Forums | MacLife

I'm glad they raised the rating. An M was inappropriate for the Hot Coffee content, and Rockstar was deceptive not to tell the truth in the first place.

Thompson is still a douchenut.

Well, I for one am glad that they took such action so quickly after the game was released, stomping out the flame of anarchy before such turns into a brushfire.
...Oh wait. Eight months isn't really that quick.

Yeah, I don't really agree with the game makers (I think they are egomaniacal) but I don't think the game is any worse than a bunch of other M games without the mod.

NAG wrote:

Personally, I think they need to rewrite a few of the ratings and use the top rating a little more often. I am hoping that if enough good games are the top rating, wal*mart will be forced to get the stick out of their ass and start selling them.

Maybe not.

Some retailers may keep 'Grand Theft' off shelves
Published: July 22, 2005, 5:09 AM PDT
By Matt Richtel
The New York Times
...

On Wednesday, several retailers, including Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Target and Circuit City, said they would remove the game from their shelves because a national ratings board changed the game's label from Mature, which signals appropriateness for players 17 and older, to Adults Only because of a sexually suggestive scene hidden in the game.

The game's maker, Take-Two Interactive, said it would release a new version of the title without the hidden scene as soon as possible. Such a move would restore the Mature rating, a representative of the rating board said on Wednesday.

But retailers, including Wal-Mart and Best Buy, said yesterday that they were not certain they would carry a cleaned-up version of the game.

http://news.com.com/Some+retailers+may+ … g=nefd.top

I'm torn on the rating, since even the M rating covers sexual content.  The HC mod isn't what I'd call "explicit", as it doesn't show genitals, penetration, etc.  It shows two character models making movements similar to those of intercourse, and making suggestive sounds.  In GTA3, I distinctly recall taking women into my van, parking somewhere secluded, and then being surprised (and entertained) when my van started rocking.

So my view is "no tits, no genitals, no AO rating."  Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude was much more sexually explicit than GTA:SA is (even after the mod), and LS:MCL only received an M rating (not including the "Uncut and Uncensored" re-release).

No what?

But did they ever intend for the HC scenes to be seen? It's like a software developer being criticized for foul language in his code notes.

This wasn't something unlockable during gameplay. You have to hack it to see it, and I bet you can only see it on a PC, not the console.

Last edited by user (2005-07-22 3:21 pm)

Still, if it is content they coded and included, it doesn't really matter how you get it since it is included in the package.

Apparently, the code is also in the PS2 version.  It can (supposedly) be accessed if you use cheat codes in addition to an external cheating/modding device such as Game Shark

So again, you have to hack the game to see it.  And Reef, I hate to say this, but you kind of contradict yourself.  The rating IS based on the shipping product.  Accessing facets of the game code that are intentionally "locked out" (and not accessible as unlockable content)  after-market via modding applications can't be predicted by the ratings board, and these 3rd-party modding (hacking) tools shouldn't be the responsibility of the game developer.  Its like the use of cheats/exploits in Halo 2 on XBox Live; Its not Bungie's fault that there are people out there abusing the product.  If someone out there modded "Terminal" so that the train was a giant penis and the tunnel was a giant vagina, would you demand that the ESRB change the rating of Halo 2 to AO, thus effectively removing it from most retail stores' shelves?  Or would you blame the jerkwad who went and corrupted the game?

(and yes, I know that its slightly different because there aren't any meshes/skins/models for penises and vaginas in Halo 2, but similarly, "easter eggs" are intended to be found and enjoyed.  Why is it assumed that this video was intended to make the final retail release for the game?  The fact that it cannot be accessed at all whatsoever without hacking the game--and that's what modding is, so let's not kid ourselves--should make it painfully clear that its not supposed to be there in the playable game.)

Unless this is satire, which it may be as my satire alarm is currently off, it seems as though Jack Thompson has his eyes set on another target already.

Ridiculous? You bet.

Last edited by Aqua Man (2005-07-22 7:46 pm)

They tried to have it both ways- why on earth put that in to begin with except to leak its presence to hackers who could provide 3rd-party cracks? Rockstar's happy to be all edgy for Take-Two, the latter gets to blame 3rd parties and say "hey, it wasn't us." I really doubt this was put in all platforms' final code by accident; time is money in dev work. This just makes them seem all the more 'cool' to many prospective customers.

The Sims 2 deal, OTOH, just shows Thompson is still somewhere between an ambulance chaser and Jimmy Swaggart.

How much does it cost to have J.'D.' Thompson advertise one's game?