Grand Theft Common Sense

Several weeks ago, a fan of the computer game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas wrote a piece of software (known as the Hot Coffee mod) that lets players view hidden sex scenes in the game.

In the uproar that ensued, common sense vanished. The US Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) reclassified the game from Mature (suitable for people aged 17 and over) to Adults Only (suitable for those at least 18 years old). On Monday, following a call from US senator Hillary Clinton, the House of Representatives voted 355 to 21 for a federal investigation into the game.

Now Australia’s ratings board has stripped the game of its official classification, meaning the game can no longer be sold, hired or advertised in that country.

Such hysteria is baffling. The graphics in the Grand Theft Auto games are not sophisticated, and the sex scenes unlocked by the Hot Coffee mod are cartoonish and pixellated. American 17-year olds will have seen more realistic sex in R-rated movies such as Basic Instinct. Hell, half of them have probably had sex by now. Yet the ESRB clearly think their impressionable young minds need to be shielded from such smut for one more year. Ridiculous.

But if I was an Australian gamer, I’d be incensed. A total ban? Their ratings people have clearly had one too many pints of Fosters.

Comments

[Cancundreaming on 30.07.05 at 00:27]

I'm not that familiar with Australian politics, but at least in the US case, isn't that, at least in some respect, part of the empowerment of a specific section of the Republican Party?

That's not to say that parents who happen to be democrats or a different type of 'republican' like the game, I’ve played it and love it, but if I had children, you know in 10 years or so, I probably wouldn’t buy it for my kid until he or she reached 15 or 16. But there’s a difference in saying I wouldn’t want my kid to buy it, and I don’t want anyone to buy it. However, this is a hard issue for a politician to argue against (the vote count can tell you that). To oppose this would easily allow that person to be painted in the corner of “against kids and families” and for more pornographic and violent games, even though sensibly that wouldn't be the case.

Yeah there is a larger issue here, an important one I think that speaks to personal responsibility and individual autonomy. It’s just sad to see that there are so few willing to speak to those ideals. What I find really interesting is this brand of conservatism, remember the days when the Republican party was for fiscal responsibility and individual autonomy, almost a sense of libertarianism. What happended?

(PS I have a good friend that lives in Sydney who says that their version of Big Brother is de facto porn. Apprently it's not on that late in the evening. So I’m not sure where for them porn is good and where for them it's bad)

[Cancundreaming on 30.07.05 at 00:39]

I was reading my post and i just wanted to mention something else to avoid someone misinterpreting and/or misunderstanding what i said and then going to the 'farm', which seems to happen often.

The reason why i mentioned a game ban in the US sense is because that's what i believe the rating change is about. The change from a Mature rating to an adults only is obviously only one year. Which isn't that big of a deal in terms of development, in the sense that a 18 year old isn’t that much better suited for sex and violence then his younger counterpart.

What i think the rating change was about was that it automatically initiated a ban in many of the most popular retailers of games like walmart and best buy? who don't carry ‘adults only’ games.

Being in the same 'field' i doubt that the ESRB didn't know that and didn't keep that in mind with the rating changes.

Either way, what's really funny about this is there are people who think all this fuss will actually decrease its popularity and sales.

[Longtime Lurker on 30.07.05 at 01:04]

As much as I love to blame the Republicans for everything, I think that this lack of common sense goes across the board. The main senator to make a fuss was Hillary Clinton, a possible 2008 Democratic presidential candidate. Of course, you could argue that she's just trying to appeal more to those who voted Republican in the last election. The US in general has a lot of social conservatives.

What I take issue with is the fact that these sex scenes aren't available in the game as released. Clearly, the programmers were having some fun and this code was left in the game, but it can't be accessed without a fan-developed mod. Why should the developers be held responsible for a mod made by someone else? If someone tries hard enough, they can mod ANY game into being dirty. I think that games should be rated solely on the product released by the developer.

One of the main problems here is that video games are unfairly still classified as being "for kids." The ratings aren't really taken seriously by retailers or parents, and kids will try to get away with whatever they can. You end up with games rated 17+ easily getting into the hands of younger children. You won't find many stores that refuse to sell R-rated movies, because movies don't have this "just for kids" reputation, so the public feels that the ratings system is strong enough that the wrong films won't fall into the wrong hands. A video game that has content that would make for a tame R-rating in the movies has to be bumped up to the equivalent of NC-17 just to get people to take notice and not give/sell it to kids.

If you buy your child a game rated 17+, don't be surprised when there's intense violence or sexual innuendo in the game. And if the child is able to download mods from the internet, don't be surprised at ANYTHING that appears in the game.

[J Galt on 30.07.05 at 08:10]

I don't know Phil, what they did in Australia, it makes perfect sense to me. We need to protect the kids, An out right ban makes sense, this way the game won't fall into the hands of a child. Granted there are adults that might like to play, but this is just one of the prices you pay for living in a free socitey.

[Cancundreaming on 30.07.05 at 09:29]

J Galt,

The price you pay to live in a free society is the prohibition of a formerly legal product solely on the basis of 'protecting the kids' to exclusion of the rights of all others?

Does that even make sense?

I define a 'free society' as a recognition that we are all afforded the same rights regardless of our status and those rights cannot be curbed without reasonable grounds. Especially in a case, like this, where the 'victims' have recourse. (i.e. parents don't allow their kids to buy the game, if they did, return the game, and/or take away their PS2)

Yes this means that there are things out there that you may not like, pornography, violence and sex in games & movies, speech that makes your blood boil, (racism, misogyny, anti-semitism) but in a 'free society' you recognize that you have no right to prevent someone from watching, listening and enjoying these things as they have no right to force you to watch, listen or enjoy them.

[xc on 30.07.05 at 11:13]

It occurred to me that in order for the kids to be exposed to the sex scenes, they would need to download and install a patch, knowing full well the effect of their actions. Wouldn't it be just as easy for them to download some porn footage from a filesharing service or the thousands of porn sites out there?

My point is that in order to see the sex scene the gamers need to actively seek it out and modify the software. If they are doing that then chances are they have already seen more porn than most of us will ever see in our lives.

Having said that, I do pine for the days when computer games were fun, instead of the too-often-used 'fun substitutes' of gore and sex. That's just a personal preference though.

[Longtime Lurker on 30.07.05 at 12:17]

Cancundreaming,

Read one of the various "No Smoking" threads out there, or just search any of the various "World vs. J Galt & H Reardon" threads, and I think you'll see that Galt agrees with you.

Galt,

I'm assuming that your post was meant to show the hypocrisy of my (& probably others) position that the government shouldn't be banning this video game, but they should ban smoking in public areas etc? Both situations are to protect people at the expense of individual freedoms. If so, touche, good point.

I think that where my views are consistent is in the way that I want us to maximize overall quality of life, which both freedom and public health etc are components of. If someone was to prove to me that GTA was actually causing all who played it to turn into sex-crazed killers, then I might be willing to give up some freedoms and support the ban. I don't think that that is the case, however.

I would be willing to have the government put some weight behind the video game ratings by punishing those who distribute a video game to inappropriate age groups, if that's what it takes to get people to "respect" the ratings. (Does government do this with movie ratings, or are those ratings respected enough that the industry can be self-regulating?) Protect those who shouldn't be exposed to something (non-smokers in the same building as smokers, children too young for violent or sexual video games) from that which others (smokers & adults who want to play these games) desire. But you don't necessarily have to ban the product completely.

Of course, if your post was serious, I'd be very interested to hear how that fit in with your objectivist philosophy!

[Terry on 30.07.05 at 13:22]

Senator Lurker, I am glad you came out and stated what you did. Sometimes, what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander.

The way things are going, knowone will be able to do anything. It's a gambit that is being played. When I look around and see the amount of garbage that is out there and the protection of 'Rights', is it right?

We spend more time in litigation, frustration, emancipation, constipation than ever before.

You write well, and your penmanship is relavant. All I ever read on this Blog/smog is someone trying to outdo the other.

It's all about MONEY. You can serve and protect your interests and family and make wise choices. It's up to you. We share these feelings, some of us. More harm is done by family matters that have not been addressed than by sitting next to me whilst I smoke. It's balance.
Video/schimidio.

Next week, 'Dumpsters should be banned'. Attracts flies.

[Two Cent Charlie on 30.07.05 at 13:36]

A company presents a software game to the respective ratings board "knowingly" including hidden code with unapproved images that a child younger than the intended rating can access.

Should they be punished? Common sense says yes and the best way to do so is to make them carry the burden of the cost of either having to sell their product in a higher rating or remove the code and re-release the games again.

[Cancundreaming on 30.07.05 at 14:11]

Two Cent,

I think the point that you slid over was the fact that the game was already rated fairly strongly, (17+) the increase in ratings only increased that limit by a year, so a young child shouldn't have been playing the game either way. It's not as if it was Disney game meant for 8-9 year olds.

[Two Cent Charlie on 30.07.05 at 14:59]

Cancun,

There will always be a debate as to how meaningful the ratings are. I might well agree that it's pretty pointless to have a rating that differs in only one year.

My only point is that the uproar is probably over the fact that a company knowingly set out to market a product that included material that should not have been there. They knew full well that todays kids are smart enough to figure the codes out. The governing bodies and rating systems become useless if this is allowed to continue. It was just a dumb thing to do by the software company. I havn't seen the images as yet but if they are not that bad and were disclosed at the time when the company was requesting a rating, maybe they would have been allowed to be included. I mean seriously, showing graphic scenes of people being slaughtered is ok and yet a naked person is obcene. That's just wacked.

Ironically when dealing with the US government, isn't it funny how half the bills that get put to congress are usually slipped in hidden under others.

[The Limey on 30.07.05 at 15:15]

Two Cent Charlie

I havn't seen the images as yet

A video of the scenes unlocked by the mod can be found here.

[Terry on 30.07.05 at 15:36]

Mr. Limey, I pressed 'here' and found it a little troubling. Since I don't play these games or participate in any way,shape,or form, all I needed to do was look at the pictures portrayed and say to myself, enough. If people find playing a game and trying to bring up or whatever these images, well I wish them the best of luck.

I have enough trouble trying to keep up with some of the crap on this Blog, including some of my own contributions.

Australia here I come.........

[Cancundreaming on 30.07.05 at 16:15]

Two Cent Charlie,

"It was just a dumb thing to do by the software company"

Well it's certainly bringing them publicity, bad publicity depending on who you talk too.

However, two points

1. I'm not sure how dumb it was. Although they say it wasn't intentional and I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, Do you really think this is going to hurt their sales overall?

Yes Senators and Congressman deplore the game, but they were never exactly their demographic.

2. After all this fuss, i would guess everything in my pocket that the mod's popularity has increased! I for one didn't even know about it until i saw it on CNN.

Imagine " Yo Jason (18 years old) can i come over to your house today to play GTA, i wanna see that sex scene."

Response "nah i threw it away Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said it was bad for me"

Again so what's the point too all this fuss?

Like I thought when the congress was holding hearings on the steroid ‘problem’ “Things must be going very very well in the US if the biggest problems are juiced up baseball players and fictitious video game sex.”

[Two Cent Charlie on 30.07.05 at 16:47]

Limey,

Thanks. I tried to get to the site but had a problem. I'm in the middle of setting up a new mac and it may be an issue with safari. I'll try again.

Terry,

What did Australia do to deserve you? :)
Only kidding, besides we'd miss you here.

Cancun,

I agree completely that the market for the current GTA with the sex scenes will be hot. However in the long run there will be some serious costs involved in replacing the copy with a clean one.
Companies like Wal-Mart etc. etc. actually charge their vendors big money if things like this happen. From a purely financial standpoint with all the penalties and cost outlays along with having congress getting a chance to stick their nose in your industry in the end will it have been worth it. I just don't think so.

[nicolette on 31.07.05 at 18:48]

I purchased this game for my godson believing it was exciting and challenging enough for him. Now I'm assuming the game is not that good since it needs to be spiced up.... am I correct?

[Lost in Flatts on 01.08.05 at 08:48]

As someone that has extensive experience with the GTA series (love em!) let me add a little point to the arguement:
This ban/ratings change comes after the discovery of a hidden (inaccessible without unauthourised changing of the original product, but that's another debate) sex scene. A scene of a guy having sex with his girlfriend in quite a comical, clothed way is getting all the attention.

Not the fact you can get in a car with a hooker, raise your health as you lose money, wait for her to get out, then kill her and take the money back. Not the fact that you're encouraged to kill policemen throughout. Not the fact that the whole premise of the game is to engage in as much criminal activity that you can. No all that's fun and games, but SEX! GOOD GOD! CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN!

sighs

[CB on 01.08.05 at 16:20]

I saw coverage on this on CNN and it was ridiculous. The 'acceptable' footage was of shooting people including blood and guts spewing out. The moment some fuzzy sex scene appears - its banned.

Only in America (OK Australia too)

[Taggy on 02.08.05 at 13:39]

Once again, Rockstar Games get notoriety and free PR. And this time they didn't even have to write it themselves!
The fact that this game allows the player to perpetrate drug deals, run over pedestrians with impunity and beat hookers to death with baseball bats is, what, acceptable? Whereas you throw in a little blocky soft porn (I remember better quality from bootlegs vids at school), and suddenly there's uproar that it might be corrupting kids' minds.
Frankly, I'd be more worried about corrupting my kid's mind with gang violence and wreckless driving, than sex. After all, sex can at least be safe and enjoyable. Whoever heard of safe violence? And if you enjoy it, you probably play too many video games..! ;o)

[guestworker on 02.08.05 at 17:59]

I wonder if they are going to call upon the public to return the game, and if anyone actually would... reminds me of the recall of the Golliwog, if anyone remembers that!
Hey, 12 year olds are already downloading Paris Hilton's and Pam's movies and other such things using a program called Kazaa. The only way to stop this is to become a 1984-type Big Brother society, which would not be good. A little bit of badness in society is not always a bad thing, keeps life interesting!