The "Hot Coffee" so-called mod
Jul. 22nd, 2005 11:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackofallgeeksAnd while I'm playing catch-up, I'm following up a bit on some stuff my brother (and several webcomics) mentioned about the "Hot Coffee" 'mod' in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. In particular, Tycho's defense of it led me to a Gamespot article with more details on the issue.
First off, I don't like GTA. I'll admit to sometimes throwing on GTA2, cruising around for a while in stolen cars, but that's about it -- I'd actually be more satisfied with a Racer. GTA:SA seems to be more of everything that I don't like about the rest of the series, which is gang wars and violence on passers-by.
At the same time, I think the ESRB people, and the parents and politicians rallying against video games in general because of Hot Coffee, are full of more than a little shit. ESRB wants to up he rating of GTA:SA to Adult Only, which generally I could care less about. What gets me, though, is like what Tycho said -- the Mature rating says the game can be violent, crass, sexual, and everything else that would get a movie an 'R' rating (it's been pointed out that the ESRB is failing by not using the already-recognized movie-rating system). An 'Adult Only' rating is the same thing, but says the scenes are 'longer.' If that's the only difference, then the claim that an AO rating is only meant to stimatize a game at retail doesn't seem far of -- and if that's the case, I'm against it (because I'm against a rating meant only to stimatize without basis).
So, yeah, ESRB's rating are skewed, and should probably be revised or adjusted to the movie-rating system, preferably with more-objective and definable criteria than currently.
But more than the ESRB and gaming companies (who do have some responsibility, even if it's just to be upfront about what it is they're selling), I'm angry with the politicians and (more to the point) the parents involved. Politicians suck, simply. The only reason most of them take a second look at an issue like this is because parents care, and parents vote. Parents, though, really get to me on this because, frankly, I think most of the blame and responsibility in these cases. Barring unconcientious gift-giving, parents are the ones actually buying these games for the children and, frankly, if you're going to complain about the game Billy's playing, you shouldn't have given it to him. If parents took a little more care and maybe actually researched the game before getting it (and come on, the damned thing is named after a felony), maybe we wouldn't have these sorts of problems.
Of course, I don't think that game companies are wholly without responsibility, though I think most of that is a responsibility to be open about what they're selling. Now, I'll allow for a company to keep a few secrets from the public, for the sake of easter eggs, but I would expect that easter eggs would be accounted for in a game-rating. My brother argues that for years, 'extra' content and unfinished code was left inside games, but inaccessible, because it's "easier to write around than remove" code, especially near deadlines. And he says coder friends of his verify this. Now, I may not have written any video games, but I am a coder myself, and while it is easier to write around code, and it's beyond difficult to completely remove features and code blocks, I don't think that's an excuse. If Rockstar had removed a couple modles and such, then perhapse the Hot Coffee would have still be accessible, but it would have been obviously broken. Personally, I think this is inconsequential, because I believe Rockstar intentionally left this bit as an easter egg, but that's a different issue.
My brother says that if gaming companies were held accountable for all the random unaccessible content shipped in their game, then they could be ruined by a lone, untraceable, disgruntled programmer. And I'll grant him that; I don't think we need be draconian about this. As long as they aren't trying to circumvent regulations and get an R-rated movie into a PG-13 category through deception, fine. But there it gets to be a bit sticky, regardless.
And, uhm, I think I've run out of steam...
First off, I don't like GTA. I'll admit to sometimes throwing on GTA2, cruising around for a while in stolen cars, but that's about it -- I'd actually be more satisfied with a Racer. GTA:SA seems to be more of everything that I don't like about the rest of the series, which is gang wars and violence on passers-by.
At the same time, I think the ESRB people, and the parents and politicians rallying against video games in general because of Hot Coffee, are full of more than a little shit. ESRB wants to up he rating of GTA:SA to Adult Only, which generally I could care less about. What gets me, though, is like what Tycho said -- the Mature rating says the game can be violent, crass, sexual, and everything else that would get a movie an 'R' rating (it's been pointed out that the ESRB is failing by not using the already-recognized movie-rating system). An 'Adult Only' rating is the same thing, but says the scenes are 'longer.' If that's the only difference, then the claim that an AO rating is only meant to stimatize a game at retail doesn't seem far of -- and if that's the case, I'm against it (because I'm against a rating meant only to stimatize without basis).
So, yeah, ESRB's rating are skewed, and should probably be revised or adjusted to the movie-rating system, preferably with more-objective and definable criteria than currently.
But more than the ESRB and gaming companies (who do have some responsibility, even if it's just to be upfront about what it is they're selling), I'm angry with the politicians and (more to the point) the parents involved. Politicians suck, simply. The only reason most of them take a second look at an issue like this is because parents care, and parents vote. Parents, though, really get to me on this because, frankly, I think most of the blame and responsibility in these cases. Barring unconcientious gift-giving, parents are the ones actually buying these games for the children and, frankly, if you're going to complain about the game Billy's playing, you shouldn't have given it to him. If parents took a little more care and maybe actually researched the game before getting it (and come on, the damned thing is named after a felony), maybe we wouldn't have these sorts of problems.
Of course, I don't think that game companies are wholly without responsibility, though I think most of that is a responsibility to be open about what they're selling. Now, I'll allow for a company to keep a few secrets from the public, for the sake of easter eggs, but I would expect that easter eggs would be accounted for in a game-rating. My brother argues that for years, 'extra' content and unfinished code was left inside games, but inaccessible, because it's "easier to write around than remove" code, especially near deadlines. And he says coder friends of his verify this. Now, I may not have written any video games, but I am a coder myself, and while it is easier to write around code, and it's beyond difficult to completely remove features and code blocks, I don't think that's an excuse. If Rockstar had removed a couple modles and such, then perhapse the Hot Coffee would have still be accessible, but it would have been obviously broken. Personally, I think this is inconsequential, because I believe Rockstar intentionally left this bit as an easter egg, but that's a different issue.
My brother says that if gaming companies were held accountable for all the random unaccessible content shipped in their game, then they could be ruined by a lone, untraceable, disgruntled programmer. And I'll grant him that; I don't think we need be draconian about this. As long as they aren't trying to circumvent regulations and get an R-rated movie into a PG-13 category through deception, fine. But there it gets to be a bit sticky, regardless.
And, uhm, I think I've run out of steam...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 05:25 pm (UTC)But, c'mon, the entire selling point of the GTA games is that you get to go around killing people, picking up hookers (and then killing them), blowing stuff up (killing more people in the process), running from the police (or killing them), and generally being an amoral bastard. If a parent came to me and said, "yeah, but we didn't know your game had THIS PARTICULAR bit amoral bastadry in it!" I'd laugh at them.
And, just as an aside: why does sex get you a worse rating than killing whole bunches of people? If I had a kid, and had to choose between them emulating wanton violence and wanton sex, I'd go with the sex.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 05:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 05:35 pm (UTC)Ditto. I'm not sure why sex gets such a bad reputation, excepting that it may stem from the country's puritanical roots. I think there can be redeeming qualities to both sex and violence -- sex because it actually is a good thing in most healthy situations (it's the unhealthy ones that cause problems), and violence because some things are worth fighting for. But yeah, if push came to shove (heh)...