GTA :SA has ESRB rating changed to 18+

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-07-20 11:46pm

SirNitram wrote:You know, the difference between 'Mature'(Not to be sold to those under 17) and '18+' is so small it makes me wretch at this. .

The difference is that some retailers have policies not to stock 18+ games.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-07-20 11:51pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:You know, the difference between 'Mature'(Not to be sold to those under 17) and '18+' is so small it makes me wretch at this. .
The difference is that some retailers have policies not to stock 18+ games.

Do I even need to explain how this is abysmally moronic?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-07-21 12:05am

SirNitram wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:You know, the difference between 'Mature'(Not to be sold to those under 17) and '18+' is so small it makes me wretch at this. .
The difference is that some retailers have policies not to stock 18+ games.
Do I even need to explain how this is abysmally moronic?

No less moronic than the fact that they are being forced to re-grade the game based on code that IS NOT ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT 3RD PARTY MODDING. It is blatently obvious to anyone with half a brain that Rockstar never intended for the code to have been accessed.

Of course, this wouldn't even be an issue if people actually fucking enforced the ratings system- but oh, they don't!

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-07-21 12:18am

18+ is the same thing as the dreaded and rarely used AO ESRB rating, right?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-07-21 01:02am

Additionally, here's Tycho from Penny Arcade's view on the recent events, followed by Wednesday's comic itself:

Tycho wrote:On Euphemisms

Wed, July 20 2005 - 4:30 AM
by: Tycho

It's unfortunate that in order to defend videogames, it usually means you're defending Rockstar specifically.

Parents usually receive the brunt of the gamer assault, and their responsibility is real, but numerically they're buying the Goddamn things. This Hot Coffee "mod" - which by now people who are not gamers or politicians know about - essentially means that publishers, developers, and parents aren't at parity, because they're apparently willing to sneak this shit into games under cover of night and get rated on the marginally cleaner subset. It's not "fair play." The code is in there, and even if you have to perform some kind of obscure dance to bring it to the fore, that's an academic matter when a game - or an entire medium - becomes ordnance in the culture war.

The ESRB is suggesting that they may change the rating of the game to Adults Only, a category that by their own definition should see a great deal more use in a retail environment. This is great. Look at the descriptions for these.

MATURETitles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language.

Or, as the rest of our culture calls it, "Rated R." Check out AO.

ADULTS ONLY Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

This can't seriously be their distinction. The scenes are longer? I played Resident Evil 4 nearly 26 hours, all told. I'm going to say that maybe nineteen hours of it was spent looking down the iron sights at humanoids. The reality is that once a person is 18, a violent videogame is fairly minor in the spectrum of "adult" content available to that person. Looking over my collection, if the duration of the violence is the distinguishing factor, I'm trying to figure out what purpose Mature serves other than to remove the stigma from otherwise "adult" content and grease the wheels at retail.

I don't like being strident or suggesting that the ESRB is fundamentally unserious about rating content in an effective way that our society recognizes - but they'd better have some fucking answers on-hand to deal with this shit. There's no question that the industry is beset by career opportunists and lazy people willing to outsource their responsibilities as parents, but the pronounced winking and looking the other way on the industry side of the equation won't fly with this level of scrutiny en route.

(CW)TB out.

they know what they do is wrong

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-07-21 01:18am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote: The difference is that some retailers have policies not to stock 18+ games.
Do I even need to explain how this is abysmally moronic?
No less moronic than the fact that they are being forced to re-grade the game based on code that IS NOT ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT 3RD PARTY MODDING. It is blatently obvious to anyone with half a brain that Rockstar never intended for the code to have been accessed.

Of course, this wouldn't even be an issue if people actually fucking enforced the ratings system- but oh, they don't!

Stop and think for a moment, and you'll see why I'm laughing so sardonically.

Not supposed to be bought by under 17...

Not supposed to be bought by anyone but 18 and up...

And this is a distinction.

Temjin · Post by **Temjin** » 2005-07-21 01:49am

I think Spanky is right. Rockstar intended for this to happen. Why else would they create the mini-game in the first place? I find it hard to believe that they created it, then changed their minds about it after they were done.

This was an active attempt to get around the ESRB rating. They create the mini-game, but don't have it accesible by default. That way they'll get the M rating and have it sold at Wal-Mart. But they knew it would eventually be unlocked, leading to increased publicity and increased sales.

Frankly, I agree with the ESRB's decision. The ESRB was created because of the controversy of violence in video games. It was to show that the gaming industry was completely capable self-rating, and that the government did not need to step in to impose it's own rating system.

What Rockstar did undermines the ESRB. It left the ESRB with no other choice. It had to change the game's rating. It has to show the general public that it's ratings can still be trusted.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-07-21 02:36am

SirNitram wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:
SirNitram wrote: Do I even need to explain how this is abysmally moronic?
No less moronic than the fact that they are being forced to re-grade the game based on code that IS NOT ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT 3RD PARTY MODDING. It is blatently obvious to anyone with half a brain that Rockstar never intended for the code to have been accessed.

Of course, this wouldn't even be an issue if people actually fucking enforced the ratings system- but oh, they don't!
Stop and think for a moment, and you'll see why I'm laughing so sardonically.

Not supposed to be bought by under 17...

Not supposed to be bought by anyone but 18 and up...

And this is a distinction.

Ah. Now I see.

Can we now move on to bludgeon the idiots who came up with this ratings system?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-07-21 02:42am

Blame the MPAA, the R and NC-17 (previously X) ratings work in more or less the same way, and the ESRB more or less based their rating system on it.

Actually, a lot of rating systems have "mature" and "adult" ratings that are close to each other like that.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2005-07-21 03:11am

This reminds me of the toning down of the saber dismemberment in Jedi Academy vs. Jedi Outcast. Apparently the ESRB threatened them if they didn't make it much more difficult to enable full dismemberment.

Of course on MP servers you have body parts flying everywhere, but the point is in single player is a major pain to get it working properly for the long term.

Davis 51 · Post by **Davis 51** » 2005-07-21 11:03am

I heard that in a few weeks they will be releasing an "editied" version without the sex scenes. Good news for me, because I personally don't give a crap about scenes that were locked in there (especially if I have to void my warrenty to unlock them.) I ain't spending upward $70 on ebay just to see a pixelated sex scene.

Y'know, If they told the ESRB that the Scenes were in there, but locked, this would not have been so bad.

My 2 Cents.

Ypoknons · Post by **Ypoknons** » 2005-07-21 12:36pm

Davis 51 wrote:I heard that in a few weeks they will be releasing an "editied" version without the sex scenes. Good news for me, because I personally don't give a crap about scenes that were locked in there (especially if I have to void my warrenty to unlock them.) I ain't spending upward $70 on ebay just to see a pixelated sex scene.
My 2 Cents.

Void your warranty? Is this for your PS2 version? Modding a PC game, no one will care ... actually many companies encourage it.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-07-21 12:49pm

The PS2 content can be unlocked via a twenty doller gameshark.

And Ypoknos is right, PC companies(For the most part) WANT people to mod their games, very popular modded games keep selling long after the've hit the 19.99 section.

The shinning pillar of this example is of course Half-Life.

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » 2005-07-21 01:05pm

THREAD HIJACK ALERT!

This has given me at least one good laugh today, for reasons which are explained below.

I told a friend about this on MSN Messenger today, and cut 'n' pasted what defines an 18+ game. Later on, I was typing up an eBay feedback about a guy who had been a tremendously good sport about some fuckups I had with PayPal. Anyhoo, I somehow hit Control+V while actually reaching for Shift+P, and my message read like this:

"Very patient with my prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual PayPal problems."

I was holding my ribs for about 3 minutes afterwards.

Your regular thread service resumes now. Thank you for your patience.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2005-07-21 06:32pm

How many people have used the mod? The actual "just unlocking" version of it? Out of the screens I've seen of the purely unlocked mod, there is no nudity - all the naughty bits are covered. I've seen more ass on Family Guy than I would in the purely unlocked version. And more explicit sex on Skinemax.

The only one with nudity is a "hacked" version, in that they changed around the graphic files, among other things. And how the fuck can Rockstar be held liable for that any more than if somebody released a mod making all the females walking the streets butt-ass naked?

This seems as stupid as forcing Rockstar to take out the "anti-Hatian" content in Vice City.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2005-07-21 07:03pm

Ding ding ding, just got my copy in the mail yesterday. I'd been planning to buy it before, but lack of hard drive space kept me from doing so, but as soon as I heard this story I ordered one up quick.

I could give 2 shits about the "pornography" or "sex scenes." The character models aren't even state of the art anymore!

Anyhow, there are easier ways to get porn via 'puters, but this is just a feel-good solution for busy-body politicians. The real problem getting slapped with a AO label might make it hard to get ahold of such games in the stores. I've seen copies of Playboy's new game in EB and other places, well within reach of your average 6 year old, but I wouldn't be surprised if that changes quickly.

Without modding ability, why would I even play game anymore?

I am so sick of everything being kid-friendly. We aren't talking about Space Invaders or Donkey Kong anymore. And I don't want to go back to those days.

Castor Troy · Post by **Castor Troy** » 2005-07-21 09:20pm

All I can say is that we're all fortunate that Hillary Clinton came to the rescue.

I mean, it'd be bad parenting that I'd buy my little kids M rated video games that actually contained SEX scenes, besides the constant violence, drug dealing and gang wars that occur in the game.

Relax, people. We're saved.

EDIT- Here's a link:
I forgot to dress my link

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-07-22 05:58am

You know, this entire drama is rating near-zero on my Give-A-Shit-O-Meter.

It's not about civil liberties; nothing is being censored. So all of this ranting and raving about teh eval politicians is nothing more than posturing and kiddie whining.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-07-22 04:53pm

Yeah, seems it's official now: the ESRB has changed the rating for GTA: SA from M to Adults Only.

McNum · Post by **McNum** » 2005-07-22 05:49pm

And with that victory in hand the next target is... Sims 2.

I don't think this is so much about the "evil poiliticians" anymore. It's most likely just some lawyer trying to make a name for himself with the "sex is evil" card. Some politicians just latch on to that to get a few free points. Business as usual.

A part of me does however chuckle a bit that e chose to go up against EA now. And not just any game series at EA. He went for their top seller. Somehow I don't think that was his smartest move... It's kind of like kicking a kitten then think you can take on a lion.

I gotta say the choice of target baffles me. GTA I could understand because... well... it's the cool thing to attack. The Sims? Umm... nope, I don't get it.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2005-07-22 09:08pm

Whatever ... they knowingly distributed porn to minors across interstate lines? Hoo boy, their lawyers are gonna be rich, but everybody else is screwed.

Are you sure that's the kind of charges they'll be facing?

They can't say, "But it's not two human beings having sex; it's just a graphical representation generated by computers"?

I mean, in GTA:VC, I know it's possible to recieve a lap dance. I thought it avoided a worse rating because it wasn't actual people.

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » 2005-07-22 09:17pm

I went to EB today to see if they still had GTA:SA and they said yes but they are not on the shelves. They said that all of the major franchises like EB and Best Buy and Future shop won't even touch the game.

Fortunately for me I just purchased a copy online.

Do I care about the "hidden goodies"? No. I got it because I want the game untouched.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-07-22 11:09pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Whatever ... they knowingly distributed porn to minors across interstate lines? Hoo boy, their lawyers are gonna be rich, but everybody else is screwed.
Are you sure that's the kind of charges they'll be facing?

They can't say, "But it's not two human beings having sex; it's just a graphical representation generated by computers"?

I mean, in GTA:VC, I know it's possible to recieve a lap dance. I thought it avoided a worse rating because it wasn't actual people.

No, it's because a lap dance isn't actual sex. The issue of medium or actual people doesn't exist because it's a video game.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2005-07-22 11:19pm

My question is more along the lines of whether Rockstar and other video game companies are facing the same kinds of charges as if they'd used real, live actors in sex scenes.

That is to say, I'd always assumed that the lap dance scene and the presumed sex in the car stuff was allowed because it was just video game sprites.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-07-22 11:57pm

No, it's because on the sexual radar, a lap dance is pretty low on the spectrum.