mini-game was merely on the disc which makes Rockstar legally and morally responsible, the crux is their first PR statement. That is why your examples isn't a criticism of mine.

Without question Rockstar's statement is part of the trouble they find themselves in. Politically it is THE biggest reason, morally a minor one, legally neglectible.

I reasoned w/o taking Rockstars dumb strategy into account focusing on the dry case. The reason: we have to speculate about Rockstars intentions, what they did know, what they didn't know at the time of the statement. It might be that they were intentionally deceiving from the beginning, it might be that it was a dumb mistake, it might be that they tried to cover up something they didn't know originally, who knows...

That is the reason we should separate the evaluation of the case (responsibility of a well hidden minigame on a disc) from PR strategies. We should not assume evil intentions because it is mere speculation; anti-gaming activists assume that for years anyway and Rockstar delivered the best weapon to them on a silver platter.

According to your new reasoning, Rockstar should not be held responsible IF they hadn't deceived the public at first. I don't even know how this affects your first reasoning. No matter what Rockstar said in their first statement, the mini-game is still on the disc and can be accessed with a game altering device.

But I'm glad that you agree now that a forthcoming Rockstar wouldn't be responsible; :) that means that a supposedly deceiving Rockstar isn't responsible either for the mini-game on the disc if a game altering-device is used.

[sealboy6]

"It's okay to kill someone in the name of your country, but not in a video game fantasy-like world for our children" Is pretty much the message I'm understanding from her.



Meaning, Soccer Mom's need to get off their asses and pay attention to their kids for once! I swear I will put the smackdown on the next lady who comes in and says "I Don't care! As long as they get out of my hair!"

The parents do not care! I'm telling ya! As an employee of GameCrazy the parents do not give a damn about what those kids do! It's pathiec!

Some good points, I feel the same way. I heard a father tell his son months ago that he could not have San Andreas because of the sexual content or whatever. This was funny to me, funny because he did not mention the violence but rather the sex. Maybe he doesn't want his 11 yr old son getting a boner over some sexual noises and I understand that. But why shelter your kids from sex instead of violence?? Does that make sense? I don't want my son to be violent, I want him to get laid every weekend though (just like daddy used to). And no I don't think violent games make kids violent, well maybe the dumb ones. LOL

You have to shelter kids from sex instead of violence, because sex is something that is not taught to kids. When I had sex ed classes, I thought it was funny to hear all these things. I was 10. The only people, I believe, that can tell you about sex are your parents, so they need to shelter kids from this until the kids learn on their own when they are older, or when the parents deem it is necessary to tell their child.

Violence is everywhere these days, so no matter what we do, kids will still see it. Local news is always littered with murders and rapes (which is violent and sexual), so kids are shown violence at a very young age. Bullies in schools, play guns, and things of this sort are all violent, and as a 7 year old or a 6 year old, a kid will see violence everywhere they look.

[lendelin]

That "hidden game" was in fact waiting to be discovered-

Oh, now the mini-game itself waited to be discovered - - what about the adventurers and explorers looking for it? Are they merely passive too?


"Complex, hard to find?" It's like burying metal in a place where quite a few people have and use metal detectors.


Then not a lot of guys have efficient metal detectors and/or were not looking for it. It took how long, nine months? for the mini-game to be discovered by millions of geeky techno-savvy gamers.


Today's kids are, if nothing else, techno-savvy. This HAD to happen soon enough, and the company knew it.

Again, here is my criticism:

First, the talk about KIDS. Even a 16 year old who plays an M rated game is not a kid anymore.

Second, all responsibility is shifted away from these awfully adult "kids." If a 16 year old downloads the Hot Coffee patch or uses a game altering device, it is HIS responsibility. He is the active one, he has to look for it, he has to click the download button.

Third, it is mere speculation if this thing was put on the disc intentionally so it could be discovered. There are sopme reasons for it, some reasons against it, in doubt for the accused.

If we want educated, computer- literate "kids," whose responsibility is it to "teach our children responsibility" as it is so often said? Is it Rockstars responsibility to teach 14 year olds and 16 year olds sitting at PC desks responsibility? Is it a good way to teach responsibility to a 15 year old if we blame Rockstar when this "kid" uses a game altering device?

If we give "kids" powerful little techno-tools in their childish little hands, wouldn't it be a good idea for parents, friends, and educators to face the music -- namely that there are good and bad choices out there and it is YOUR responsibility if you make these choices? The key are parents and peer groups, nothing else.

We give "kids" tools so that they can venture into a virtual adult world on the Internet. Is the solution to make the adult world absolutely kid-proof? Should the game industry which is in the meantime predominantly an industry for adults revolve around absolute security measures for "kids"?

The game is well hidden, it is not like putting a porn magazine on a nightstand of a 14 year old or putting it on a bench in a public recreation area although dumb propaganda depicts it this way.

[goatdan]

You shifted your reasoning dramatically in abstract and in your specific examples. Now it is no longer the fact that the mini-game was merely on the disc which makes Rockstar legally and morally responsible, the crux is their first PR statement. That is why your examples isn't a criticism of mine.

The problem is that your example was not a very good comparison, so I was trying to grasp at it to draw up a comparison.

You cannot reason this whole deal without taking R*'s strategy into account. R* dug their own grave with that strategy, and that is why we are at the point we are at. If R* had taken a different route at the beginning, we wouldn't be having this discussion...


That is the reason we should separate the evaluation of the case (responsibility of a well hidden minigame on a disc) from PR strategies. We should not assume evil intentions because it is mere speculation; anti-gaming activists assume that for years anyway and Rockstar delivered the best weapon to them on a silver platter.

So what you're saying is that if you give a criminal a gun, that criminal has it well concealed but walks through a metal detector with the gun on him and gets arrested, if his lawyer says, "He didn't have a gun on him, there is no gun." we should believe that the lawyer is being honest?

Maybe the PR department didn't know about the game and did think it was a hack, but then when they found out about it, they should've been the ones to break the news -- not the ESRB.


According to your new reasoning, Rockstar should not be held responsible IF they hadn't deceived the public at first. I don't even know how this affects your first reasoning. No matter what Rockstar said in their first statement, the mini-game is still on the disc and can be accessed with a game altering device.

Again, R* is legally responsible for the content on the disc, however if when confronted with the evidence, R* had said, "Oh my, that wasn't supposed to make it into the final game! We will have to redo it ASAP!" and then offered a _voluntary_ recall of the game -- only to people who were interested in getting it replaced (ie nearly no one), their intentions would be clear.

They are guilty of having the mini-game on the disc. No one can argue that. And they are guilty of making misleading statements in -- whether intentional or not -- an effort to mislead the public into believing the games had nothing to do with them.

I personally don't understand how you can reason that the PR has nothing to do with the guilt, and since it wasn't easily accessable the game should've never been found. It isn't like this is the first game that new material was found on.


But I'm glad that you agree now that a forthcoming Rockstar wouldn't be responsible; :) that means that a supposedly deceiving Rockstar isn't responsible either for the mini-game on the disc if a game altering-device is used.

No, R* is still responsible for their material. The gun-toting criminal is still responsible for his gun if he walks through a metal detector and the cops ask him to see what went off. It is still his gun, and it is on his person... just like it is still R*'s minigame, and it is still their game.

A forthcoming R* could've prevented all of this nonsense with a voluntary replacement and still got the game a TON of attention.


If a 16 year old downloads the Hot Coffee patch or uses a game altering device, it is HIS responsibility. He is the active one, he has to look for it, he has to click the download button.

I'm just curious here -- by your reasoning, anyone can have anything and it is only the people who use it who are responsible for their actions? If I had a pound of crack on me, but I had never used it, I shouldn't get in trouble for it? Maybe, I had it well concealed, and only by using a certain password and having a bunch of money could you get the crack from me. These users have to be active, have to look for it and have to pay me.

But the dealer, since he isn't using, doesn't have to be responsible?

Obviously, that is a bit of an overdramatic example -- sex is not crack, and if you're playing GTA:SA, you're figuratively already shooting up with other drugs anyway (in the example above, at least). But to absolve the provider of all guilt is a stance that can't be taken either.

As I've said a million times now, there is a whole bunch of problems that came into play with this, and a big part of it was R* screwing up royally on their own PR. If they hadn't, they could've weaseled out of this with minimal issues. Since they screwed it up, now they have to face the scrutiny.

[fpstream]

Bloguyavich, however you spell it, the governor of Illinois, just passed a video game bill that resulted in anyone selling a M game to a minor to recieve a $1000 fine. It was passed by 97-2 I believe. It's becuase no one dares to vote against it.

I don't understnad how anyone is arguing that laws like the one you reference don't make sense. Unless, of course, those people are under-age and their parents won't buy them games.

If you whine and bitch about wanting parents to be parents, but then you whine and bitch when laws are passed so that parents are forced to be parents more -- this law wasn't against a retailer selling the game to a parent to give to their child -- then you aren't arguing straight. There are laws against selling tobacco products, alcohol and pornography to kids under the age of 18 with repurcussions too -- but if you as a parent want to buy a copy of Hustler and a pack of smokes and give it to your son or daughter, that's up to you.

Laws like this are fine, and quite frankly something that I think is necessary for video games to start to be treated more seriously.

Yes, but parents used to be parents. If a kid buys GTA:SA and hides it from his parent, how difficult can it be to find out. You can't really hide a TV and a console. If the kid plays video games in the basement, as a parent just drop in everyday. He can't hide the TV screen, if he pauses it, ask him to unpause it. A few decades ago there wasn't a cigarette age, how did parents handle that? They knew what their kid was doing. Parents are just looking for excuses for their bad parenting. In this capitalistic society of ours today it's survival of the fittest. If the person is stupid enough to do drugs, smoke, gamble, and drink heavily, there's no one to blame but himself. Lincoln said "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance...for it...attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes."

[goatdan]

Yes, but parents used to be parents. If a kid buys GTA:SA and hides it from his parent, how difficult can it be to find out. You can't really hide a TV and a console. If the kid plays video games in the basement, as a parent just drop in everyday. He can't hide the TV screen, if he pauses it, ask him to unpause it.

I do not understand how anyone can argue that a 13 year old kid should be able to get material like GTA:SA and it should be only left to the parents to put an end to it.

There are SO many different ways for a kid to look at something that a parent may not want them to see or hear. Music, video games, TV and the Internet have all combined to provide a young kid with a million different ways to access information, but as these roles have expanded the tools that parents had haven't grown at all.

20 years ago, you couldn't surf to a pornographic Web site. You had to find a magazine and buy it. And if you weren't old enough, you couldn't just buy it. Now, you can head to a pornographic Web site and see free pictures of anything you can imagine, and you can do so just by lying about your age with a click.

And kids today aren't hiding their TV and their console from their parents. They would be hiding one video game, which was the size of a CD. Usually, the house already has a TV and console, so it isn't any surprise they are sitting there... but perhaps when you go to bed, someone sneaks down to play GTA: SA...

Parents 40 years ago were the same way about things, although it was other things they were concerned about. And they had more tools to decide what they wanted their kids to see / hear / experience and when than parents do now.


A few decades ago there wasn't a cigarette age, how did parents handle that? They knew what their kid was doing.

Actually, this was because a few decades ago (60's, to be exact) the general population still believed that smoking was good for you.


Parents are just looking for excuses for their bad parenting. In this capitalistic society of ours today it's survival of the fittest. If the person is stupid enough to do drugs, smoke, gamble, and drink heavily, there's no one to blame but himself. Lincoln said "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance...for it...attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes."

I agree with everything here but the first line. Parents aren't looking for excuses to be bad parents -- first off, as has been repeated, most of the people with the game we can assume are old enough to not be considered "kids" any more. For the people that are kids that want the game, shouldn't they need to get permission from their parents first, or have to go through a lot of trouble to get the game in the first place?

This can't be compared to prohibition, which would be the Government saying that all games had to go away. This isn't a freedom of speech issue, because as pornography has proven, there can be limits on freedom of speech in the efforts of 'protecting' children. And who is it really protecting? If I had a newborn child today, if I wanted to I could walk down to the local gas station or whatever, pic up a porn magazine and give it to my child for their first present. It is up to me -- the parent -- to decide when to purchase the possibly offensive material and give it to my child -- not the other way around.

Changing the ESRB rating scale so that you had to be 17 to buy an M rated game isn't an excuse, it's a tool... and in a world where we have had a TON of advancement in how we transfer various things (including the Internet, which sometimes seems tailor-made for porn) and not so many ways that a parent can monitor everything, I as a future parent do not mind asking for a little help once in a while.

All of that having been said, I don't feel that GTA: SA would be the downfall of society if people that were 16 and under played it. But I also know that I wouldn't appreciate having my son or daughter exposed to the language in GTA:SA in such a fashion. If they feel they were old enough, they could talk to me and together we might be able to purchase the game.

[Cryomancer]

I would say Rockstar has SOME explaining to do based just on the fact that the previous games had half-done multiplayer code, and people hacked it to work, and they knew it. I don't doubt that they left it in knowing it would be access eventually. I do however think they didn't mean this kind of harm with it or anything.

And why is everyone being all "HOW DID THIS GET PAST THE ESRB?"? Doesn't the ESRB just watch VIDEO of the "questionable" parts of the games? If it can't be accessed outside of modification, then it's not part of the game, far as I'm concerned.

Eh, whatever. hopefully this will all backlash and make stores START carrying AOs, and more of them being made.

/me didn't read all these posts and this is just my 0.02 USD

[Aswald]

It's actually Rockstar. ;) Kind of hurts a otherwise well written post when you can't even get the company name right. :)

And have you actually played any of the GTA games? That's one thing that pisses me off -- how many people out there complaing about the game have actually sitten down with it for 30 minutes and PLAYED it?

I NEVER bash a game until I have had a chance to play it for AT LEAST that long. It's not right.


Yes, I did play it. So what?

People asked me if I had seen "Kill Bill." Yes, I did- by watching it in a video store. Sure enough, people then grilled me on that, so, apparently, you can't win.

I've played video games since "Pong" came out in the 1970s. I played home video games when they were so primitive, a digital watch could do more.


There is absolutely no doubt that something has changed over the years. Games always had violence, but were for years sufficiently abstract enough so there was a barrier separating reality from fantasy there.

But today? It's all about going further and further, nothing more. It's just mindless, stupid violence, just for the sake of being "shocking."

It's interesting that a few days ago a nifty column appeared in the Daily News. It details Attorny General Spitzer fining Sony for payola. This is when a company pays radio stations to endlessly play songs over and over (bribery) even if there isn't anything popular about the song. Gangsta rappers also benefited from this. So all of their talk about "keeping it real" was in fact a lie: they relied on corporate corruption and bribes to keep many of them afloat.

In other words, even popularity is now being dictated by corporations. Kids these days don't even have that option the way they did just 25 years ago. They are being TOLD what is "hip."

THIS is what all of these corporations think of you- stupid little gullible morons who will buy into the hype (figuratively and literally). And they will shovel out such garbage just to make a quick buck. Wise up, people- from the time they drug you for some "disorder" throughout your adult life, they want to dumb you down and control you more effectively than any Communist dictatorship could ever do.

[fpstream]

Yes, but parents used to be parents. If a kid buys GTA:SA and hides it from his parent, how difficult can it be to find out. You can't really hide a TV and a console. If the kid plays video games in the basement, as a parent just drop in everyday. He can't hide the TV screen, if he pauses it, ask him to unpause it.

I do not understand how anyone can argue that a 13 year old kid should be able to get material like GTA:SA and it should be only left to the parents to put an end to it.

There are SO many different ways for a kid to look at something that a parent may not want them to see or hear. Music, video games, TV and the Internet have all combined to provide a young kid with a million different ways to access information, but as these roles have expanded the tools that parents had haven't grown at all.

20 years ago, you couldn't surf to a pornographic Web site. You had to find a magazine and buy it. And if you weren't old enough, you couldn't just buy it. Now, you can head to a pornographic Web site and see free pictures of anything you can imagine, and you can do so just by lying about your age with a click.

And kids today aren't hiding their TV and their console from their parents. They would be hiding one video game, which was the size of a CD. Usually, the house already has a TV and console, so it isn't any surprise they are sitting there... but perhaps when you go to bed, someone sneaks down to play GTA: SA...

Parents 40 years ago were the same way about things, although it was other things they were concerned about. And they had more tools to decide what they wanted their kids to see / hear / experience and when than parents do now.


A few decades ago there wasn't a cigarette age, how did parents handle that? They knew what their kid was doing.

Actually, this was because a few decades ago (60's, to be exact) the general population still believed that smoking was good for you.


Parents are just looking for excuses for their bad parenting. In this capitalistic society of ours today it's survival of the fittest. If the person is stupid enough to do drugs, smoke, gamble, and drink heavily, there's no one to blame but himself. Lincoln said "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance...for it...attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes."

I agree with everything here but the first line. Parents aren't looking for excuses to be bad parents -- first off, as has been repeated, most of the people with the game we can assume are old enough to not be considered "kids" any more. For the people that are kids that want the game, shouldn't they need to get permission from their parents first, or have to go through a lot of trouble to get the game in the first place?

This can't be compared to prohibition, which would be the Government saying that all games had to go away. This isn't a freedom of speech issue, because as pornography has proven, there can be limits on freedom of speech in the efforts of 'protecting' children. And who is it really protecting? If I had a newborn child today, if I wanted to I could walk down to the local gas station or whatever, pic up a porn magazine and give it to my child for their first present. It is up to me -- the parent -- to decide when to purchase the possibly offensive material and give it to my child -- not the other way around.

Changing the ESRB rating scale so that you had to be 17 to buy an M rated game isn't an excuse, it's a tool... and in a world where we have had a TON of advancement in how we transfer various things (including the Internet, which sometimes seems tailor-made for porn) and not so many ways that a parent can monitor everything, I as a future parent do not mind asking for a little help once in a while.

All of that having been said, I don't feel that GTA: SA would be the downfall of society if people that were 16 and under played it. But I also know that I wouldn't appreciate having my son or daughter exposed to the language in GTA:SA in such a fashion. If they feel they were old enough, they could talk to me and together we might be able to purchase the game.

Video games are much more difficult to acess and hide then say a pornographic website. You can erase website memory on a computer. On a PS2 or an Xbox, they have to save their game, just check what's saved on the console. On a PC just checked what's been recently opened. You can even set parental locks on consoles to only allow your kids to play T or below, E10+ or belolw, etc. People knew smoking was dangerous they just didn't know it was THAT dangerous. You never saw a 7 year old smoking. That's because parents knew it wasn't healthy but not to the point of what we know it can do today. Bad parents turn to video games as an excuse for their bad kid. An 16 year old was arrested for killing a fellow student. His parents said it was Manhunt that made him do it. Do you really think ONE video game convinced a kid to go out and murder his friend? No, it was the final straw in the camel's back. The other straws? No encouragement from parents, abusive parents, parents that don't care, etc. You can't blame a felony on one video game. However, you're right on the prohibition one, bad comparison on my part.

[goatdan]

Video games are much more difficult to acess and hide then say a pornographic website. You can erase website memory on a computer. On a PS2 or an Xbox, they have to save their game, just check what's saved on the console. On a PC just checked what's been recently opened.

While you just said that video games were much more difficult to access and hide than a pornographic web site, you yourself say afterwards how to rid your computer of a Web site. In fact, it might even be easier to hide a video game (once bought) because while you could save to the Xbox hard drive, you could also save to a memory card. In fact, don't PS2 games have a memory card holder in the game cases themselves? All the kid would have to hide is one small package... you don't even have to worry about deleting a log of where you've been or a cache.

I would agree that getting to the Web site would be easier, but covering it up would not be.


You can even set parental locks on consoles to only allow your kids to play T or below, E10+ or belolw, etc.

Yes, you can... but how many parents are actively doing this? It isn't something that is really overly obvious.


People knew smoking was dangerous they just didn't know it was THAT dangerous. You never saw a 7 year old smoking. That's because parents knew it wasn't healthy but not to the point of what we know it can do today.

No, they did not know that it was dangerous. My grandfather was encouraged to smoke by his doctor to strengthen his lungs, and it wasn't until the late 60's I believe that they got warnings. Before that point, the studies that showed that they could do bad things either didn't exist or weren't known about.


Bad parents turn to video games as an excuse for their bad kid. An 16 year old was arrested for killing a fellow student. His parents said it was Manhunt that made him do it. Do you really think ONE video game convinced a kid to go out and murder his friend? No, it was the final straw in the camel's back. The other straws? No encouragement from parents, abusive parents, parents that don't care, etc. You can't blame a felony on one video game. However, you're right on the prohibition one, bad comparison on my part.

I'm not saying that ONE video game could convince anyone to go out and do something bad. But I do think that certain games could influence people badly. Surround an impressionable youth with a game that shows them how to use the sort of language that GTA:SA does and tell them it's okay, and listen to what comes out of their mouths.

On the other hand, I'm not saying the game doesn't have a place in society, or that the 17 year old age limit would work perfectly for everyone. But the fact is that people are impressionable, and games add too that. Give the parents another tool against that, and it only leads to better parenting, as kids have to ask for things they want. It isn't a replacement for parenting, and it won't suddenly make bad parents good, but it will help those who are trying to do things right.

At the same time, it won't censor the game except to people who are not supposed to be getting it anyway. In my own opinion, it's a win-win situation... and game companies get more creative freedom to push the genre farther, as I think that the scene that we saw in GTA:SA wouldn't have pushed the game into an AO rating if the M rating was a guarantee that retailers wouldn't sell it to those under the age of 17.

[lendelin]

You cannot reason this whole deal without taking R*'s strategy into account. R* dug their own grave with that strategy, and that is why we are at the point we are at. If R* had taken a different route at the beginning, we wouldn't be having this discussion...


Nope, we CAN and SHOULD reason about this case without Rockstar's first PR statement. At the center of the matter is the simple Q if a game developer is responsible for a sequence in a game accessible with game altering devices. The matter boils down then to the degree of accessibility. WE SHOULD FOCUS ON THAT IN ORDER TO KEEP OUR FEET ON THE GROUND AND RETAIN SOME COMMON SENSE.

Don't shift the responsibility entirely to Rockstar for the troubles they are facing. They are partially responsible for sure by reenforcing criticism which is already out there. They created more trouble with the ESRB, they made the ESRB more vulnerable with the first statement, BUT they had to take the same heat from anti-gaming activists with or without their admittedly dumb PR statement.

The National Institute on Media and the Family (NIMF) about GTASA:

"The National Institute on Media and the Family has issued warnings of explicit pornographic and violent content in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas since the October 2004 release, [sic!] but recently additional [sic!]hidden pornographic content has been found in the game."

Anti-gaming activists blamed Rockstar for pornography and they misrepresented game content since the release of SA. Do you think they would have been more understandable OR would take the same stance about the game when Hot Coffee was discovered if Rockstar would have been forthcoming?

My basic criticism about anti-gaming propaganda is independent of Rockstar's statements because it was out there, is out there, and will be out there independently of GTA SA and Rockstar's PR.


I personally don't understand how you can reason that the PR has nothing to do with the guilt,...

I didn't say that. It made matters worse. My criticism about your position is that you cannot separate the case from the central Q because you have to speculate about intentions, draw conclusions which cannot be drawn, and at the end PR overshadowes the case and distracts from it because the case is weak. A comfortable strategy for anti-gaming propaganda which you shouldn't follow.


...and since it wasn't easily accessable the game should've never been found. It isn't like this is the first game that new material was found on.


I didn't say that either. I don't live in lala land and imagine what shouln't be cannot be.

The mere fact that the game sequence was found doesn't make it easily accessible, does it? I just can't understand why this sequence is portrayed as "easily accessible" when millions of players on three continents played it for nine months and didn't discover it. Isn't such a description a bit out of whack and non-sensical extreme propaganda?

Accessibility has two stages: first until the sequence was discovered, second after it was discovered. It is comical to say that the sequence was discovered easily. I focused on the responsibility of the ones who look for it and discovered it.

After it was discovered it is certainly easier to get it with patches and game altering devices. I reminded you of the responsibility of parents and of 15, 16 and 17 year olds who play and are in possession of a game who is rated 17 as a parental guideline.

I stated that parents have a responsibility for their "kids" (15-17 years) who will always find a way (like I did, you did, and almost every 'child') to do something prohibited by their parents, and additionally stated that I don't think it is a good way to teach a "child" (15-17 years) responsibility by portraying them as victims and blaming game developers.

Let us be REASONABLE, that is all I say. Let's introduce some common sense here; and I have to say, common sense is lost in your statements too as an avid gamer because we are bombarded by nonsense about games and their misrepresentation by very agressive anti-gaming activists. We are in the defensive for years, and it shows in our apologies by incorporating nonsense.

The worst misrepresentation of propaganda: we assume games are still for "kids" only, the most mature games are easily accessible and palyed by 8 year olds, and we make the game audience younger than they are. Actually, hysteria about the game sequence only works if gamers are portrayed as "children" and not as 17-year olds of whom 40% already had sex.

I found my analogy pretty reasonable. But look which kinds of examples you used: stuffed animals, teddy bears stuffed with weed. Stuffed animals are associated with kids, six and seven year-olds. We are talking about an M rated raunchy game here; neither is GTA a stuffed animal intended for kids, nor is the mini-game equivalent with drugs.

A criminal running from the police with a gun, and even more comical the possible worst case scenarios of games tailored towards "kids" with hidden sex scenes. Isn't that also a little bit out of whack if you take two steps back and look at it?

Again, we are talking about an M rated game (17 and older)which is as raunchy as it can get (for now). I heavily doubt that a game developer of Super Mario or Nemo considers to put a starightforward sex scene in the game and then leaves it on the disc only playable with a game altering device. I heavily doubt also that a publisher for childrens books will hide intentionally a porn picture in the book. (assuming the game sequence was intentionally hidden and the intent was to be discovered as a raunchy Easter Egg).

Here is the homepage of NIMF with a rant about San Andreas and besides it a picture of a six year old boy:

http://www.mediafamily.org/

If you click on the picture of the boy, you get this:

http://www.mediafamily.org/mediawise/psa.shtml

Besides the dumb sentence (whoever said it), it is characteristic of two misrepresentations which fuels this discussion and also your statements:

First, the gamers are children, six or eight years old; they aren't just part of the demographic ranging from six to sixty, no, THIS is the guy we have to be concerned about playing San Andreas and the sex scene. I never saw on websites of parental groups 15 or 18 year-olds playing games. The talk and concern about "our children" wouldn't work this way.

Second, games shape "culture" (whatever that is), that means with the 'correct' game content we can shape young human beings and therefore societies. They are easily influenced, very impressionable, and bad stuff can be taught so easily. Simplistic, wishful thinking at best of educational missionaries ignoring the harsh reality that it is never easy to teach "children" something good or bad in particular by means of a virtual game space considering cross-cutting influences from all kinds of sources.

Is it realistic and do we have to be concerned about an eight year old running around at home saying to his friend 'lets play SA and kill some hookers, and then we play the sex scene with the hot girl'? Aren't these case scenarios lacking common sense?

Only with this background your statements are understandable and even possible about a ridiculous and harmless mini game even for 15 year olds:


But I do think that certain games could influence people badly.

But the fact is that people are impressionable, and games add too that. Give the parents another tool against that, and it only leads to better parenting, as kids have to ask for things they want.

Again, the talk about impressionable kids and overwhelmed parents who need tools for better parenting. If a parent lets a 13 year old play an M rated game without talking to the "child," it won't do it with an AO rating either. If a parent is clueless about the wide range of games today, no rating and legislation will help. The security and kid-proof safety you seek cannot be achieved by provided better "parenting tools" you suggest, it is an illusion created by anti-gaming propaganda.

My mother put her foot down when she didn't approve what we did and was VERY efficient doing so. My sister-in-law cared very much what my eleven year old nephew played, and that was during the N64 times when he wanted to play Turok (and did, she watched him playing for an hour before she approved, and restricted playtime anyway).

Neither my mother nor my sister-in-law demanded legislation, cler-cut ratings systems, safe offerings for their children imposed on others, nor did they shift responsibility to game developers or engaged in cultural babble portraying children as victims; because they knew that the world doesn't revolve around "our children," every generation faces new challenges, and it is a given that parents are responsible for children and only they can provide a safe environment.

If my five year older brother hid a porn mag or a mag just with nude people in his room (i'm sure he did) and I would have found it, she would have talked to my brother first, then to ME in a very starightforward way, but wouldn't have balmed the publisher of a nudity mag which can be bought in Germany on a regular newsstand or the publisher of a porn mag which can be bought in porn shops when you are eightteen. She would have also taken into consideration that my sixteen year old brother wasn't a "kid" anymore, had a gf and already sex with her, and my parents knew about it.

...and no, I don't compare the mini-game to drugs on the street, a porn shop, prostitution, severe crime or other nonsensensical examples in order to demonstarte that 'our children" have to be protected, neither do I think that children should be exposed to everything and should be able to purchase everything. That is a given, and so is necessary legislation. That we gamers have to defend games against this nonsense and sometimes even fall for it is the result of anti-gaming propganda which is completely over the top.

The problem isn't Rockstar, it is nutty and wacky anti-gaming sentiments repeated over and over again in the last fifteen years.

We are talking about a little sequence of an M rated game here, completely blown out of proportion fueled by hysterical propaganda.

What bothers me is that this nonsense is repeated over and over again for centuries by educational dictators. They lost their battles against movies, music, literature, and art.

They scrutinize videogames because it is a new medium, and we are witnessing the same dumbness with the same reasoning from 'impressionable young minds' to 'new easily accessible materials' which endangers our culture. Goethe with "Werther" faced this critricism, A.C Doyle with Sherlock Holmes novels, the novels of the era of 'realism' in the 19th century and painters of impressionism, and more recently the Beatles, Rock 'n Roll, comic books in the '50s, and Heavy Metal. Human beings are not merely imitating apes, they aren't easily influenced, they are sluggish, and that is a curse and a blessing.

[goatdan]

Anti-gaming activists blamed Rockstar for pornography and they misrepresented game content since the release of SA. Do you think they would have been more understandable OR would take the same stance about the game when Hot Coffee was discovered if Rockstar would have been forthcoming?

I really don't understand how you can argue that no one should look at the whole picture when determining the guilt of someone or something. In the right context, no one would be guilty of anything ever. But people are, and in this case, R* screwed themselves.

Do I think that the places you mention would be more understanding if R* had been more forthcoming? No. But we've never been talking about this because they were angry about the game before the Hot Coffee mod was discovered. Trying to draw a conclusion that the Hot Coffee mod was what pissed this people off is misleading at best.

Do I think that the places you mention would have been so big in the media if R* had handled this in a professional way? No. How could they be? R* finds an error and then acts to change it by their own accord, or tells the ESRB that they screwed up and forgot it was in there, and that it should be changed to AO until they redo the game without that scene, or a million other things and they would have been hailed as doing the right thing by lots and lots of people, and this debate wouldn't be ongoing right now.


My basic criticism about anti-gaming propaganda is independent of Rockstar's statements because it was out there, is out there, and will be out there independently of GTA SA and Rockstar's PR.

Then this shouldn't be a thread about GTA:SA. Your argument -- and trying to take away the importance of R*'s statements -- really makes this into a debate that has nothing to do with the problems that GTA:SA had.


I didn't say that. It made matters worse. My criticism about your position is that you cannot separate the case from the central Q because you have to speculate about intentions, draw conclusions which cannot be drawn, and at the end PR overshadowes the case and distracts from it because the case is weak. A comfortable strategy for anti-gaming propaganda which you shouldn't follow.

The case isn't weak. The content is on the disc, the ESRB was misled and R* did issue statements that were proven to be wrong. I do not see how you can argue any of those points.


The mere fact that the game sequence was found doesn't make it easily accessible, does it? I just can't understand why this sequence is portrayed as "easily accessible" when millions of players on three continents played it for nine months and didn't discover it. Isn't such a description a bit out of whack and non-sensical extreme propaganda?

Um, but once it was found, couldn't millions of players who had been playing it start using it? I'm not saying that it is the easiest thing to get to -- you still have to play the game quite a bit to get to the point that it actually changes the gameplay -- but to imply that once it was found, the other millions of people who have played it wouldn't care or be curious to see what it was is just as out of whack.


Accessibility has two stages: first until the sequence was discovered, second after it was discovered. It is comical to say that the sequence was discovered easily. I focused on the responsibility of the ones who look for it and discovered it.

So if I kill someone and hide the body really well in a field, and a treasure hunter decides that the field I buried the body in looks like a place they might find something cool, if they dig up the body I would be innocent of the charges of murder and we should blame the treasure hunter for looking there to begin with?

How can you dismiss the idea that R* put the data on the disc?


I stated that parents have a responsibility for their "kids" (15-17 years) who will always find a way (like I did, you did, and almost every 'child') to do something prohibited by their parents, and additionally stated that I don't think it is a good way to teach a "child" (15-17 years) responsibility by portraying them as victims and blaming game developers.

I *never* said that the people altering the game weren't also responsible for their actions -- they are. But the fact that the data is on the disc and programmed by R* themselves still leaves them with some responsibilty, and their response to it ultimately is what buried them.

Again -- if R* hadn't issued their first PR, they wouldn't be in this position. What do you think would happen if they said this: "Holy crap! That wasn't supposed to go on there, we are so sorry! Anyone who wants to trade the game in can in a couple months when we re-release it without this code in it, and until then, we think the ESRB should give it the AO rating. We didn't realize this was still in the game, and we didn't mean to decieve their rating system. It can only be accessed by changing the game with a device, but it shouldn't have been on there at all."

Here is what I think would happen -- the activist groups would still be pissed, but they were anyway so it doesn't matter. The politicians would be appeased. The ESRB would look like they still mattered. And approximately no one who bought the game would trade it in when the new version came out because the vast majority of the people who own this game know what is on it already, and this won't change their minds.


Let us be REASONABLE, that is all I say. Let's introduce some common sense here; and I have to say, common sense is lost in your statements too as an avid gamer because we are bombarded by nonsense about games and their misrepresentation by very agressive anti-gaming activists. We are in the defensive for years, and it shows in our apologies by incorporating nonsense.

Don't accuse me of being unreasonable. If anything, your refusal to look at the big picture and instead trying to make this into a "the anti-gaming propaganda people all suck" argument is tainting it all.

I look at everything in the gaming world on a case-by-case basis, and in this case, with the whole picture taken into account, R* dug their own grave and now they have to lie in it.


The worst misrepresentation of propaganda: we assume games are still for "kids" only, the most mature games are easily accessible and palyed by 8 year olds, and we make the game audience younger than they are. Actually, hysteria about the game sequence only works if gamers are portrayed as "children" and not as 17-year olds of whom 40% already had sex.

Did I say anything about this? There was a tangent that I went on in a reply to fpstream, but that had little to do with the current debate.


I found my analogy pretty reasonable. But look which kinds of examples you used: stuffed animals, teddy bears stuffed with weed. Stuffed animals are associated with kids, six and seven year-olds. We are talking about an M rated raunchy game here; neither is GTA a stuffed animal intended for kids, nor is the mini-game equivalent with drugs.

A criminal running from the police with a gun, and even more comical the possible worst case scenarios of games tailored towards "kids" with hidden sex scenes. Isn't that also a little bit out of whack if you take two steps back and look at it?

Again, we are talking about an M rated game (17 and older)which is as raunchy as it can get (for now). I heavily doubt that a game developer of Super Mario or Nemo considers to put a starightforward sex scene in the game and then leaves it on the disc only playable with a game altering device. I heavily doubt also that a publisher for childrens books will hide intentionally a porn picture in the book. (assuming the game sequence was intentionally hidden and the intent was to be discovered as a raunchy Easter Egg).

An M rated game is not as "raunchy" as it gets, as the AO tag currently on the game proves.

So what you're saying is that we can't use extreme examples to illustrate a point because it probably wouldn't happen with another game, so why bother? I used these examples because they are out there and wacky, but they should also illustrate that if the GTA:SA argument was put into a different format, it is rather obvious the problems with it.


Only with this background your statements are understandable and even possible about a ridiculous and harmless mini game even for 15 year olds:

My gosh. Either start arguing about GTA: SA spefically or just drop it. I snipped a whole bunch of stuff about you trying to tell me that games aren't just for kids and that people should realize this.

I know. I don't care. It has nothing to do with this specific example.

You asked people to be reasonable and aggressive with you in this thread about the GTA:SA controversy, but you continually are making points about how this has nothing to do with kids. I was never arguing that. I was arguing the merits of the case itself. The teddy bears that I named? I did that because I needed something that could act as a vehicle for a drug, not because of some freudian thing where I thought they were a parallel to video games. If you need to, replace teddy bears with HVAC ducts or something.

Lastly, who makes it okay for you to decide that all 15 year olds are mature enough to play this mini game? Shouldn't the parents be the ones to make that decision?


Again, the talk about impressionable kids and overwhelmed parents who need tools for better parenting. If a parent lets a 13 year old play an M rated game without talking to the "child," it won't do it with an AO rating either. If a parent is clueless about the wide range of games today, no rating and legislation will help. The security and kid-proof safety you seek cannot be achieved by provided better "parenting tools" you suggest, it is an illusion created by anti-gaming propaganda.

You took my comments on another issue out of context here -- I was discussing the industry in general, not GTA:SA here.

*sigh*

Anyway, I'll defend my out of context statements here too, although for the most part I'm agreeing with you here.


My mother put her foot down when she didn't approve what we did and was VERY efficient doing so. My sister-in-law cared very much what my eleven year old nephew played, and that was during the N64 times when he wanted to play Turok (and did, she watched him playing for an hour before she approved, and restricted playtime anyway).

Neither my mother nor my sister-in-law demanded legislation, cler-cut ratings systems, safe offerings for their children imposed on others, nor did they shift responsibility to game developers or engaged in cultural babble portraying children as victims; because they knew that the world doesn't revolve around "our children," every generation faces new challenges, and it is a given that parents are responsible for children and only they can provide a safe environment.

If my five year older brother hid a porn mag or a mag just with nude people in his room (i'm sure he did) and I would have found it, she would have talked to my brother first, then to ME in a very starightforward way, but wouldn't have balmed the publisher of a nudity mag which can be bought in Germany on a regular newsstand or the publisher of a porn mag which can be bought in porn shops when you are eightteen. She would have also taken into consideration that my sixteen year old brother wasn't a "kid" anymore, had a gf and already sex with her, and my parents knew about it.

[quote]...and no, I don't compare the mini-game to drugs on the street, a porn shop, prostitution, severe crime or other nonsensensical examples in order to demonstarte that 'our children" have to be protected, neither do I think that children should be exposed to everything and should be able to purchase everything. That is a given, and so is necessary legislation. That we gamers have to defend games against this nonsense and sometimes even fall for it is the result of anti-gaming propganda which is completely over the top.

Ta-da. I agree with everything that you've said. I was arguing -- and I still do -- that if the ESRB does like the MPAA did and puts limits on who can buy M games, it will only open the avenue to other things.

And we can't base the things the US does on anywhere else. Just like Canada can't base their policy on us and so on. In Germany (and most of Europe) their feelings and culture about nudity and sex is different. When I was in France, I flipped to what would qualify as a hardcore sex movie for a few seconds on a regular TV station at about 7:00 at night. But that's their culture. The US culture is different, and we have made sex taboo (blame the Puritans, I guess). Because of that, if our government feels that based on our culture, you can't get stuff until you're 17 or 18 or 21, that's fine by me.


The problem isn't Rockstar, it is nutty and wacky anti-gaming sentiments repeated over and over again in the last fifteen years.

Correct. But then we're not talking about the GTA:SA controversy in the same light, are we?


We are talking about a little sequence of an M rated game here, completely blown out of proportion fueled by hysterical propaganda.

It is blown out of proportion. And if you discount R*'s statements, it doesn't make any sense. But thanks to those statements, R* caused the hysterical propaganada.


What bothers me is that this nonsense is repeated over and over again for centuries by educational dictators. They lost their battles against movies, music, literature, and art.

No, they are still fighting on those fronts. Bush suggested the idea that schools should teach creationism this morning. In fact, he also has forced the Grand Canyon to carry a book that states that it was formed in a very quick way that has nothing to do with scientific fact...

And I have nothing against Bush really, but the above are two of the stupidest things I've heard recently. At one point, there was a seperation of church and state...

Anyway, back to the point -- citizens need to stay vigilante on ALL fronts because there are always people that want others to believe things only one way. That's why I think the limitation wouldn't be such a bad thing. These groups like the one you referenced above basically want to not allow game developers to make anything they feel is offensive. If they get their way, it would put an end to all M rated games, all AO rated games and the offensive elements in the T rated games. Putting a restriction on the games makes it nearly impossible for them to argue that these games could be going to our kids. People are bright enough to see through that.


They scrutinize videogames because it is a new medium, and we are witnessing the same dumbness with the same reasoning from 'impressionable young minds' to 'new easily accessible materials' which endangers our culture. Goethe with "Werther" faced this critricism, A.C Doyle with Sherlock Holmes novels, the novels of the era of 'realism' in the 19th century and painters of impressionism, and more recently the Beatles, Rock 'n Roll, comic books in the '50s, and Heavy Metal. Human beings are not merely imitating apes, they aren't easily influenced, they are sluggish, and that is a curse and a blessing.

Again, I agree.

But I do think that some scrutinization is fair, just as long as it doesn't lead to censorship. Limiting the purchase of a game to people 17 and over isn't censorship, and it does allow the parents to have another tool about what they want or don't want their kids to see.

While I do feel that censorship is really bad and I have learned a lot because it isn't there, I don't want my 12 year old to walk into a store and buy the Paris CD Sleeping with the Enemy and listen to Bush Killa' without me being around to talk with them about it. Restricting the sales of material like this just alerts parents more to it, and makes them take it more seriously. It isn't a replacement for bad parenting, but it is helpful. Parent's can't be everywhere at once, and just like you said -- kids will get away with some stuff. I did too. But at least the parents know it is something they are getting away with, and not something their parents would approve of.

That still teaches a lesson.

Anyway, enough of this. We agree on the point that games should not be censored, and that games should not be considered a kids toy. The only bit of disagreement seems to come in with what statements we can consider in this particular case with R*, and making it into a totally hypothetical situation by eliminating what R* said. It happened, it's over.

R* f-ed up and gave the censorship groups a lot of ammunition, and the ESRB didn't follow up very well.

[evildead2099]

"It's okay to kill someone in the name of your country, but not in a video game fantasy-like world for our children" Is pretty much the message I'm understanding from her.



Meaning, Soccer Mom's need to get off their asses and pay attention to their kids for once! I swear I will put the smackdown on the next lady who comes in and says "I Don't care! As long as they get out of my hair!"

The parents do not care! I'm telling ya! As an employee of GameCrazy the parents do not give a damn about what those kids do! It's pathiec!

Some good points, I feel the same way. I heard a father tell his son months ago that he could not have San Andreas because of the sexual content or whatever. This was funny to me, funny because he did not mention the violence but rather the sex. Maybe he doesn't want his 11 yr old son getting a boner over some sexual noises and I understand that. But why shelter your kids from sex instead of violence?? Does that make sense? I don't want my son to be violent, I want him to get laid every weekend though (just like daddy used to). And no I don't think violent games make kids violent, well maybe the dumb ones. LOL

You have to shelter kids from sex instead of violence, because sex is something that is not taught to kids. When I had sex ed classes, I thought it was funny to hear all these things. I was 10. The only people, I believe, that can tell you about sex are your parents, so they need to shelter kids from this until the kids learn on their own when they are older, or when the parents deem it is necessary to tell their child.

Violence is everywhere these days, so no matter what we do, kids will still see it. Local news is always littered with murders and rapes (which is violent and sexual), so kids are shown violence at a very young age. Bullies in schools, play guns, and things of this sort are all violent, and as a 7 year old or a 6 year old, a kid will see violence everywhere they look.

You demonstrate a very ethnocentric and misguided understanding of the matter. In many parts of Europe such as Germany, children start learning about sexuality in Kindergarten. Contrary to what your conuntry's politicians and 'family values' fringe groups insist, learning about sexuality at a young age does not cause people to experiment with it at earlier ages. In fact, the result is quite the opposite. Rates of premarital and unprotected sex are, on average, much lower in Europe (where sexuality is taught very early in schools) than it is in America (where lessons concerning sexuality are taught much later and / or skewed to only cover abstinance).

[lendelin]

I really don't understand how you can argue that no one should look at the whole picture when determining the guilt of someone or something.

I didn't argue that. I look at the whole picture like you do.


In the right context, no one would be guilty of anything ever.

Ridiculous. Don't read something in my post which isn't there.


Do I think that the places you mention would have been so big in the media if R* had handled this in a professional way? No. How could they be?

They aren't big in the media. Politically it is an unimportant issue.


...and that it should be changed to AO until they redo the game without that scene, or a million other things and they would have been hailed as doing the right thing by lots and lots of people, and this debate wouldn't be ongoing right now.


If Rockstar had delivered the most apologetic statement it wouldn't have changed a thing about the attacks of parental groups and various anti-gaming activists.

Do you really think Liebermann and Kohl who attack games like GTA in the dumbest way every year when the annual report card of the National institute for Media and the Family (NIMF) is published, and guys like Walsh and Anderson wouldn't have jumped on this opportunity?

NIMF accused Rockstar of pornography BEFORE the coffee-game was discovered; do you think they miss an opportunity of attack when finally a sex scene is revealed? Hilary Clinton would have done the same thing also. The woman looks for soft issues which are poltically unimportant since she is in the Senate.


Then this shouldn't be a thread about GTA:SA. Your argument -- and trying to take away the importance of R*'s statements -- really makes this into a debate that has nothing to do with the problems that GTA:SA had.


I argued that Rockstars first statement should be separated from the issue of the mini-game in GTA and gave reasons why that is. How can you conclude that this thread shouldn't be about GTA at all if I want to focus on the exact same issue?

Wasn't the reason for Rockstars first statement that a mini-game was discovered in SA?

Puzzling.

Don't you think that your focus on the first statement distracts from the basic problem who is responsible of a hidden sequence in a game when it is discovered? Might it be that your ambigious evaluation of the case depends on the first statement? Apologetic statemnt = accident, not much harm done, and you would defend Rockstar as you already stated. Deceiving statement = Rockstar is to blame for everything.

You really think that the entire problem rests on Rockstar's first statement. Think again, in particular because you contradict yourself.

Unfortunately, neither anti-gaming activists nor politicians would follow you on that one.


Um, but once it was found, couldn't millions of players who had been playing it start using it? I'm not saying that it is the easiest thing to get to -- you still have to play the game quite a bit to get to the point that it actually changes the gameplay -- but to imply that once it was found, the other millions of people who have played it wouldn't care or be curious to see what it was is just as out of whack.


That is exactly what I said, you fight against windmills.
Quote myself:
"Accessibility has two stages: first until the sequence was discovered, second after it was discovered. ...
After it was discovered it is certainly easier to get it with patches and game altering devices."

My recommendation: READ before you respond.


So if I kill someone and hide the body really well in a field, and a treasure hunter decides that the field I buried the body in looks like a place they might find something cool, if they dig up the body I would be innocent of the charges of murder and we should blame the treasure hunter for looking there to begin with?

This beats it all. :)

You know what the problem with wacko analogies is? You can't make a point becasue they are just that - out of whack and not analogous. Stuffed animals with weed, childrens games with hidden sex scenes, criminals with guns, and now the discovery of a corpse where the discoverer is blamed but not the killer. What's next? :) The acceptance of civil unions between gays and soon you'll be able to marry sheep?

My last attempt. :) : wouldn't the following analogy be more reasonable? 'Children' (=gamers) know that there is a corpse (=mini game) in the woods to be discovered. They go on and search for it and find it. Like in the movie 'Stand By Me.' If I were the father of one of the kids, I would have indeed a serious talk with the kids and teach them responsibility.

Still, I think it is just a bit dramatic to compare Rockstar with a murderer and the mini-game with a murdered corpse. :)


How can you dismiss the idea that R* put the data on the disc?

I didn't. On the contrary.


Again -- if R* hadn't issued their first PR, they wouldn't be in this position. What do you think would happen if they said this: "Holy crap! That wasn't supposed to go on there, we are so sorry! Anyone who wants to trade the game in can in a couple months when we re-release it without this code in it, and until then, we think the ESRB should give it the AO rating. We didn't realize this was still in the game, and we didn't mean to decieve their rating system. It can only be accessed by changing the game with a device, but it shouldn't have been on there at all."

First, I would advise them not to use the words 'Holy crap' in an official statement. Second, it wouldn't have changed a thing about the basic discussion. The consequences of the deceiving statement is twofold; 1) for Rockstar it limited their startegies, they put themselves in a corner, 2) it gave anti-gaming activists a bit more ammunition, nothing more. The statement is devastating for Rockstar, but not a triumph for anti-gaming propgagandists. Not everything is a zero-sum game.

They would have used this opportunity to attack an independent rating system anyway, a target they have for years now. Neither did the statement rally politicians. It is an unimportant issue for them. Nor does a deceiving or apologetic statement change the basic problem which we should discuss.


Here is what I think would happen -- the activist groups would still be pissed, but they were anyway so it doesn't matter.The politicians would be appeased.

This assumes that the discussion is fueled by politicians, not by hysterical anti-gaming groups. This is a big misperception on your part. As I said, politically this is an unimportant issue, I heard it two times in the news, and it was a 10 second remark. Clinton and a couple of others, and Lieberman and Kohl are at it since 1993. It is important for us gamers, for the anti-gaming groups, otherwise it is negelctible -- which makes it very dangerous. If it were a controversial issue, Hilary Clinton would have remained silent and the danger of having consequences wouldn't be there.


So what you're saying is that we can't use extreme examples to illustrate a point because it probably wouldn't happen with another game, so why bother?

See above.


I used these examples because they are out there and wacky, but they should also illustrate that if the GTA:SA argument was put into a different format, it is rather obvious the problems with it.


It is one thing to analyse whackiness and over the top reasoning; it is another thing to use whacky analogies to illustrate a point -- namely a misleading and futile thing.


My gosh. Either start arguing about GTA: SA spefically or just drop it. I snipped a whole bunch of stuff about you trying to tell me that games aren't just for kids and that people should realize this.

I know. I don't care. It has nothing to do with this specific example.

It has everything to do with this specific case. Without the basic assumption that "people," and as you said "kids" are impressionable and it can even influence their behavior (like every anti-gaming group asumes and even wrongfully says that it is proven) we wouldn't have this discussion.

16 year olds are mis-characterized as 8-year-old "kids." Gamers who play M rated games are not ten and younger.

I say it is an exaggerated discussion because "kids" don't play SA anyway; and if in extreme single cases they do, then careless parents are to blame, and in case of careless and clueless parents no rating, no Hilary Clinton, no culture babble, no game-legislation will ever help.

What might help is a matter of accessibility and the competence or incompetence we entrust in parents - and that is what we should focus on. Not PR statements...and I said my part about the accesibility of the coffee game.


And we can't base the things the US does on anywhere else. Just like Canada can't base their policy on us and so on. In Germany (and most of Europe) their feelings and culture about nudity and sex is different.

I didn't argue this way. This is completely irrelevant. In Germany, btw, you have to be 18 also to go into a porn shop.


But thanks to those statements, R* caused the hysterical propaganada.

Nah, the hysterical propaganda is there since '93 when Liebermann wielded the Genesis gun in front of a TV camera and 'experts' like Provenzo stated in the Senate that videogames are overwhelmingly racist, sexist and violent, and representatives of parental groups stated that in games our kids are "trained to become killers." (becasue of shooting games)

They still believe that. Rockstar and the entire industry face hysterical propaganda, they don't create it. Game publishers might once in a while put unintentionally oil in the fire, but they don't create it.

[goatdan]

If Rockstar had delivered the most apologetic statement it wouldn't have changed a thing about the attacks of parental groups and various anti-gaming activists.

Do you really think Liebermann and Kohl who attack games like GTA in the dumbest way every year when the annual report card of the National institute for Media and the Family (NIMF) is published, and guys like Walsh and Anderson wouldn't have jumped on this opportunity?

NIMF accused Rockstar of pornography BEFORE the coffee-game was discovered; do you think they miss an opportunity of attack when finally a sex scene is revealed? Hilary Clinton would have done the same thing also. The woman looks for soft issues which are poltically unimportant since she is in the Senate.

You're saying that if R* issued an apology and did a voluntary recall, these people would still be able to attack something and others would take them seriously?

Who?

R* - Oh my gosh, we accidentally left this in. If you're offended, we'll replace your copy for free.

Politicians - No! You did this on purpose! You're trying to corrupt the youth!

The arguement of the politicians has a lot of weight taken out of it because R* admits it is a mistake and works to fix it. What else do they want?


I argued that Rockstars first statement should be separated from the issue of the mini-game in GTA and gave reasons why that is. How can you conclude that this thread shouldn't be about GTA at all if I want to focus on the exact same issue?

What are the reasons then? The entire case hinges on the entire picture. I have gotten hypothetical above and in other statements, but it didn't work that way. R* made that statement.

And really, from your arguments in this case, the thread could've been titled "I hate politician groups that jump on the bandwagon against video games" and it would've made more sense. That's what you've been arguing. That I (and probably 99% of the people on these boards) wholeheartedly agree with.


Wasn't the reason for Rockstars first statement that a mini-game was discovered in SA?

Puzzling.

Don't you think that your focus on the first statement distracts from the basic problem who is responsible of a hidden sequence in a game when it is discovered? Might it be that your ambigious evaluation of the case depends on the first statement? Apologetic statemnt = accident, not much harm done, and you would defend Rockstar as you already stated. Deceiving statement = Rockstar is to blame for everything.

You really think that the entire problem rests on Rockstar's first statement. Think again, in particular because you contradict yourself.

Unfortunately, neither anti-gaming activists nor politicians would follow you on that one.

Please explain to me why I don't make any sense to you. The only thing that I think you're finding that doesn't make sense is stuff you're thinking I'm saying, but I'm not. I'll write it again, as clearly as possible:

- If R* had made a first statement with a voluntary recall, these political groups could not have made an argument that they were being decieving about the origins of the game, they could not argue that the ESRB wasn't working and it wouldn't have been much of a news article.

- Because R* decieved the public and lied about where the minigame came from, it gave the above groups credit, attention and made the ESRB look bad.

In both cases, R* is guilty of putting the game on the disc, but the political fallout from it would have been vastly different.


That is exactly what I said, you fight against windmills.
Quote myself:
"Accessibility has two stages: first until the sequence was discovered, second after it was discovered. ...
After it was discovered it is certainly easier to get it with patches and game altering devices."

My recommendation: READ before you respond.

Don't get into personal attacks. I don't. And if you're really getting this angry about this all, it's probably time to read some other threads. I don't take it that seriously.

And even though you take my statements out of context throughout your entire argument, I read everything before I reply and figure out what I was really saying before I reply. Perhaps that is the reason it seems some of my arguments don't make sense to you -- you snip little parts of them and then when I reply with what I was saying in the argument, you make it so that I don't make sense.

By the way, the reason I pointed that out was the fact that you stated that just because the game sequence was found doesn't make it accessable. I pointed out that it doesn't matter, because there are millions of people who would start using it regardlessly. Just because it wasn't easy to find doesn't mean that people aren't going to look for it once it is found, and the legal system wouldn't look at it that way.

So please, don't try changing my words around to make my argument make less sense. I do read everything.


You know what the problem with wacko analogies is? You can't make a point becasue they are just that - out of whack and not analogous. Stuffed animals with weed, childrens games with hidden sex scenes, criminals with guns, and now the discovery of a corpse where the discoverer is blamed but not the killer. What's next? :) The acceptance of civil unions between gays and soon you'll be able to marry sheep?

I think that you don't like my analogies because they prove how stupid it is to not put any blame on R*. Yes, they are not the same situation, but in the case of the stuft animals, the people who made them would've been blamed for the weed, no? In the case of the body, the people who killed the person and hid it there would've been blamed, no?

So how can you argue that the minigame should in no part be R*'s responsibility if they MADE the mini-game and put it on the disc? Obviously, you think it would be crazy to do it in these other examples I've given you, but this is the exact same situation in a different light.


My last attempt. :) : wouldn't the following analogy be more reasonable? 'Children' (=gamers) know that there is a corpse (=mini game) in the woods to be discovered. They go on and search for it and find it. Like in the movie 'Stand By Me.' If I were the father of one of the kids, I would have indeed a serious talk with the kids and teach them responsibility.

Okay... using this example, when the body was found wouldn't the murderer be responsible? I FULLY agree that the children shouldn't be out looking for it (just like I agree that parents should be watching their kids for playing games like GTA) but the ultimate responsibility for the murder falls on whose shoulders? Not the kids, not the parents, but the murderer himself.

Damn, that's actually about the best example to support my case that there is. I'm not arguing that the people unlocking it and playing it don't have any responsibility for playing it -- they obviously do -- but the ultimate legal responsibility for it being there, no matter how hidden, is on R*'s shoulders.


Still, I think it is just a bit dramatic to compare Rockstar with a murderer and the mini-game with a murdered corpse. :)

I think these examples prove how the legal system would look at this -- because these are the same sorts of illustrations that a lawyer would make to a courtroom to highlight that R* was responsible for the material on the disc. We weren't talking about this from a strictly moral standpoint, in which there would be other issues at stake and which I've said all along I agree with -- that parents should be responsible for any kids playing the game.

The issue - how I see it - is clearly one between R* and the ESRB, and if the ESRB's rerating was fair, and between R* and the general public, and what the general public perceives R* is doing about everything. A discussion about the morality of playing GTA: SA with a kid is another whole conversation, and not one that I would care to be involved in because I feel it is up to individuals to decide.


First, I would advise them not to use the words 'Holy crap' in an official statement. Second, it wouldn't have changed a thing about the basic discussion. The consequences of the deceiving statement is twofold; 1) for Rockstar it limited their startegies, they put themselves in a corner, 2) it gave anti-gaming activists a bit more ammunition, nothing more. The statement is devastating for Rockstar, but not a triumph for anti-gaming propgagandists. Not everything is a zero-sum game.

They would have used this opportunity to attack an independent rating system anyway, a target they have for years now. Neither did the statement rally politicians. It is an unimportant issue for them. Nor does a deceiving or apologetic statement change the basic problem which we should discuss.

But the basic problem that you have been describing, if I'm not mistaken, is not the GTA:SA issue, but a bigger issue -- the issue of the anti-gaming propagandists trying to limit what people can do in games.

If you look at the statement itself, it gives these anti-gaming propagandists a LOT more ammunition for both R* and the ESRB. Like I said, if the statement wasn't made, what could politicians and these places complain about? If it was that R* missed removing this sequence or the ESRB missed rating it, I think that R*'s voluntary re-rating move / recall would've quieted those fears, and the fact that it can't be regularly accessed would've given R* / the gaming world a damn good excuse as to why it wasn't found and taken out.

If the anti-gaming groups lose their arguement that the ESRB screwed up and R* was being deceptive, they don't really have a case at all any more. At least, not more than what they had before, which is why I feel that discounting the statement makes this into an argument that essentially isn't about GTA:SA at all, but a statement that anti-gaming groups suck.

And to that, I agree.


This assumes that the discussion is fueled by politicians, not by hysterical anti-gaming groups. This is a big misperception on your part. As I said, politically this is an unimportant issue, I heard it two times in the news, and it was a 10 second remark. Clinton and a couple of others, and Lieberman and Kohl are at it since 1993. It is important for us gamers, for the anti-gaming groups, otherwise it is negelctible -- which makes it very dangerous. If it were a controversial issue, Hilary Clinton would have remained silent and the danger of having consequences wouldn't be there.

Before this happened, how often did you hear about these groups? What had they blocked from happening in the last five years? I can't remember hearing about anything from them or hearing that any games had to be halted because they were pissed.

Without the stupid statement from R*, no one would be listening to them still.


It is one thing to analyse whackiness and over the top reasoning; it is another thing to use whacky analogies to illustrate a point -- namely a misleading and futile thing.

My points were not misleading, and in fact your "whacky analogy" helped prove my case more. It's looking at it from a legal standpoint, not from a moral one.


It has everything to do with this specific case. Without the basic assumption that "people," and as you said "kids" are impressionable and it can even influence their behavior (like every anti-gaming group asumes and even wrongfully says that it is proven) we wouldn't have this discussion.

16 year olds are mis-characterized as 8-year-old "kids." Gamers who play M rated games are not ten and younger.

I say it is an exaggerated discussion because "kids" don't play SA anyway; and if in extreme single cases they do, then careless parents are to blame, and in case of careless and clueless parents no rating, no Hilary Clinton, no culture babble, no game-legislation will ever help.

Okay, so by you bringing this up again, is the point that we are arguing the fact that you are arguing from a moral standpoint -- where I agree, it shouldn't be a hot button topic because kids are mis-characterized in the gaming world constantly -- while I am arguing the legal points -- where R* is responsible for the data on the disc and their misleading press statements?

In the legal points, the fact that they are or are not "kids" has zero to do with the responsibility for the data or the statements about it.

In the moral points, this fact has everything to do with everything... but then I don't think that the argument should center around GTA:SA, as it most definitely isn't the only example of a game that has potential moral issues.


What might help is a matter of accessibility and the competence or incompetence we entrust in parents - and that is what we should focus on. Not PR statements...and I said my part about the accesibility of the coffee game.

So are you looking at this from a moral standpoint? Because legally, the matter of accessibility doesn't matter.


I didn't argue this way. This is completely irrelevant. In Germany, btw, you have to be 18 also to go into a porn shop.

That wasn't even directed at you (it was at sealboy6 who made a comment a while ago I missed), but it is relevant if you are arguing that sex isn't bad because in Germany you can walk into a regular store and buy a magazine with naked people on it.

And I wasn't saying you could walk into a porn store... but of the European countries I've been to, Holland, Norway and France had magazines with nude people on the covers in regular locations, and had advertisements with nude people on them and stuff like that.

Regardless, the point is and was that the ESRB can't base their ratings system on what other countries do or do not find acceptable because there are still cultural differences everywhere.


Nah, the hysterical propaganda is there since '93 when Liebermann wielded the Genesis gun in front of a TV camera and 'experts' like Provenzo stated in the Senate that videogames are overwhelmingly racist, sexist and violent, and representatives of parental groups stated that in games our kids are "trained to become killers." (becasue of shooting games)

Hey, don't take my comments out of context. That isn't fair in any way. I realize it has been around for a long time. That full statement, which was in reply to this line:

"We are talking about a little sequence of an M rated game here, completely blown out of proportion fueled by hysterical propaganda."

My reply was:

"It is blown out of proportion. And if you discount R*'s statements, it doesn't make any sense. But thanks to those statements, R* caused the hysterical propaganada."

Taken in context, I am saying that the hysterical propaganda is the result of R*'s statements, but the propaganda is blown out of proportion.

A fair statement to use from me would've been something like this:

"R* f-ed up and gave the censorship groups a lot of ammunition, and the ESRB didn't follow up very well."

Please don't try to change my words around to make me sound like I'm contradicting myself. I haven't done that to you, and it is a completely unfair way to try to debate any points. I wasn't born under a rock, and I don't think this is the first time this controversy has popped up. Please don't treat me like that is what I think by taking things out of context.


They still believe that. Rockstar and the entire industry face hysterical propaganda, they don't create it. Game publishers might once in a while put unintentionally oil in the fire, but they don't create it.

This wasn't what I thought we were arguing. We can make two seperate arguments, and I think that we both agree.

1) R* and the industry face incredible propaganda, 99% of which is overblown and isn't necessary if parents are parents and do their job.

2) R* is legally responsible for the content on their disc, and thanks to their poor statements they allowed the hysterical propaganda groups to have their voices be heard. Without such a bad set of statements, R* would still be under scrutiny from these same groups, but the groups wouldn't have the same voice in the media now.

[bargora]

Well, holy crap. Did I just read that whole thread? I tried, anyway.

It seems that lendelin wants to discuss whether R* is culpable for any sort of wrongdoing for the events occurring prior to any of their public statements regarding the Hot Coffee matter. It appears that goatdan is unwilling to discuss the matter without making R*'s public statements regarding Hot Coffee a central issue.

Goatdan, are you completely unwilling to debate hypothetical situations?

And I'm not sure that I buy any of the analogies presented in this thread, either, as they mainly concern acts which are a priori harmful (murder? hidden drugs?), rather than what is arguably (which means you can argue about it) protected artistic expression.

Fortunately, the minds are already made up, so we will likely be spared the harrowing sight of anyone giving ground.

[goatdan]

Well, holy crap. Did I just read that whole thread? I tried, anyway.

I'm impressed anyone has. I was actually thinking I would just PM lendelin, because I figured no one else could be interested anymore :)


It seems that lendelin wants to discuss whether R* is culpable for any sort of wrongdoing for the events occurring prior to any of their public statements regarding the Hot Coffee matter. It appears that goatdan is unwilling to discuss the matter without making R*'s public statements regarding Hot Coffee a central issue.

I would be happy to discuss the matter without taking R*'s public statements into account, but the problem is what are you left with then? A bunch of hypothetical scenarios that hinge specifically on what R* does.

Before that point, we're left with the fact the data is on the disc and the ESRB would've reviewed it to see if their rating was right. Can we assume that if R* had said nothing, the ESRB would've still changed the rating?

We don't and can't know that because the reason the politicians started hopping on this bandwagon was a result of how this was being handled by R* and the ESRB. There were calls to re-rate it before that point, but I argue that -- hypothetically -- if R* had made different statements, the response would've been greatly different.


Goatdan, are you completely unwilling to debate hypothetical situations?

How is this about me being unwilling to debate hypothetical situations? I was the one that brought up what I feel would have *hypothetically* happened if R* had made a different statement.

Other than the statement, I don't see what is hypothetical about the GTA:SA debate. Do you believe the data isn't on the discs? Do you believe that the data couldn't have been found? There is proof against both of those things happening, so discussing that hypothetically isn't really discussing GTA:SA, is it?

Or do you have something else entirely that you want to hypothetically discuss?

I really do not understand what you think that I'm unwilling to discuss here.


And I'm not sure that I buy any of the analogies presented in this thread, either, as they mainly concern acts which are a priori harmful (murder? hidden drugs?), rather than what is arguably (which means you can argue about it) protected artistic expression.

I came up with the hidden drugs / murder examples because it is rather obvious who is to blame in those examples. I think that this R* fiasco parallels them pretty good if you're wondering who is to blame for the content on the discs. It concerns an act that was done priorly, and could potentially be harmful (although as I have said over and over, I don't believe anyone who bought GTA:SA would care). The data didn't appear on the discs when the code was found to unlock it.

As for artistic expression, I don't even understand how someone could argue that such a minigame wouldn't be protected. But if you want to be rated by the ESRB, that's another story. The ESRB cannot censor, but they can give you a very high rating.


Fortunately, the minds are already made up, so we will likely be spared the harrowing sight of anyone giving ground.

Your entire post was about how I won't change my mind, but I have yet to see any reasons why I should. Define WHAT we are talking about. Don't come into a thread and accuse me of refusing to look at things when you do nothing to bring up counterpoints other than, "Goatdan, are you unwilling to...." and "Fortunately, the minds are already made up..." If you have a point, make it with a counter-point. THAT is the way that I will listen to you. Coming on here and complaining that I refuse to listen to anything else when you present me with nothing to go on is just a waste of time.

Quite frankly, you didn't present any points that I could agree with or disagree with other than the artisitc expression thing, which I agree with.

Again, MY POINTS -- feel free to COUNTER-POINT these if you have anything relevant, and I'll gladly consider them:

- The data was on the disc, which means ultimately R* is responsible for the data being on the disc, regardless of whether it was easily accessable or not.

- R* made a serious blunder by lying about how the data got there, and because of that they have opened themselves up to a lot of trouble, and made the ESRB look stupid and pointless.

- If R* had made a different first statement, they could've avoided a lot of the trouble. It still would have cost them, but politicians and mass media probably wouldn't have jumped on the train with the anti-gaming propagandists.

- Games are not just for kids. Specfically, GTA:SA is not intended for kids and it never has been.

- Gaming is not being censored. You can release a game without an ESRB rating if you want too.

- Anti-Gaming Propagandists think that games like GTA:SA are horrible influences on the youth of America and want to ban them. If they won, it would be a huge loss for our free speech rights.

- Game ratings can vary country by country based on cultural differences.

And then, as I said at the end up my last post:

1) R* and the industry face incredible propaganda, 99% of which is overblown and isn't necessary if parents are parents and do their job.

2) R* is legally responsible for the content on their disc, and thanks to their poor statements they allowed the hysterical propaganda groups to have their voices be heard. Without such a bad set of statements, R* would still be under scrutiny from these same groups, but the groups wouldn't have the same voice in the media now.

Care to make a counter-point to any of the above? I'd love to hear it? I really do think that lendelin and I are basically arguing the same thing (and am waiting his next reply to see if I'm right) from slightly different viewpoints, but by your statements it seems you think that I'm just totally wrong. I would love to hear why.

[lendelin]

Goatdan, I have only one comment: OH LORDIE and HOLY SCHMOLY.

Nah, I have another comment: you have a serious problem to distinguish between disagreement and putting reasoning out of context. I never put your statements out of context, rather you demand to follow your logic and assumptions. If I would accept your logic and assumptions, there wouldn't be disagreement. There would never be a discussion. All I could say to you then is, YES, YES, you are so right.

I think it is time to kiss this thread goodbye -- who created this thread anyway? Oh damn, it was me!!

[goatdan]

Argh. Why did you create this thread if you don't want to discuss it?

And you did cut and paste certain comments of mine so that they would come out looking like I was contradicting myself whether you meant to or not. When you take and only quote me as saying, "But thanks to those statements, R* caused the hystercial propaganda." Yes, that's a WRONG STATEMENT. It doesn't make any sense. I disagree with that statement. But that wasn't what I said if you read the entire line.

That's why I said that I think that we weren't actually disagreeing anymore, and perhaps never were.

I'm disappointed that you never took the time in all of this to reply to any of my points with facts. Instead, you just stated I was wrong and used very small snips of what I had said to work against me. That isn't a fair debate. I'm disappointed that now that I took the time out yesterday to highlight all of the points that I feel that I have been arguing, and instead of replying to them you make a post saying that you give up.

I don't want to "win" as you seem to make it sound like I do. I would rather understand what you're talking about. But when you say that you want to argue the R* case without taking into account the statements issued, what is there to argue? The other points in the case weren't hypothetical with how I saw them, so other than the statements I don't see what could've been "done" differently by any of the sides in this. I really do not understand where you are coming from, and your refusal to answer makes me wonder if you had a strong point that you were making, or if we truly were just arguing the same thing in different voices.

If you'd like to reply, I'd appreciate it. I'm going out of town in a couple days, and I figured that we would be near an understanding when you replied to my last thread. I'd rather not end with a thread like this.

[lendelin]

Argh. Why did you create this thread if you don't want to discuss it?

And you did cut and paste certain comments of mine so that they would come out looking like I was contradicting myself whether you meant to or not. When you take and only quote me as saying, "But thanks to those statements, R* caused the hystercial propaganda." Yes, that's a WRONG STATEMENT. It doesn't make any sense. I disagree with that statement. But that wasn't what I said if you read the entire line.

That's why I said that I think that we weren't actually disagreeing anymore, and perhaps never were.

I'm disappointed that you never took the time in all of this to reply to any of my points with facts. Instead, you just stated I was wrong and used very small snips of what I had said to work against me. That isn't a fair debate. I'm disappointed that now that I took the time out yesterday to highlight all of the points that I feel that I have been arguing, and instead of replying to them you make a post saying that you give up.

I don't want to "win" as you seem to make it sound like I do. I would rather understand what you're talking about. But when you say that you want to argue the R* case without taking into account the statements issued, what is there to argue? The other points in the case weren't hypothetical with how I saw them, so other than the statements I don't see what could've been "done" differently by any of the sides in this. I really do not understand where you are coming from, and your refusal to answer makes me wonder if you had a strong point that you were making, or if we truly were just arguing the same thing in different voices.

If you'd like to reply, I'd appreciate it. I'm going out of town in a couple days, and I figured that we would be near an understanding when you replied to my last thread. I'd rather not end with a thread like this.

Nah, I'm just a bit overworked lately, and I have the feeling anyway that everything is said.

I understand your reasoning very well. Always did. While I stress the hysterical propaganda which blows the mini-game out of proportion, you focus on Rockstar which gave an anyway existing hysterical propaganda another opportunity (the fact that they put it on the disc and their first statement, increase media exposure, etc.).

When I have a choice to blame dumb propaganda or the one who gave an opportunity for it, I indeed blame the ones who blow something out of proportion.

We disagree about the effect of Rockstars first statement. The most apologetic one wouldn't have changed a thing. We agree that the attacks of the anti-gaming groups wouldn't have changed, no matter what Rockstar would have done after the mini-game was discovered. You say an apologetic statement would have "appeased" politcians.

Politicians don't need to be appeased in that matter, they are at peace already. Hilary Clinton jumps on every soft issue she can find, in particular if it deals with family values.

Do you think that a politician who wants to show an aggressive stance and backbone about a politically unimportant matter would issue a statement like this?:
"I applaud Rockstar for their straightforwardness and their efforts to correct the mistake..." Nah, they would spin the issue anyways. An apologetic statement by Rockstar doesn't limit the choices of politicians at all. They would just ignore it or deemphasize it becasue they want to demonstrate how strong and aggressive they are regarding family values. They still would characterisize the incident as outrageous, irresponsible, a severe danger for our children, and put every dumb little spin of it we heard. The matter of the fact is that the mini-game is on the disc, no matter which euphemistic, honest, or deceiving statement Rockstar would have issued.

I disagree with important things in your posts. The analogies, acccessibility of the mini-game, possibilities of parental control, some discussion startegies, and so forth.

But we indeed agree on more than disagree, and the diffrent focus on the subject matter of the case (me) or strategies after the mini-game was discovered (you) is at the center of our disagreemnt.

[goatdan]

Nah, I'm just a bit overworked lately, and I have the feeling anyway that everything is said.

I was getting to that point too, but it seemed to be getting more heated, and I was getting rather confused as to why it was at the point that I thought we were ending ;)

Anyway, this is my last post before I go on vacation, so I'll see ya'll in a week if anyone replies...


I understand your reasoning very well. Always did. While I stress the hysterical propaganda which blows the mini-game out of proportion, you focus on Rockstar which gave an anyway existing hysterical propaganda another opportunity (the fact that they put it on the disc and their first statement, increase media exposure, etc.).

When I have a choice to blame dumb propaganda or the one who gave an opportunity for it, I indeed blame the ones who blow something out of proportion.

Okay, fair 'nuf. I understand that completely. I just think that if the mini-game wasn't on the disc, the propaganda would still be there -- but wouldn't have any real point to it. Becasue of the mini game and R*'s response, I feel that the propagandists can point at the ESRB and claim that it isn't working because of how the system was handled.

Unfortunately the propagandists, as I think we would both agree, will not drop this issue and will continue to point it out, which is where I feel a lot of the problems come in :(


We disagree about the effect of Rockstars first statement. The most apologetic one wouldn't have changed a thing. We agree that the attacks of the anti-gaming groups wouldn't have changed, no matter what Rockstar would have done after the mini-game was discovered. You say an apologetic statement would have "appeased" politcians.

Politicians don't need to be appeased in that matter, they are at peace already. Hilary Clinton jumps on every soft issue she can find, in particular if it deals with family values.

Do you think that a politician who wants to show an aggressive stance and backbone about a politically unimportant matter would issue a statement like this?:
"I applaud Rockstar for their straightforwardness and their efforts to correct the mistake..." Nah, they would spin the issue anyways. An apologetic statement by Rockstar doesn't limit the choices of politicians at all. They would just ignore it or deemphasize it becasue they want to demonstrate how strong and aggressive they are regarding family values. They still would characterisize the incident as outrageous, irresponsible, a severe danger for our children, and put every dumb little spin of it we heard. The matter of the fact is that the mini-game is on the disc, no matter which euphemistic, honest, or deceiving statement Rockstar would have issued.

I think that it could've got the same response from politicians about the content of the game, yes -- but I think that the criticism of the ESRB wouldn't have been there, and I think that is the more damaging criticism. Basically, the idea was planted that because this game was included, the ESRB didn't do their job... when it was't really the ESRB's job to find it. The comments that I read from politicians were calling for video game ratings reform, not video game censorship.

I think that the difference between the two of them is huge, and I think that if R* had issued an apologetic statement and basically said the ESRB didn't and couldn't have known about the mini-game, and they didn't think it would be found, then I think that the politicians wouldn't have argued that the ESRB wasn't doing it's job -- R* would have taken responsibity for their actions and would have had the blame at their feet. Politicians could have said that it was "horrifying" to know that such a game could get the wrong rating and end up in the hands of "our impressionable youth," but I feel that the attacks on the ESRB -- again, the thing that I am more worried about because of how integral it is to the video game world -- wouldn't have been there, and ultimately nothing would have come from this.

If these calls for ESRB ratings reform come through, the industry is going to be really screwed. ESRB ratings are cheap so that pretty much any developer that wants one can get it. I think that you can get one for under $2000, and if you port the game to many platforms, you can get more for very cheap -- maybe even under $500. If someplace like the Government was to take over the ESRB, I don't see them being objectionable with content, and I don't invision them being cheap.

To pay people to play through the entire game and then rate it would take hours and hours, and the process would price itself right out of most smaller development houses. Imagine then if the Government ruled that any game coming out HAD to have this rating? Suddenly, unless you can pay the $25,000 for testing, you can't publish a game.

That's the scary thing for all of this for me to see, and why I am more worried about the statements that R* made and the fact that the ESRB made itself look really stupid throughout the whole thing. At the center of it all, how accessable or not the minigame is and everything else matter very little to me because of what I feel this does to everything else.

Hopefully that clears up my thinking a bit :) We were talking about slightly different things, and I never realized until this point that I don't think either of us really knew exactly what each other's argument was. I totally get yours now (and it makes sense to me, although my fear of ESRB take-over is still bigger) and I hope you can understand mine now too.


I disagree with important things in your posts. The analogies, acccessibility of the mini-game, possibilities of parental control, some discussion startegies, and so forth.

But we indeed agree on more than disagree, and the diffrent focus on the subject matter of the case (me) or strategies after the mini-game was discovered (you) is at the center of our disagreemnt.

Exactly, and now I know exactly why -- and hopefully you will too. :) If not, I can reply again in a week from tomorrow... ;)

[lendelin]

Dan, have a great vacation -- and maybe even a game-free time and GTA-controversy-free-time. :)

PS: Later we might should pick up the discussion again now that a lot of guys focus on this nutty Thomson guy noone takes seriously -- and therefore gamers miss the target bigtime. A fundamental debate about the freedom of gamedevelopers facing nutty propaganda makes sense.

The National Institute for Media and the Family is much more influential, and I can't resist to link to the letter they wrote to Clinton about GTA; it is just too tempting because all the hysterical nonsense is nicely summarized in points 1 to 6.

Link: http://www.mediafamily.org/mediawise/gta_upd1.shtml