Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: karajorma on July 15, 2005, 07:25:07 am
-
Well maybe not Mrs Clinton herself but I'm sure there are adolesent males all over the globe thanking her for pointing out that there are dirty sub games in Grand Theft Auto : San Andreas (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/14/hillary_clinton_gta/) (worksafe link) so I couldn't resist the title.
The funny thing is that the matter had been dealt with quietly and not many people knew about it until she opened her big mouth on the subject.
The dirty games were made by rockstar but then cut from the final game. However enterprising horny people figured out how to unlock them again. Rockstar of course claim that since the only way to unlock the game is to mod it this is no different to them being not responsible for the various nude mods that exist for other games.
What's especially interesting is that it never was revealed exactly how Mrs Clinton found out about it. I suspect Billy may have had some explaining to do at one point though ;7
-
I've got no problem with the content in principle but Rockstar should have done the honourable thing and either taken the content out or left it in and had the game classified correctly. Then again what can you expect from a company that releases a game with those kinds of moral values. Even if it is the best damn game I've played in years.
-
Something like this was bound to happen when it was ported to PC.
-
"Bill? Are you still playing on that machine?"
The Jack Thompson press statement was funny as hell; he literally compares Rockstar to the Nazis, and then has a go at them because 7-14 years have bought the game. Despite the whole age rating system (of course, parents & stores have absolutely no responsibility for stopping their children buying games, videos etc with an age rating).
I mean.... anyone who is able to get it on the Pc version, has internet access and thus can enter a whole world of smut. It's about as dangerous an attack on childrens moral values as the animator who added a single frame showing Veronica Rabbits snatch in Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
-
Well the question has to be whether Rockstar expected anyone to find the hidden stuff.
That said I don't know why the states makes a distinction between adults only and 17+ as there is only a year between those ages (unless they say you have to be 21 to watch hot sweaty action :D ).
Over in the UK they simply say that it's 18 rated which is far more sensible.
EDIT : Aldo aslo makes a good point. How many people are going to be able to download the mod who couldn't simply get hold of real hardcore porn instead?
-
It's interesting that the age of consent in most countries is under the age at which you're legally allowed to watch shagging.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
It's about as dangerous an attack on childrens moral values as the animator who added a single frame showing Veronica Rabbits snatch in Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
Damn! I've gotta get my hands on a copy of that movie! :p I love little "additions" like that, such as the word "SEX" being spelt across the screen for a few frames in "The Lion King", or the Priest with a boner in "The Little Mermaid"...
[On Topic]Stuff like this doesn't surprise me at all anymore, i mean, Americans (at least, the ones in Power - and by that i mean the really retarded ones) have always had a crippling phobia of anything Carnal, and yet a strange attraction to anything violent/dangerous/explosive! The only question i'm posing, is how did it come to this...?![/On Topic]
-
I've never really been a fan of GTA. It, like too many other games recently, plays to the base parts of us, and you're not even really fighting for any particular purpose, just becuase you can and get away with it.
-
Isn't that why anyone fights?
-
Indeed, see: the history of American Warfare for the last few years :p
-
If a video game's central focus is violence -- in other words, most video games -- it's playing to the base part of us. People are only bothered by GTA because it's politically incorrect.
-
If I ever come into any kind of money, I'm going to make a game that will literally give these sort of people a heart attack. That way, they'll be too busy with the gasping-for-the-air and clutching-of-the-chest to go around pissing on everyone else's good time. It'll be called "Attack of the Satanic Cop-killing Nazi Terrorist Tit-Vixens" and I'll bribe the censors to rate it E (Everyone) just so the Helen Lovejoys of the world can wake up one day and find their little Timmy analy violating Hitler while burning the American flag in one hand and smoking a joint with the other.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I've never really been a fan of GTA. It, like too many other games recently, plays to the base parts of us, and you're not even really fighting for any particular purpose, just becuase you can and get away with it.
You're partially right, but GTA does actually have interesting and innovative gameplay elements other than just beating up hookers and shooting at cops. Now a game like State of Emergency IS just blatant violence and that's why it's boring. I played it for all of 20 minutes. In any case, it's up to the developers to make the game they want, and up to the retailers to enforce ratings. If the game gets into the wrong hands, that's not the game's fault, but rather the fault of parents and game stores. Also, in this case it's extremely obvious that Rockstar isn't to blame, since you need a third party mod to make the content avaialble.
-
Is what GTA does really any worse than, for example, any Vietnam FPS though?
Anyone with half a brain is intelligent enough to know GTA represents over the top, cartoon violence. The only people who would act upon it as if it was an example would be already mentally damaged, or under the age restriction range; and in either case they'd be just as likely to act out based on a TV programme or film, etc.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
It'll be called "Attack of the Satanic Cop-killing Nazi Terrorist Tit-Vixens" and I'll bribe the censors to rate it E (Everyone) just so the Helen Lovejoys of the world can wake up one day and find their little Timmy analy violating Hitler while burning the American flag in one hand and smoking a joint with the other.
Pitch it to Rockstar and they'd probably make it :D
-
(http://www.luds.net/personnages/image_helen.gif)
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
Damn! I've gotta get my hands on a copy of that movie! :p I love little "additions" like that, such as the word "SEX" being spelt across the screen for a few frames in "The Lion King", or the Priest with a boner in "The Little Mermaid"...
First of all, it's Jessica Rabbit, not Veronica. Secondly, It's does not spell SEX, it spells SFX (special effects) and thirdly, the priest did not have a boner, that was his knee, which is very obvious if you watch that scene.
go here: http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/films.asp
-
I have no problem with people playing GTA, despite the fact that I think it is an absolutely moronic game, but it starts to worry me when the antics of Rockstar start to affect the industry as a whole. Here's a question for ya, why the hell does GTA share the same rating as Halo? There's no comparison between the two!
-
There's no higher rating than 18. What hell rating do you want GTA to have? 52?
-
The rating system is for crap. Medal of Honor, for example, got a T, while Halo got an M.
As RealBigNUKE from NR.org put it: "Surely killing Koolaid-blooded aliens is more traumatic then killing your fellow humans."
But the final commentary I have on videogame violence must go to an unnamed fan of Sonic the Hedgehog...
“I'll never forget that traumatizing moment in Sonic the Hedgehog when I vicously executed my first Badnik. I tried to defend myself by claiming it was euthanasia. Surely death is preferable to a half-life as a robotic slave? I was only fooling myself...
It's been a downward spiral of violence and hate ever since then. :("
-
The difference is blood, I guess. But I don't think - violence wise - Halo or even GTA are any worse than most 15 rated movies.
-
Most parents ignore the ratings system anyway when they buy games for their kids.
Hillary is just exploiting this for her political advantage (better than exploiting an awful terrorist attack, unlike a certain president).
-
According to the New York Times, Clinton claims that "50 per cent of boys between 7 and 14 were able to buy M-rated video games", or at least that's what the National Institute on Media and the Family says. The NYT notes Clinton's intervention comes at a time "when many Democrats were trying to figure out ways their party can match Republicans on the issue of family values".
And how is that a bad thing?
-
Because it says on the package 17+. It sucks when you're 16 and want an M-rated game, and then you jump for joy and laugh at the kids when you are 17.
But still, IMHO Halo BARELY qualifies as M. I bet the ESRB would give it a Teen rating if the marines weren't potty mouths (still the language is mediocre, nothing you would hear in an R movie or wouldn't hear in a PG-13 movie).
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Most parents ignore the ratings system anyway when they buy games for their kids.
Hillary is just exploiting this for her political advantage (better than exploiting an awful terrorist attack, unlike a certain president).
All politicians exploited an awful terrorist attack. If you think otherwise they have successfully blinded you.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Hillary is just exploiting this for her political advantage (better than exploiting an awful terrorist attack, unlike a certain president).
She's only keeping her mouth shut on that because of how she was received after 9/11, when she was Boo'ed and '*****!ed' while giving a speach at a concert, or some event...
-
the National Institute on Media and the Family = The national Institute for brining up other peoples children the way we want
-
Originally posted by IPAndrews
I've got no problem with the content in principle but Rockstar should have done the honourable thing and either taken the content out or left it in and had the game classified correctly. Then again what can you expect from a company that releases a game with those kinds of moral values. Even if it is the best damn game I've played in years.
Are you saying a GAME has MORAL values?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I've never really been a fan of GTA. It, like too many other games recently, plays to the base parts of us, and you're not even really fighting for any particular purpose, just becuase you can and get away with it.
Yes, let's just ignore the whole part that the main character in GTA: San Andreas winds fights crooked cops and drug lords.
Personally, I'd actually love to see a game that delves in the actual "darkside" and not have to have the main character be a hero.
-
According to the New York Times, Clinton claims that "50 per cent of boys between 7 and 14 were able to buy M-rated video games", or at least that's what the National Institute on Media and the Family says. The NYT notes Clinton's intervention comes at a time "when many Democrats were trying to figure out ways their party can match Republicans on the issue of family values".
Adressing the issue: :wtf:. Period.
[Off-Topic]I've been playing M rated games since I was 8, half of them aren't even full of adult content (blood, etc), and they rate the game for violence anyway.[/Off-Topic]
-
Last I recall Doom and DN3D were very violent and full of blood. :p
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I've never really been a fan of GTA. It, like too many other games recently, plays to the base parts of us, and you're not even really fighting for any particular purpose, just becuase you can and get away with it.
I agree. I'm not a huge fan either (exept on technical merits).
On the other hand, it is called 'escapism'. I've never shot a gun except on a range, and then only in naval training. Somehow, though, going home after a hard day at work, and loading up Unreal Tournament and starting a deathmatch with a lot of bots named after the people that just pissed you off is cathartic.
That base part of us is exactly that: part of us. What's wrong with giving into it in the safe confines of a video game? One might argue that someone could take the game as inducement to act out in reality. To that I would answer "And?". People who would take a GAME as a serious thing are already unbalanced before the game ever came along.
Escapism is good. Its a pressure release.
-
Code has been confirmed to be part of the original game...
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/15/news_6129301.html
How very... Disturbing...
-
I said that in my first post.
Originally posted by karajorma
The dirty games were made by rockstar but then cut from the final game. However enterprising horny people figured out how to unlock them again.
Also worth pointing out that the mod also disrobes the girls on the PC version. The version that Rockstar made had the girls keep their clothes on. So in a way they were correct.
-
So... to anyone blaming Rockstar for this, why is it their fault when people modify their game without permission to make it smutty? Is there really an important difference between this and making nude skin mods for FPS games? Why should Rockstar be responsible for their fans?
-
So Jack Thompson can extend his 15 minutes?
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
So... to anyone blaming Rockstar for this, why is it their fault when people modify their game without permission to make it smutty? Is there really an important difference between this and making nude skin mods for FPS games? Why should Rockstar be responsible for their fans?
So that the politicians can have their scapegoat.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
So... to anyone blaming Rockstar for this, why is it their fault when people modify their game without permission to make it smutty?
Oh come on :D. You think Rockstar "accidentally" included this stuff? You think they didn't expect the modding community to find it and unlock it? It was a clear ratings dodge pure and simple. They deserved to get a bollocking for it. Regardless of any related issues. Not that it will bother them. Rockstar seem to be pretty thick skinned.
-
It was included in the playstation version though. The fact that it could be activated there was only discovered after the PC version release AFAIK (and even then I don't think it's easy to activate).
-
Is it that much worse than the Sims, for example, though?
Albeit I remember some group or other whining about that because it allowed homosexual relationships, adoption, etc.
What i mean is, how many 'innocent' youths are going to be exposed to this (especially given the ratings protection and the obscurity of the code - and the need to explicitly activate it)? And how many are actually going to be 'corrupted' by it? Reportedly it's basically a dry humping minigame in the PS2 form; we're not talking pixellated CJ does Dallas here.
Granted, we're dealing with the sort of people who go white and faint at the sight of a single tit (and i don't even mean Jack Thompson); begging the question what they feed their babies with? Which leads me to decide the reason they're offended is because they don't actually know what sex is; it would explain why they seem to want to mother every other persons children, like a bloated Godzilla sized Patty & Selma.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
we're not talking pixellated CJ does Dallas here.
Actually I think a hardcore adult game is probably the best thing that could happen to the games industry when it comes to proving to the general public that the ratings system is and should be applicable to video games.
In reality though software houses are play-it-safe wusses and their middle of the road non offensive pap perpetuates the image that all games are aimed at kids.
-
I think there is at least one hardcore adult game somewhere; i believe I saw it on bluesnews or similar....... but no store on earth would stock it, so the ratings system would never be applied.
This is in the sense of hardcore porn game, of course. Not, for example, just an adult game in the sense of what's allowed in an 18-rated movie.
-
Well, the forces of 1955 won;
http://ir.take2games.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=169278
To quote from what I posted on a BluesNews thread;
[q]This is ****ing daft. So now developers are responsible for the stuff they actually remove from the game? (note; game, not 'code' or 'assets' or anything outside the specified normal access) Looking at the wording of the ESRB statement, it appears that game developers are now being held responsible for any modifications that are created for their game, not just what the developer puts in the game.
"Furthermore, the ESRB calls on the computer and video game industry to proactively protect their games from illegal modifications by third parties, particularly when they serve to undermine the accuracy of the rating."
Not to mention the other obvious stuff; that you;d have to have internet access and intent to access (and with the net you have smut), or that in many states 17+ is over the age of consent anyways (so it's illegal to view poorly rendered dry humping, but not to perform the dirty deed itself).
On the other hand, I'm in the UK. GTA has the standard 18 rating here, meaning it's a non-issue over here. But given that the US is the worlds biggest player in the games market (in terms of sales & development), it still pisses me off.
[/q]
-
They seem to have completely missed the point which is that rockstar provided their game with this content inside. The ruling though infringes on my right to modify a correctly rated game in whatever way I see fit. So for example I can't mod Summer Heat Beach Volleyball to make all the women nekked ;7. That's bollocks of course because once I buy that game I own the binary and what I do with it is up to me. Of course games companies being wusses will probably go over the top to protect their games against modders now. Bad ruling. Idiots.
-
Content was made intentionally inacessible, though. So the ESRB couldn't make a valid case of it as being game content when it had been intentionally locked off from use (use within the content of the EULA and normal gameplay); unless they expanded game content to include anything that could be reused by a mod.
Interesting thing is....
M is 17+
AO is 18+
Shops don't usually stock AO (why?! 18 rated movies seem to get along ok in other stores); but why have 2 ratings to cover one year of age difference?
And, many states (more than 38) have ages of consent of under 18; http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
In these states, 17 is a fine age for consensual sex, but not for viewing (or rather, following a complicated set of instructions to activate and then viewing...) a crudely drawn minigame of sex between people with their clothes on.
-
Originally posted by IPAndrews
They seem to have completely missed the point which is that rockstar provided their game with this content inside.
Rockstar may have written the content but they turned the feature off. It's pretty much the same as when you comment off code.
The game probably had a sex equivalent of the gore on/off option you find in certain games originally. When they decided to turn the feature off instead of spending time and effort they simply set the game to always assume that the sex option was set to off.
Quite simply that's what a lot of programmers would do to turn off a feature they no longer wanted. Why spend time and effort removing the feature and bug testing the removal when you already have code in place that you can make work simply by setting a variable?
Were Rockstar foolish for not seeing that this could happen, of course but let's not act as if Rockstar shipped the game expecting the mod to be used. We've got no proof of that.
I know a lot of people are assuming that Rockstar did this deliberatly in order to improve sales but I doubt it. The statement that they released saying that they didn't make the content is stupid if that's true. The content could easily be proven to be Rockstar's and this would damage them further down the line (which is in fact what has happened). Sales of GTA have no doubt improved but now they have to take in all the old copies of the game, resticker them and send them out. They've also said that they are going to produce a M rated version which will take over from the current version and will have the sex stuff removed (which basically means that piracy of the game will actually increase cause people will want the uncut version and won't pay for this one.)
-
Is there actually any way of accessing the content without breaking the EULA? In which case what is the point of the EULA in legal terms?
-
you know, this wouldn't really be happening if parents weren't so bloody stupid and let their kids BUY the game..
and let's face it, The sexual "content" in the game can't be accessed "off the shelf" or rather, it HAS it in its code, but doesn't have it acessable to those who haven't got the mod..
-
Wow. Everyone seems to be siding with Rockstar on this. Frankly I'm shocked. Oh well I've been in a minority before. It's not so bad.
-
I think Rockstar were idiots to deny that they had made the feature then turned it off. I think they were idiots to try to blame the mod community for it.
But Rockstar aren't really to blame if people are downloading mods that allow you to turn on a feature that they turned off. If your children are accessing the net to download this sort of thing then they could just as easily be downloading much ruder games. The solution as always is to know what your 17 year olds are doing rather than expecting your PC\TV\Local police force to act as their babysitters.
-
Originally posted by IPAndrews
Wow. Everyone seems to be siding with Rockstar on this. Frankly I'm shocked. Oh well I've been in a minority before. It's not so bad.
Quite frankly that's because many of us look at this from a technical perspective as much as a moral one. The entirety of the GTA series has been about being as socially unacceptable as possible, and given the emphesis on day-to-day life in San Andreas (eating, working out, dating, etc) in all likelyhood simulating sex was seen as a natural extension at one point in time. At some point, management decided that they could not get the game on store shelves with that content active and told the devs to turn it off. Now Rockstar, like any software firm, is a company first and foremost. Their priority is their bottom line. And it's a hell of a lot cheaper to update one command in one particular place to disable a feature than it is to remove all traces of it, especially in a game as fundamentally complex (and interconnected) as GTA.
Now don't think I'm absolving Rockstar from responsibility in my book. The scene is undoubtedly in horribly bad taste. But the game deserved a AO rating to begin with, and all I can fault Rockstar for is not fessing up to that when they took it before the ESRB the first time. (Well, that and then trying to blame the mod community).
And the ESRB should have handed down the AO rating based soley on the violent and criminal aspects of the game. Changing a rating more than a year after initial release for a feature intentionally and completely disabled in the retail version of the game goes just one step too far, and sets a very dangerous precident for the future.
-
I don't personnally know anyone who's going to return their copy of the game anyway (and believe me...none of these people could access the content/want to access it), and I don't see how that many people would. The only people that would return it would be the little kids that bought the game with their parent's money (who probably shouldn't have it anyway).
-
Originally posted by IPAndrews
Wow. Everyone seems to be siding with Rockstar on this. Frankly I'm shocked. Oh well I've been in a minority before. It's not so bad.
I simply think it's politically motivated rather than having any legal basis; IIRC the president of the ESRB even said, prior to this judgement, that developers could not be held responsible for the results of unofficial modifications. Additionally, what Stratcomm said; this is not any worse than what exists already in the game and was previously classified for.
Personally, I think the ESRB should simply merge the M and AO categories into the equivalent of the British 18 rating, and be done. I'm not sure what the fundamental difference between a 17 and 18 (M and AO respectively) rating is, given that in many states (the majority) the age of consent is 17 or under. It strikes me as sepecially ludicrous that it is legal to have sex, before it is to view it (in a crude, non-genitalia form).
To me the primary motivation behind targeting GTA and videogames in general is because it's easier to blame an demonizable entity than forcing stores to actually observe the ratings system, because the latter would more visibly cost (stores) money and force the ESRB, etc, to acknowledge the failure of parents to uphold their responsibility in this regard (and risk offending their key consumer group in this).
-
Sigh...
I think the ESRB should find a classification between T and M. Games like Halo and Rainbow Six 3 are distinctly different from games like GTA and GTA rip-offs.
And IMHO, a game like GTA fully deserves the AO rating.
-
If anything, the ESRB needs to drop M altogether. It's a stupid rating, and I have no idea what logic is behind it, if any.
UK ratings have changed a few times (and several systems exist), but offhand they mirrior the movie rating systems; there's equivalents to U, PG, a 12+ rating, 15 and 18. IMO it works perfectly (so long as enforced). For example, GTA is 18, Rainbow Six is 15.
The actual details are; http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/502556/026-7617986-1286022/026-7617986-1286022
That, incidentally, is why we're not going to see this 'hot coffee' malarky over here.
-
Wait, why is anyone even preaching the sanctity of ESRB ratings? I mean, when Penny Arcade lays the blame at Rockstar's door, something is very wrong. Think back to when you were a young'un, and all the stuff you couldn't do or see because it would forever damage you poor little mind. Remember? You couldn't watch any of the good movies, or the late night TV shows, or (if they existed back then) the good games. I don't know about you, but really was a pain in the ass. Thankfully, my parents were common sense people, and trusted me to have enough character to deal with all the stuff life has to offer. But I can only imagine what it must be for someone who has Helen Jovejoy for a mom.
So why are we all, just a few short years later, imposing the same crap on the next generation? What's this I hear about "the stores aren't enforcing ESRB"? They damn well shouldn't be, or rather they have to since it's good business, but I don't see why gamers should genuinely support it. Do we have so little faith in kids that they can't be trusted to distinguish between games and reality? A handful of individuals, out of tens of millions, have perhaps been insipired to commit violence, but these individuals were already warped and would have snapped at some point, regardless of what anyone did. In other parts of the world, children have real problems: famine, dieasese, war, child abuse and all kinds of other crap, and they turn out perfectly fine. Yet experiencing simulated, low-polygon sex on a PC (with, might I add, extensive modification required to the game) will suddenly turn little Billy into a maniac? Give me a break. Next time I see a kid in front of an EB trying to dodge the same overconcerned bull**** we all felt in our youth, I'm going to buy him GTA and tell him to enjoy it.
-
Ultimately the problem Rictor isn't the ESRB, or the government, or even parenting in this case. The problem is that, for whatever reason, most physical retailers (as opposed to online ones, who don't have to convince their clients to pick stuff up off the shelf) refuse to stock adult-rated material, be it film, games, whatever. (I lay particular blame here at Wal-mart, but then I just hate that chain in general). But, for an equally retarded and flawed logic, they will sell Mature-rated games (R, M, etc). So developers and publishers want their products to recieve that one-year-of-difference rating to get their products more visibility. That's why GTA is (stupidly) not the highest rating, not because of some ESRB screw-up in the first place. That's why both ratings EXIST in the first place. The whole damned problem would just go away if stores (Walmart) would just stock adult rated content (lock it in a case or something, they don't seem to care about doing that with console games as it is) and be done with it.
And yes. I like parentheses.
-
I'm curious as to why there hasn't been a comparable outcry directed at The Sims, in which you can quite literally order your characters into bed and watch them have sex.
-
The thing is that the kids with Helen Lovejoy as a mum ARE going to grow up weird and twisted. I certainly don't want them getting hold of anything that would inspire them to commit violence :p
-
Games ratings exist for a good reason, especially with relation to younger, more impressionable children. But they seem to be fundamentally flawed with respect to the ESRB; the ESRB has bowed to political pressure more than any legal reason, and the rating itself is disproportionate to not only the 'new material', but also contradicts the all-important age of consent in a vast majority of states (not to mention it appears no worse than your average sex-ed video - presumably they still have it in the US?).
And any system having age ratings seperated by a single year is stupid; there is virtually no difference in my mind between 17 and 18 year old development to justify this. And in a country where 16 year olds can drive, as well, it again seems a disproportionate amount of fuss.
On the side; surely Wal Mart stocks 18 rated videos & dvds?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I think Rockstar were idiots to deny that they had made the feature then turned it off. I think they were idiots to try to blame the mod community for it.
But Rockstar aren't really to blame if people are downloading mods that allow you to turn on a feature that they turned off. If your children are accessing the net to download this sort of thing then they could just as easily be downloading much ruder games. The solution as always is to know what your 17 year olds are doing rather than expecting your PC\TV\Local police force to act as their babysitters.
indeed, it's not that we're siding with rockstar per se.. but this "kind" of debate has been gone over before, with parents being largely ignorant of what their children buy when it comes to computer games.
and exactly, if your kids can download the 'hot coffee' mod, they can most certainly download pratically anything else beyond that..
parents oughta look after their own kids instead of *****ing about everything.. really. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Games ratings exist for a good reason, especially with relation to younger, more impressionable children.
Are we talking like 8 year olds here, or what? What do you mean by "younger, more impressionable children"? Anyone over, say 14, ought to be trusted with pretty much anything. Listen, if you had lived in another time and place, you could already have been through a war or two and had kids before turning 18. If you believe that most teens aren't mature, could it be because you expect them not to be? They're certainly capable of it. I'll ask again: don't you remember you childhood? How frustrating it was that you couldn't be trusted to catch a of glimpse blood or, heaven forbid, a "dirty word". All the good stuff was unavailable because of overconcerned parents and the companies who cater to them. So now, a few years later, you're defending the same stance?
And besides, anyone who is capable of not only finding, but installing, a mod of this sort is surely capable of finding many worse things. It's unreasonable to expect that your child is somehow unable to enter the word "porn" into Google. It's absurd. The government comes down on Rockstar for making availble a pointy stick, while an average teenager is easily capable of finding themselves a nuke.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
On the side; surely Wal Mart stocks 18 rated videos & dvds?
If you mean R-rated movies, then yes..but anything that is specifically "adult content" such as pornography? No, none that I've seen, unless they hide it reaaaally well. They also don't sell "adult magazines". Hence, it makes perfect sense that they would not carry "adult video games".
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
On the side; surely Wal Mart stocks 18 rated videos & dvds?
No, last i heard they don't stock music with questionable (in their opinion) lyrical content.
-
I'm too tired to reply in depth to Rictors post, but I do believe the rating system does serve a purpose; I can remember what I was like at 14, etc, and believe there is a potential within that age to be more influenced than when older. To me, the 15 rating is the most important one; I think under that age is when the highest chance of imitation will be.
A secondary concern is that simply by having a rating system it makes clear to kids, that this type of content is in some way bad; it encourages them to consider why this is, and thus act maturely.
Oh, and http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=ticket_to_hell