Gaming Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, if the mod doesn't fit into whatever standards the M-rating relates to, I don't really see a problem with a change in rating. I know what the mod consists of, but I wasn't sure whether or not that would fall within the M-rating as the ESRB has defined it. Although our M-rating is generally similar, there must obviously be some slight variation on sexual content (but this is true for many countries in comparison to the United States).

I agree that Rockstar is pretty much entirely to blame here. They obviously handled this thing in a sloppy fashion and weren't entirely forthcoming with the ESRB. As mentioned, it definitely doesn't make the industry look any more responsible, which is something that the industry really can't afford at this point in time.[/font]

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]After reading through these recent posts, I really wonder whether most people even know how the ESRB actually works, or what the different ratings are given for. Those not living in the US, I can understand, but others...

Unlike movie ratings in the US, ESRB ratings are purely suggestions. Stores can sell whatever game, regardless of rating, to whoever they want, regardless of their age, with no consequences. It's only the stores' policies that have them carding people who buy M games, in accordance with a [url=http://www.esrb.org/about_partnership.asp][u]Retail Partnership[/u][/url] they made with the ESRB. If stores are supposed to card people, it's only because they chose to do it.

Now, more on the subject at hand, are the ESRB's [url=http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_guide.asp][u]Game Ratings[/u][/url]. If you actually read the descriptions, you should be able to see why San Andreas was changed to an AO rating. M rated games, "may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language." AO rated games, "may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity." The key difference in this case being the words "prolonged," "intense," and "graphic."

So basically, because you actually see the sex happening, and you see it for a good while, that bumps the game up into the AO category. Nudity itself isn't really even an issue here, because M rated games can contain nudity. But what they can't contain is the graphic depiction of prolonged sexual acts; content of that type requires an AO rating.[/color]

[Semjaza]

[QUOTE=Desbreko][color=#4B0082]After reading through these recent posts, I really wonder whether most people even know how the ESRB actually works, or what the different ratings are given for. Those not living in the US, I can understand, but others...

Unlike movie ratings in the US, ESRB ratings are purely suggestions. Stores can sell whatever game, regardless of rating, to whoever they want, regardless of their age, with no consequences. It's only the stores' policies that have them carding people who buy M games, in accordance with a [url=http://www.esrb.org/about_partnership.asp][u]Retail Partnership[/u][/url] they made with the ESRB. If stores are supposed to card people, it's only because they chose to do it.

Now, more on the subject at hand, are the ESRB's [url=http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_guide.asp][u]Game Ratings[/u][/url]. If you actually read the descriptions, you should be able to see why San Andreas was changed to an AO rating. M rated games, "may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language." AO rated games, "may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity." The key difference in this case being the words "prolonged," "intense," and "graphic."

So basically, because you actually see the sex happening, and you see it for a good while, that bumps the game up into the AO category. Nudity itself isn't really even an issue here, because M rated games can contain nudity. But what they can't contain is the graphic depiction of prolonged sexual acts; content of that type requires an AO rating.[/color][/QUOTE]

This is what I've said in my posts... Even in terms of movies, the rating system is voluntary just like with games as is the sale of them. The government isn't involved. The idea of something being intense or longer applies to both R into NC-17 as it does with M into AO. The main problem for a lot of these politicians is really that there's no social stigma involved in children buying these games (unlike movie tickets), there's no penalties for children buying these games (unlike movie tickets) and the people in the ESRB are essentially industry employees to begin with. If this was like how the film rating groups worked then no one would have any complaints to begin with.

I've been reading about some politician that things The Sims 2 is easily as bad as Hot Coffee. He said something to the effect of the game having nude characters with nipples, labias, etc. Anyone that has played this game knows for a fact that not a single one of those things appear in that game without a skin from unofficial sources. Even getting rid of the mosaic the game has in place simply reveals characters devoid of any sexual organs. They look like Barbie and Ken dolls.

The guy admitted to the idea of there being a mosaic that covers this up (unlike SA), but says that's somehow even worse because it's EA and Maxis admitting there's bad stuff under there. Give me a break. The guy obviously has no idea what he's talking about considering the whole skin argument to begin with.

I think when we start blaming companies for the actions of others outside of them we have a problem. If someone added this GTA:SA mod in themselves and programmed all of it then I'd have nothing to say. That isn't Rockstar's or Take 2's fault whatsoever, it's the fault of their users. If we're going to base things on that then any game should be considered AO. Why not go after the nude skin packs for DOA Volleyball in that case? There's a line with this stuff.

[Desbreko]

[quote name='Generic NPC #3']This is what I've said in my posts... Even in terms of movies, the rating system is voluntary just like with games as is the sale of them. The government isn't involved. The idea of something being intense or longer applies to both R into NC-17 as it does with M into AO. The main problem for a lot of these politicians is really that there's no social stigma involved in children buying these games (unlike movie tickets), there's no penalties for children buying these games (unlike movie tickets) and the people in the ESRB are essentially industry employees to begin with. If this was like how the film rating groups worked then no one would have any complaints to begin with.[/quote][color=#4B0082]Yeah, I know. I was mainly replying to the people who were saying they didn't see why San Andreas would be given an AO rating for this, while other games remain with an M rating. That it doesn't have anything to do with San Andreas being more mainstream or whatever; it's simply how the ratings work.[/color]

[satan665]

The game [U]should not[/U] be rated AO based on the hot coffee scene in the game. The graphic sex parts are just code thats lost in the game and not accesible while you are playing. The only way to get to it is by hacking the game, which I'm pretty sure is illegal anyway.

Rockstar should have deleted the code, but I don't see how it would affect the rating if its inaccesible.

GTA: San Andreas should probably be rated AO based on a lot of other stuff. If you've actually played the game (I'm only about 1/2-way through it) then the hot coffee scene is pretty tame compared to the rest of the game.

[Semjaza]

[QUOTE=satan665]The game [U]should not[/U] be rated AO based on the hot coffee scene in the game. The graphic sex parts are just code thats lost in the game and not accesible while you are playing. The only way to get to it is by hacking the game, which I'm pretty sure is illegal anyway.

Rockstar should have deleted the code, but I don't see how it would affect the rating if its inaccesible.[/QUOTE]

The key thing is that it is no longer unaccessible. There's not really anything illegal about enabling some code in a game that was disabled. In the case of the PS2 version, people are apparently finding it with some Game Shark codes. There's certainly nothing illegal about that.

It's in the game. Anything in a game is accessible and companies should know this by now. I can think of several games offhand that have things you can get into that you otherwise can't with a Game Shark or Pro Action Replay (Wind Waker, Persona, etc). To not consider something like that at this point in time is rather short sighted and, honestly, stupid.

[satan665]

[QUOTE=Generic NPC #3]The key thing is that it is no longer unaccessible. There's not really anything illegal about enabling some code in a game that was disabled. In the case of the PS2 version, people are apparently finding it with some Game Shark codes. There's certainly nothing illegal about that.

It's in the game. Anything in a game is accessible and companies should know this by now. I can think of several games offhand that have things you can get into that you otherwise can't with a Game Shark or Pro Action Replay (Wind Waker, Persona, etc). To not consider something like that at this point in time is rather short sighted and, honestly, stupid.[/QUOTE]

I didn't know you could get at it with a Gameshark, thats interesting. It was a dumb move for Rockstar to leave that stuff in, I'm guessing that at least a few people on the design crew left it on purpose. I imagine it wasn't a decision made my the company higher ups.

They pulled or are pulling the game off shelves now and cutting out that code, right? Its too late to undo the cranky senators getting on the game industry though I suppose. Also too late since the game has already sold the majority of the copies it is going to sell in the US by now. Too bad they didn't catch it earlier though, then maybe my copy would be worth something on ebay.

[Bloodseeker]

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050729/ap_on_hi_te/australia_video_game_sex[/url]

I don't live in Australia, hell I've never even been there, but this news still pisses me off!

I don't even get how that should work... mods are extensions created by fans. They weren't even part of the original game! Its just like banning a book because a fan adds an extra page of taboo information and puts it on the internet! Stupid *** soccer moms and friends... you're a bane on society! Why the hell anyone with a brain would even listen to your stupid ideas, much less change the world to fit your views and prevent you from whining while making everything less convinient for everyone else, is beyond me.

[DeadSeraphim]

[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]Australia doesn't have any decent adults only rating for games, so I guess this was to be expected. It's still pretty ******* dumb though. Rather than forcing parents to, you know, be responsible for their child's video game purchases and playing they're just ruining it for the majority of gamers, who are both old enough and intelligent enough to handle low-polygon puppet porn - adults.

Still, it just goes to show how the Government views videogames down here in Aus. It's still a kid thing in the eyes of a lot of politicians and older people here, and there's very little you can say to convince them otherwise.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Lady Asphyxia]

[font=Arial Narrow][size=2]Actually, it [i]does[/i] have an R rating, but when a video game is rated R, it's not allowed to be sold. [img]http://otakuboards.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img] See, the Office of Classifications has to take into account the lowest common denominator. Even if it isn't [i]just [/i]kids who play the game, kids [i]do play[/i], and having a modification that does that puts it in danger. The reason it's banned, in my opinion, would be because it was already M15+. It's just been jacked up to a higher rating, which, unfortunately, puts it over the limit. The board is just doing its job -- Ratings are for parents to be aware of what their [i]children[/i] are playing. So, while, personally I don't agree with the banning, I can totally understand it, lol.
[/size][/font]

[James]

[QUOTE=Lady Asphyxia][font=Arial Narrow][size=2]Actually, it [i]does[/i] have an R rating, but when a video game is rated R, it's not allowed to be sold. [img]http://otakuboards.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img] See, the Office of Classifications has to take into account the lowest common denominator. Even if it isn't [i]just [/i]kids who play the game, kids [i]do play[/i], and having a modification that does that puts it in danger. The reason it's banned, in my opinion, would be because it was already M15+. It's just been jacked up to a higher rating, which, unfortunately, puts it over the limit. The board is just doing its job -- Ratings are for parents to be aware of what their [i]children[/i] are playing. So, while, personally I don't agree with the banning, I can totally understand it, lol.
[/size][/font][/QUOTE]

[font=franklin gothic medium]The problem is that we [i]don't[/i] have an R-rating for video games. If a game passes the MA15+ barrier, it is relegated to "NR" status. Any software that reaches this status is not fit for sale, under current regulations.

Obviously, this is ridiculous. The fact that video games do not have an R-rating is an indication of only one thing - that, by the government at least, games are still regarded as being primarily for children. When you actually look at the number of adults playing games (adults being in the vast majority), this makes no sense whatsoever.

Our system is still significantly better than America's. Our system is somewhat self-regulated, but we actually have laws and regulations to ensure that retailers are not allowed to sell MA15+ games to kids (you must either be over eighteen or you must have your parent with you to purchase a game with that rating). Even when I was younger, I remember trying to buy games and being asked to bring my parent along.

So, while I agree with the enforcement of ratings (because if they aren't enforced, there is no reason to have them other than public information - which is fine, but probably not enough), I also think that the ratings themselves need to be reasonable. There is no reason whatsoever that San Andreas cannot be classified R and be sold as any R-rated film would. You can walk into K-Mart or Sanity or HMV tomorrow and buy Pulp Fiction, which is rated R. Why then, can you not buy San Andreas, also rated R? Ridiculous.

This is my only major problem with the system here in Australia. Major, major double standard going on.[/font]