Forums | MacLife

Reef, I think you're off by just a touch here. From what I read, the animations and motions for Hot Coffee were in the game, but locked away. However the skins were not in place. They were either elsewhere on the disk and not referenced during the actual Hot COffee code, or installed via the net download. Either way, if you simply access the Hot Coffee content, both characters are clothed; they just dry hump.

As far as I'm concerned, anything that happens post-modifications is no longer the developer's responsibility. It can really screw things up in unexpected ways to simply delete vast portions of code, so it makes more sense to simply delete all the references to it in the executable. What should be rated is what the game offered if played as intended. If I can't get at Hot Coffee without getting on the internet and downloading a patch or using some sort of Action Replay machine, then it's not part of the game. Instead it's become something that I added of my own volition to it. Nobody who buys any of the three versions of GTA:SA will have access to Hot Coffee unless they take proactive action to engage in it. They have to actually modify the game to get at it. At that point, even if the code was in the actual game, what you're accessing is not the game as sold on store shelves. Rather it's a modified form. Is downloading a hack to access locked portions of content that different than a nude patch for Sims 2? Sure in the former case the content was on the disc, and with The Sims it has too be added, but in neither case can the content be accessed without modifying the game from its original form as purchased. If it can't be accessed from within the game as sold in retail form, then it doesn't exist.

And I'm very glad this moron gets his targets from the media. He'd go smurf if he ever played Killer7 or some of the other smaller, truly edgier games out there. GTA pushed the envelope, but in such a ridiculous fashion I can't take it seriously. Killer7 and similar are far more disturbing, because they take many things dead seriously.

Chris FOM wrote:

Reef, I think you're off by just a touch here. From what I read, the animations and motions for Hot Coffee were in the game, but locked away. However the skins were not in place. They were either elsewhere on the disk and not referenced during the actual Hot COffee code, or installed via the net download. Either way, if you simply access the Hot Coffee content, both characters are clothed; they just dry hump.

I haven't read that, but if it's true, then I would have to agree that it changes the severity of the situation.

What still concerns me is the dishonesty of Rockstar. Because they at first didn't admit that the content was in the original code, and strongly insinuated that it was entirely community-created, you have to question their intentions. If it was just old code left out, they should say "it was old code left out." As said earlier in the thread, it does now look more like clever marketing. No P.R. is bad P.R., especially not for Rockstar.

The smurf is hitting the fan.

Just after 7:00pm on Capitol Hill today, the House of Representatives voted 355 to 21 to support a Federal Trade Commission inquiry into Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The purpose of the probe will be to determine if Take-Two Interactive and its publishing subsidiary Rockstar Games deceived the voluntary Entertainment Software Ratings Board when it submitted Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

Today's vote advanced House Resolution 376, introduced by Congressman Fred Upton (R-MI). In Upton's words, he is "leading the congressional effort to determine if a best-selling video game maker intentionally deceived the industry's ratings board to avoid an 'Adults-Only' rating."

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/gta4/ … 29723.html

Connor, aside from your avvie being a hottie, you're right (and I've been saying it the entire time): the rating is inconsequential.  If the game is rated for 17+ year olds, then its already rated for "adults" in most senses of the word (R-rated movies, TV-MA television programs, etc).  Anyone who says that the game developer is at fault for the corruption of youth with a game rated for adults has absolutely no ground to stand on.

I'm willing to concede that the AO rating is understandable (I still don't agree, but I think the AO rating is stupid to begin with) if the world is willing to shut up and stop blaming everyone else when bad parenting is the problem.

IcarusFountain wrote:

Connor, aside from your avvie being a hottie, you're right (and I've been saying it the entire time): the rating is inconsequential.  If the game is rated for 17+ year olds, then its already rated for "adults" in most senses of the word (R-rated movies, TV-MA television programs, etc).  Anyone who says that the game developer is at fault for the corruption of youth with a game rated for adults has absolutely no ground to stand on.

I'm willing to concede that the AO rating is understandable (I still don't agree, but I think the AO rating is stupid to begin with) if the world is willing to shut up and stop blaming everyone else when bad parenting is the problem.

The only reason I say use the "Mature" rating name instead of "Adults Only" is because the former sounds better.

Well, you call something "Adult Only" and every 12 year old boy in the world will want to play it.

I agree. The main difference between AO and M is that there is this irrational fear of getting an AO. I don't really like Rockstar but I'm not going and submitting bills either.

I think interactive breasts are more socially damaging. I suggest a study. I'll need a grant, though.

Sounds fun.

Oh no, I think Chris is a spy!

Those links are automated I believe. They link the story with certain key words when posting it, and the software automatically adds the "relevant links" stuff at the end.

Chris FOM wrote:

Chris FOM wrote:

And I'm very glad this moron gets his targets from the media. He'd go smurf if he ever played Killer7 or some of the other smaller, truly edgier games out there. GTA pushed the envelope, but in such a ridiculous fashion I can't take it seriously. Killer7 and similar are far more disturbing, because they take many things dead seriously.

I should have kept my mouth shut. Maybe my copy will become a collector's item. Never mind that the sex scene in question contains no nudity and frankly is less explicit than your average PG-13 rated James Bond movie.

VGCats took it on...

http://www.vgcats.com/jack.php

...but Broken Toys got the most links together, including that one.

http://www.brokentoys.org/?p=6805

It's like some bad joke. I'm still waiting for the punchline.