GTA Sex Game Leads to ESRB Fracas 732
At first, it was nothing more than a rumour. A "sex mini-game" in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, left in the code for the PC version and unlocked by inquisitive players. Then, as more and more information became available it seemed as though the sex game might be real. This revelation has lead to California Speaker pro-tem Yee blasting the ESRB for their apparent slip-up in examining all the content in the game. The ESRB has responded by pledging a "thorough and objective investigation" of the claims to get to the bottom of the situation. Commentary is available from Joystiq, GamesAreFun, and Buttonmashing.
Better Quesiton (Score:4, Insightful)
This is bull (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhh.. (Score:5, Insightful)
So what's the problem again?
This makes it worse for everyone. (Score:0, Insightful)
So when game authors turn around and put stuff in a game, hidden, that go far beyond what the game rating indicates is in there, it does nothing to help our cause. It makes the game ratings unreliable, which means people who want to trust ratings (parents, say) suddenly have no indicator that they can trust, and their only fallback is "all games suck".
scapegoat (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the designers shouldn't have shipped the game with that stuff anyway, but that's not ESRB's fault, that's the coder's. Using this to scapegoat the ESRB is stupid.
Not sure what the big deal is (Score:5, Insightful)
Double Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Coral link, damnit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Next time use coral.
Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Only for 18 year olds! (Score:5, Insightful)
THAT EXTRA YEAR MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE!
Re:This is bull (Score:5, Insightful)
Because sex is, obviously, so much more damaging to the mind of a 17 year old than killing people.
I wonder if and when this will change in the mindset of people.
What's causing this 'fear of sex' anyways?
Good grief.. nothing to see here, move along. (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly they wrote the code and then decided to play it safe and comment out the line that calls it before submitting the game for rating, replication, and distribution.
So someone comes along and adds the call to that disabled code back in and it's rockstar's fault.. how ?
How is this different from the nude models in Sims 2, or the console command to remove the pixelization when the sims are showering in that same game ? Surely EA Games aren't responsible for that ?
So how do you unlock it? (Score:5, Insightful)
But, of course-- and this incident just goes to show this-- the ESRB isn't actually about allowing gamers to be informed about their purchases, or about allowing parents to responsibly monitor and regulate the video game usage of their children. Those things are just halfhearted side effects. The ESRB is about feeding and indulging hysteria and media hype concerning video games. With this goal in mind, of course, the ability to mod a game to unlock or insert porn becomes very much the ESRB's business.
Re:Not sure what the big deal is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Double Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Having sex with them: BAD
Re:This is bull (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Double Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, this is America, land of the Free -- free to show and sell violence, to all, but not sex. (Remember Janet's Superbowl wardrobe malfunction? Lead to a $550K fine [cnn.com], one of the largest ever.)
Political pandering and spotlight stealing (Score:5, Insightful)
The game is not directed at kids and should not be purchased by kids. It says so right on the damned box!
Adding a topless woman in a frame of The Rescuers (Disney)
Wait a minute
Once again, a politician is out to make a huge fuss to prove to his constituency that he's worthy of re-election. "Molehill, I'd like you to meet your replacement, Mountain. Mountain is going to be my new Public Relations chief and head of my re-election campaign."
Re:scapegoat (Score:5, Insightful)
Then we go even beyond that. Many of those "cut" parts are sometimes accessible through codes or bugs. GTA3, for example, had a ghost town that, IIRC, could be reached if the player input a low-gravity code and flew there using the plane. Occasioanlly, you find 3rd person adventure games where the player can fall between the seams of a level to access something intended to be cut.
Problem is, this is not the case for San Andreas. These mini-games were cut, likely because Rockstar realized the outcry that might occur when the soccer moms of the world heard about it. Again, probably for QA/testing reasons, the games weren't removed entirely, but simply had all access cut.
Getting to these areas requires modifying system files; we aren't talking about a bug or a secret code, we're talking about a mod here. The uproar is as preposterous as blaming Eidos/Core for the old "Nude Raider" patches or complaining that a spreadsheet program doesn't add correctly after a library has been edited. Don't blame the programmers. Don't blame the ESRB.
On second thought, just wait a week, and the hurricane or shark attacks will have pushed this "issue" entirely out of the media.
Free Advertising for GTA (Score:3, Insightful)
Games need "Director's Cut" upgrades (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is bull (Score:3, Insightful)
Unprotected sex can lead to disease including AIDS which will change your life forever and kill you. Unprotected sex can also lead to unwanted pregnancy which in a lot of ways is worse than disease as it impacts an entirely new life. Abortion has a dramatic physchological impact and can't be considered an "easy" solution to pregnancy.
Now I'm all for more sex and less violence and I don't consider the naked human body something sinful. The fact is though, that depicting sex should also educate about the possible dangers. Maybe virtual sex needs virtual condoms. After all your GTA character gets fat if he eats too much junk food and doesn't exercise. Maybe he should come down with an STD if he fucks every skank in the neighborhood. Or maybe he can be have his cash taken away to support the kid he fathered.
Rating system (Score:5, Insightful)
"AO" is no under 18
So to clarify, running over people, shooting people, killing police officers, stealing cars, etc. are all okay if you're 17. Consensual sex, on the other hand, you have to be 18 for.
Re:Ridiculous! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's one of things Europeans just can't understand about America. It's acceptable in America to take kids of 12 or 13 to a Schwarzenneger movie where he blows the bad guy up with a rocket launcher while saying something witty. If the movie involves people talking out their problems while there is a breast visible, then it's adults-only fare.
-B
sex vs. violence (Score:5, Insightful)
But all of that is done without any nudity. Oh, but now it is revealed that if you hack the game you can see a blocky, pixellated bare boobie. Quick, somebody whip up some righteous indignation and start a fedral investigation! 17-year-olds need to be protected from boobies!
Re:Double Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
But it's okay because it's all to protect the children. Since there is no way a teenager has ever seen these parts and no reason to ever understand sex until they're 30, we MUST stop these horrible sex shows!
Re:This is bull (Score:2, Insightful)
they have definitely all seen a vagina.
Re:Not sure what the big deal is (Score:2, Insightful)
And this is obvious to everyone but the politicians and super-conservatives.
Re:sex vs. violence (Score:5, Insightful)
Ho hum. Yes, we know. This point is made a million times every time a sex/violence topic is brought up re: movies or video games.
Yes, it is stupid. Yes we know about it. No, there's nothing you can do about it except keep pushing the envelope, minding your own business, writing your congressman to complain when they try to take on the role of guardian of your children, and voting for representatives that will pledge not to do so if elected.
Complaining about this strange idiosyncracy on Slashdot will not change a goddamn thing.
However, it will bore the shit out of me and anyone else that has read 2+ articles about this topic, which I would wager is 90% of the Slashdot viewers.
Here's the Big Deal (Score:5, Insightful)
The only enforcement power that the ESRB has is the promise that if you try to trick them they will refuse to rate your games. If they won't rate your game you can't use their trademarked logos on your games. If you don't have a ESRB logo on your game the major retailers will refuse to carry your game.
So, here's the problem. GTA 4 is going to come out sometime. When it does there will be huge demand for it. If these claims hold true, the ESRB has a choice - either refuse to rate the game, and risk undermining their authority if stores carry the game anyway (and stores have to choose if they want to sell the game themselves, or risk introducing their customers to the competition if they are forced to buy the game on the Internet), or rate the game anyway and lose the only enforcement tool they have. Either way you have a neutered ESRB.
Why do we care? Because just like the movie ratings, the game ratings aren't in existence to be a form of thought police - they're there to prevent the goverment from creating thought police. Right now creating and selling an unrated game means you don't have access to Wal-Mart; if the government was in control your unrated game would be banned outright. Goodbye indie game scene.
The ESRB itself is agnostic about what kids are playing at what age - they just want to make sure that no one goes home and is surprised by what they've purchased. If this report is true, that's one hell of a surprise.
Problem is (Score:4, Insightful)
Same thing with NC-17 ratings on movies. The problem isn't that kids under 17 can't see it, there are plenty of older movie goers, the problem is most theatres will refuse to show it.
Re:Double Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Witness professional wrestling - it's perfectly OK to beat someone with chairs and grind their face into barbed wire until they're gushing out blood, surrounded by screaming fans and such, but if you show a little sex, and the public wants you thrown in jail or worse...
So which is more harmful to kids in the longrun? Watching adults (and I use the term loosely) beat eachother's brains out on TV (something that you hope they'll never do), or watching some sex (which they're going to do anyway)?
N.
Re:Better Quesiton (Score:5, Insightful)
1) the ESRB gave this game the highest age rating possible aside from "Adults only" which I think should be reserved only for X rated type stuff anyway, which GTA (although some may disagree) falls short from this. If anything it would qualify for an NC-17 in film ratings standards, so M for Mature is more than acceptable.
1a) This guy is an ASS for blasting the ESRB for this, as they gave it a rating that dictates it shouldn't be sold to anyone under 17 anyway (essentially, NC17) what's he expect them to do? Now if they gave it an E for Everyone or something, then yeah, he may have a point.
2) "or their apparent slip-up in examining all the content in the game." now I read about this 'hack' for the ps2 version of GTA:SA and if I remember correctly in order to do it you had to copy a savegame from your memory card to your computer, edit some content on it, copy it back over to the memory card, and you're good to go. My guess is the PC version required a lot of the same hacking, it's just easier to 'enable' it due to the release of install packages for it that just modify your savegames on your HDD. Either way, Does this asshat REALLY expect the ESRB to go through this trouble to find easter eggs (for lack of a better term) like this and rate THEM as well? People had to go through A LOT of trouble in order to get their games to have these scenes in it, you can hardly hold the ratings board accountable for people doing things like this. This guy is absolutely ridiculous.
-matt
Re:sex vs. violence (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is bull (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is bull (Score:3, Insightful)
I completely agree here..
I don't care about this issue at all but if ratings are to be taken literally then Rockstar should have completely removed the content (not disabled it) if they didn't want an AO rating.
Why? It took some smart hacker people to figure out that the content even existed and then they had to find a way to reenable it, then they had to make those changes and bring it to the forefront, maybe Rockstar had reasons that it couldn't be deleted entirely so they just hid it? Maybe they had other reasons to leave it in? The point is they (responsibly?) removed the content from the purchased game, so without modification (which is what ESRB -should- base things on) this game rated a solid M, and was nowhere near worthy of an AO rating.
not ESRB's fault (Score:3, Insightful)
At least the moral's good (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, that's good -- she should enjoy it too, fellas. I don't see the problem, they're teaching positive sexual relations here.
( Perhaps everybody's up at arms because here in America, we do it missionary only, and *only* when we need a baby. )
and violence is completely resopsibily free (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and beating the shit out of someone or shooting them several times in the chest has no long term reprocussions at all.
The *real* reason why sex is abhorred and violence is glorified is because we're a bunch of puritans in comparison to the rest of the world.
Re:A typical scene from Pac Man (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you can learn a lot about someone by what they do when the play GTA.. or whether they like or play the game at all.
Blame? (Score:3, Insightful)
Rockstar does crap like this and it makes it harder to get a good game that uses violence to enhances the gameplay (Resident Evil 4, for example). Take their upcoming game on school bullies for example - it's going to make it harder to put out good-but-violent games.
Whether or not Rockstar targets young kids to buy this games is up for debate (I think they do) but the fact remains that they left the content on the game and anything like that is supposed to be submitted to the ESRB. As gamers we should be admonishing Rockstar too.
Re:This is bull (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm simply replying to the grandparent as to some reasonable concerns about sex as depicted in media.
No I don't think watching video sex leads to kids becoming an AIDS infested porn stars anymore than playing Doom leads to mass murder.
The media does project images depicting what is considered cool and kids do react to that. Why else would kids mimic the dress and style patterns media superstars?
As a nerdy kid who figured out after high school that if I dressed a certain way, talked a certain way and hung out in certain circles I took could get laid - I can say that media imagery impacts how teenagers and young adults behave.
As someone who also made bad decisions and ended up living a life close to a character from an Irvine Welsh novel - I can say from a first hand experience that cheap sex, drug use and violence is hardly as glamourous and exciting as Hollywood likes to depict it. Scary, depressing and dangerous would be better adjectives. I got out - but not everyone does. I lost several friends because they couldn't get out of the lifestyle, some are dead and some are mentally destroyed.
The fact is that depictions that show consquences of these types of behaviors are more interesting from a story perspective. A military FPS that attaches meaning to the death of a squad mate is telling a better story (single player at least).
I don't like the "it's only a game" thinking. It is a game, but games are in my opinion another creative artform just as relevant as movies or music.
I'm not asking that PacMan put on a condom before he gives Ms. PacMan a kiss in the between level animation, but in the case of a game like GTA - I think it would make perfect sense for the protagonist to buy a condom. It would work within the genre.
Re:Not sure what the big deal is (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm 21 and haven't found much value in the series...
Silly Americans (Score:4, Insightful)
Boobs gets you at least a PG13 rating; enough of them, on screen sex, or "full frontal" female nudity tends to get an R. Show genitals (penis or labia), you're going to get an NC17 or X rating unless it's really short and nonsexual in context-- in which case you might get away with an R.
Yes, we Americans are, on average, completely whacko. And we invented nuclear weapons! Why the hell haven't the rest of you invented interstellar travel yet???
Re:not ESRB's fault (Score:5, Insightful)
My understanding is that the video game developers are required to submit footage from the game that is representative of the maximum level of offensive content the player is going to experience, and the ESRB rates the game based on submitted footage. If the developer doesn't disclose some content that is more offensive than what they submitted to the ESRB, it's their own fault.
From what I read, it seems the code in question was blocked off, and it takes a mod to unlock it. So the material submitted for examination would be what the normal player is going to see. It really depends on whether the game developer intended for the "mod" to be discovered and made public. There are a number of people out there disassembling game code for cheats and finding things game developers would prefer they didn't.
Re:Ridiculous! (Score:5, Insightful)
Which raises another interesting point - the whole US presumption that Nudity == Sex. There seems to be this idea that nudity must be entirely sexual, and hence if you're a man looking at naked men (regardless of context) you must be gay. If you ever look at nude woman, regardless of context, then its all about sex. In practice I would think it is the context, rather than the nudity, that ought to be of concern.
I think the tight binding of nudity and sex in the US stems, in a large part, from the fact that nudity is so taboo there. That means the only time you see much nudity is if you're secretively looking at porn or some such. That is, because nudity has been driven underground the only context in which it is generally encountered is a sexual one. It's rather sad really.
Jedidiah.
Explain this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's the ESRB's published criteria... (Score:3, Insightful)
As sold, the game is appropriately rated M.
Re:Better Quesiton (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Explain this (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, like Africa. Sure, much less problems with STDs and teen pregnancy. Amsterdam? Sorry, but I think this qualifies as the most stupid comment yet. Do you care to back this up with ANY evidence at all, or did you just create a statistic out of thin air in order to add credibility to your theory?
Re:Here's the ESRB's published criteria... (Score:2, Insightful)
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here's the ESRB's published criteria... (Score:3, Insightful)
AO is defined as "Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity."
Well at least the ratings aren't vague and ambigous...
Sheesh can anyone tell me what differentiates intense violence/intense nudity and "Prolonged" intense violence/intense nudity?!?!
Is there a timer? If so how long is long enough to qualify for AO?!?
And finally.. what is less harmful about the duration of "intense violence/intense nudity"?
All of these ratings seem confused and unclear, but as long as the politicians feel better about what they spend their time on, i guess it doesn't matter if the ratings are accurate or effective...
Re:Better Quesiton (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this asshat REALLY expect the ESRB to go through this trouble to find easter eggs (for lack of a better term) like this and rate THEM as well? People had to go through A LOT of trouble in order to get their games to have these scenes in it, you can hardly hold the ratings board accountable for people doing things like this. This guy is absolutely ridiculous.
Since the certification is a voluntary process, you'd expect Rockstar to volunteer that kind of information voluntarily. I think they're no blasting the ESRB, but Rockstar.
Re:Blame? (Score:4, Insightful)
Boss: "Hey, did you get the gore level turned up like I asked?"
Developer: "No, I've been working on this bonus level."
Game: *squeak squeak squeak*
Boss: "Take that the fuck out. This is going to ship to the US, and those wankers can't stand sex."
Developer: "Comment out this line, and this line, and this value can never be true, so it's out. Perfect."
Or maybe - just maybe - the fact that it's a black pixel fucking a white pixel from behind is what's really giving the Puritans a wedgie. As someone else said, in America it's only married couples of the same race but different sexes that have sex, missionary only, and only to conceive.
Of course, if you think that sex is only useful for conception, there have been serious omissions in your education.
Very much a US thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. Yes it is.
In the U.S., if you can get laid in high school, you don't do anything else. The culture is so obsessed with popularity that the only people who have time to think about anything else are the rejects.
That's why the U.S. has so many varieties of geek. Computer geeks, sure, but math geek, science geek, band geek, drama geek...
There's no reason for a guy who plays saxophone in the school band to be considered undateable. Playing the sax is attractive. It's just that only unattractive people take the time to learn something like this.
The U.S. school system is so broken, foreigners can't even begin to grasp it. The only thing U.S. high schools can still do at this point seems to be keeping the horny and attractive teenagers mostly away from the adult population.
It's a mirror. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is no different from real-life.
You decided to inflict random violence on another character. You are the one to blame for your actions. Since you're posting on Slashdot, you're probably not currently in jail or on death row. This type of behaviour is obviously not acceptable to you in real-life - yet it apparently is in a virtual world where there are no real consequences. What does this say about you?
Will Wright (designer of The Sims) once said that his daughter loves GTA - she drives around the city on a scooter for hours at a time. No violence or death, she just wants to explore.
I would say that on some levels GTA is a mirror that exposes those who play it for who they really are. The game is not like a movie. It does not stomp on civilians without someone at the controls.
You win GTA by completing the missions - which, yes, are of a criminal nature, but they do not endorse random violence against innocent civilians in the manner that you depicted (it is often counterproductive since it is beneficial to attract less attention from the virtual authorities).
Sure, there are times when players just "go nuts", start messing around and go on random killing sprees, seeing how much carnage they can commit before being caught or killed - but if you persist, the consequences will always, always catch up with you.
What about The SIMS? (Score:1, Insightful)
Ok, so theyre not anatomically correct, but there are also ways to fix that.
Not that ive tried it or anything.
In sims2, you can have the sims "try for baby" in which they disappear under the covers, fireworks shoot about & soon the female is pregnant.
Ive also seen "naked" skins for quake & im sure theyre available for other FPS's
Looks like ESRB has their work cut out for them.
Re:Explain this (Score:3, Insightful)
Nowhere in my post do I say it's the ONLY reason. I am merely offering some reasons which are not related to bible thumpers.
The constant argument that anti-sex bible thumping fundamentalists are censoring boobies is not the total story.
There are legitimate reasons why you might not want your kids to be exposed to this. Yes parents need to be talking to their kids about sex and half the reason is to put some perspective on the common depictions put forth by the media (cheap easy sex is fun).
This "anti sex" culture in Government will change: (Score:5, Insightful)
The current generation in the United States has access to the internet. Now, you can find whatever you want on the internet, this should be obvious. Indeed, you can often find sexually explicit material on the internet when you are not looking for it.
So, now we have both sexes viewing sexually explicit material when they choose to do so via the internet. (I can remeber being excited in the early 80s managing to locate a copy of penthouse, which myself and my friends would stare at in amazement...)
However, the current generation that is in government was not raised by these standards - they are far more conservative when it comes to sex. Therefore, they choose to ban it to 'protect the kids' or whatever.
However, as this generation ages, having had more exposure to sex and nudity, and being far more tolerante of it, so will the current policies surrounding it.
So, yes, the US government is very reactionary to sex, but this will change - it MUST change because the current younger generation just won't tolerate it when they age.
Re:Does anyone have a torrent or a mirror? (Score:1, Insightful)
Cheers to j-beda! If I could serve you a beer thru the internet, you'd have a fresh cold one right now.
Re:Here's the ESRB's published criteria... (Score:2, Insightful)
I really don't think that the one year makes a hell of a lot of difference.
Re:and violence is completely resopsibily free (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes, but that doesn't mean I go out and rape a girl. My activities after watching porn are prefectly legal.
2. Now how many times have you watched a gunfight and then wanted to go kill someone?
Not often. Like above, usually when I'm done my appetite for whatever has been satisfied.
Re:This is bull (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is bull (Score:3, Insightful)
What's causing this 'fear of sex' anyways?
It is an instictual response as much as fear of insects and such.
Before contraception, sex meant baby and a baby meant a significant investment of time and energy to carry it 9 months and give birth. So, anyone in the family of a girl would be paranoid about sex as they want their lineage to be as fit as possible.
Now, sex doesn't mean baby all the time. But, we're still paranoid about it. Like we are about insects even though most of them can't do anything to you.
Re:Better Quesiton (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but the sex game was never meant to be found by anyone, so why should they release that info? PLUS, the whole point of the ratings is that people won't be surprised by content they weren't expecting. If someone goes looking for this game, they're expecting it, right? And any kid who goes to the trouble to find this in a game could just as easily type "sex xxx" into Google anyway.
It's just a case of a politician trying to create anger and get popular because it looks like he's standing up for the public good.
huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Never!
Thank goodness the ESRB is out to protect me.
As much as I like rockstar and GTA (Score:3, Insightful)
In this instance, I have argued previously that many non-violent adult themes were palced into GTA for:
a) laughs
b) enjoyment
c) more laughs
d) to assert that this is definately a game for adults.
People who are anti-game-violence, and people who are 'anti-anti-gameviolence' and well as those pro-gaming violence (of which I would say i am one) get this all wrong.
Even with a mature rating, a purely violent game would be immediately pounced upon as marketting to children. If you can somehow put sex in there, you can really show that you are not trying to appeal to children, but an adult audience.
Hitting all the 'adult content' points is important therefore.
Now, Postal is a bloody marvelous game. And Hitman, but postal for a different reason. I completed the demo in about 1 minute. I walked to the shop, bought milk, went home. I won!! Hurrah!
Now, if that was what was shown to the ESRB, then it would have had a E and a smiley face. However, one time I accidentally pissed on a woman, and then hit her in the face with a shovel, and proceeded to douse her in petrol and light her on fire. Ooops! Now that kind of content is not suitable for children in any for, be in in a book, on a film, or in a video game.
The book is an important point, we are not just talking about graphical depictions, but the acts themselves.
I agree with the guy bringing this up, I suspected someone would, and I am glad they did. If this content had been in a game with a lower rating, and the content had been in stark contrast to the game (as it is, I do not really like that content, it makes me feel like I am playing a cheap 'playboy mansion' or 'Leisure Suit Larry' game (oh that vibrating black censor box when you had sex, I can't believe we wondered if you could actually turn that off!).
I do not agree (or know of) his agenda, but they deserve a slap on the wrist. You actually simulate sex, and although I thought it was cool, it really is offensive content (although they can both be clothed) It makes you tap in rhythm, and says your the man when she cums. Many parents bought this game KNOWING its violence, and let their kids use it, but if they knew of such adult content, then they would not have, ok it is not easily accessible, but kids on forums want to try everything.
While I agree with your points, the fact remains rockstar are in the wrong, if noone had found it, they would have got away with it, but it seems like they wanted someone to find it, and generate a second wave of buzz (for kicks, or, even more $$$).
MXBTBXW