Grand Theft Auto now Adults Only
Warning, Rant ahead!
Check out this article on Gamespot.
Take Two Interactive changed the rating on their Grand Theft Auto San Andreas game from Mature to Adults Only. They left in some code on the released version of the game (Xbox, PS2, PC) that can be modified into a x-rated sex game. Hillary Clinton and other conservatives have been bitching left and right about this. Instead of going after illegal modders, lets go after the game manufacturer. I just don't get it.
The really funny part of all of this is the differences between M and AO ratings (Taken from the ESRB Website)
MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language.
ADULTS ONLY
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.
They say virtually the same thing. The only differences I see in this game are the words Prolonged, Graphic, and Nudity in the AO rating vs the M rating. M rated games shouldn't be sold to kids. AO rated games can't be sold to kids.
Here is the wording on the old rating and the new one exactly how it's listed on the box:
Old Rating: M - Mature
Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs.
New Rating: AO - Adults Only
Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs.
What the hell is the difference between those? Nothing! Would i buy either of them for my kid? Hell no! Would I buy them for myself? Sure, I'm 36 years old. I can buy whatever I damn well please!
If only more parents took responsibility to know what their kids are buying, playing, or want to buy and play; things like this wouldn't be news. Did we really need interference from the government to handle this? Maybe those angry parenting groups should look at how their children got a hold of the game in the first place. Fucking morons!
posted by Philip Young @ 5:18 PM
4 Comments:
I really don't think the government is your culprit here. Oh, sure, Hillary Clinton (liberal, not conservative, by the way) and others (of both persuasions) will come out, speechify, make statements, but I don't think there's any legislation here. I'm certain (you probably know for sure) that congress has threatened the gaming industry with legislation if they don't self-regulate. But, that's exactly what this is - self-regulation.
Your ESRB, from their website:
"What is the ESRB and how did it come about?
The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) is a self-regulatory body established in 1994 by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), formerly the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA). ESRB independently applies and enforces ratings, advertising guidelines, and online privacy principles adopted by the industry. The ESRB rates over 1,000 games per year."
It's like the Motion Picture Association rating system and even the old Comics Code Authority. Hey, if you want a laugh, Google 'comics code' and read the actual comics code. It's a hoot!
At the retailer level, though, enforcement's voluntary. Sure, there are some laws here and there regulating sales locally and there's your evil government. Most places, it's NOT illegal to sell an M-rated game to a 4-year old or admit them to an R-rated film. As policies, some retailers choose simply not to handle games of certain ratings, much like Marcus probably won't show an NC-17 film and Wal-Mart won't sell the video.
So, who looks foolish?
ESRB because they rated a game without knowing about this content.
Take Two because they released a game with code that could be accessed and turned into this. Their stock dropped nearly 7% the other day. That's a key reason why they said, just re-label it as AO.
All that aside, the funniest bit in my opinion is that I haven't seen reports of complaints from parents stating: "The cursing, drugs, violence, and guns were fine for my 16 year old. But not this!" I'll be cracking up when I do.
Paul: While Hillary is a Democrat, she seems to me to be a very conservative one. Many states have been legistlating to restrict M rated video games to people under the age of 18. Yes, I know the ESRB is a self-regulating body, and I like the concept. I don't mind the ratings at all. Instead, I laugh at the difference between M and AO, or more specifically the lack of difference.
Overall, I think both sides have been foolish. The game company was foolish enough to leave the code in there. Certainly not playable without modifications, but it shouldn't have been there in the first place. The parents have been foolish for not taking enough interest of what their children are doing or interested in doing. Parents who let their kids have a game that says right on the box "Contains: Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs." are just idiots! The government is foolish to have to spend time and money to put systems in place that wouldn't be needed if parents just did their job.
Certainly, I don't have any teenagers that live with me yet, but I will in the future and I hope I do a better job than most of these parents that let their kids play with this game without knowing anything about it.
And the comics code, while damn funny, is useless now. It was written in the 50's to get the government to back off of the comics industry. Hmm, that sounds familiar. No one really follows it anymore from my understanding.
Pete: If I'm going to get violence, drugs, sexual situations in my game I might as well get porn as well.
Glad you got the point of the Comics Code - it's a joke now - it takes you back to another time when the standards of decency for our children (and make no mistake about it - comics and video games were and are still viewed by the public at large as children's fare) were quite a bit different than what they are now. My point was not that the comics code was anything great - only that industries have been going the "self-reg" route for some time.
In fact, one of my favorite "Tales of the Comics Code" was the 3-issue story arc in Amazing Spider-Man #96-98 involving a drug-related story line. This includes a stoned guy, Harry Osbourne on drugs, and Spidey whomping on dealers. Clearly the message to the kiddie set is that drugs are bad, m'kay? But the issues ran without the code - a big deal in '71. So yeah, standards change. In a few years the stuff in Grand Theft Auto will probably seem tame comparatively.
Hillary's a liberal - not certain what you're seeing that says otherwise. If it's this particular issue, liberal and convervative really have little if any impact, in my opinion.
Because when the reporter or a member of their constituency walks up, shoves a microphone in their face and asks: "Do you support delivery of porn to minors within video games rated appropriate for minors?" Little points of modding for accessability are immaterial. And don't kid yourself, porn's exactly how they view this stuff.
So, while politicians may not agree on the solution, none will support the action - liberal or conservative.
Next issue - thanks for the clarification that many states have restrictions on sales of rated games. My whole point is that in your original post you placed blame on "the government". I assumed this was the federal government and I'm unaware of any federal regulations specifically restricting the sale of video games. Everything that I saw and read within your linked story spoke to self-regs and money, not government.
Honestly though, government's still a player since the self-regs wouldn't be there without the government pressure. But the story wasn't about that.
Hey, self-regs. Isn't this where we came in?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8728577/
85 year old sues Rockstar and Take-Two because she bought the game for her 14 year old grandson. Can she not read?
Post a Comment
<< Home