The game from ValuSoft teaches kids how to build and manage a private incarceration facility, one of the few growth industries in America that has yet to be offshored to India or Mexico.
"Begin with a low security prison and build it up to a maximum security facility for the world's most dangerous criminals," the game publisher says in a description on its Web site. "But beware! Too harsh a prison will create a dangerous environment and could spark prisoner riots. Too lenient an approach will result in rampant gang activity."
I wanted to go out and buy a copy for my daughter, then realized she doesn't know how to use a keyboard yet.
The game industry has been mired in controversy in the past few weeks with the news that a downloadable piece of code will unlock pornographic scenes--secret, until recently--in "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas."
Parents groups and a diverse array of politicians requested tighter controls on sales of video games, particularly to minors. Australia banned the game in question. Additionally, the Entertainment Software Rating Board can impose sanctions on Grand Theft Auto series publisher Rockstar Games for failing to disclose content. The organization, which puts the ratings on games, has no control over retailers who sell titles rated "Mature" or "Adults Only" to minors.
The game industry and fans, meanwhile, claimed that passing legislation to control the sale or content of game software would infringe the First Amendment right to free speech. Kids would get restricted titles anyway. They also argue that since the secret sex scenes required a download that Rockstar didn't invent, the company can't be blamed for the problems.
While both sides have taken their arguments to the extreme, I have to admit I side with the regulators. I would like to see a law that required that "Mature" and "Adults Only" games could be sold only to people over a certain age.
Why? It engenders a slight social stigma. One of the main complaints (from the gamers) is that adults really don't pay attention to the games kids are playing. Under a strict rule that would require an adult to buy the game, not just give a nagging 12-year-old permission to get it, they would study the package first. They'd also think, "Do I really want 'Shell Shock Nam '67' on my credit card?"
Shame on them
You won't hear this from someone in my profession much, but I'm sort of a fan of community shame. History shows it works. No, I don't think retailers who sell games to kids should get their eyes poked out and forced to wander the Earth as Oedipus was. But cities like Venice and Athens thrived because people knew each other's business intimately, and the snooping didn't turn the places into moralistic enclaves.
If a retailer got a fine or two for selling inappropriate video games, eyebrows would go up. Granted, some kids would still get their hands on the software, but some kids also chew Skoal. Overall, sales and access to violent or inappropriate titles would likely decline.
Additionally, the fears of a crackdown on the right to free expression are vastly overblown. The First Amendment allows reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. Kids can't buy pornography, but the companies that make it seem to be thriving.
Some will argue that violent games are actually good for society. In a recent article, Steven Johnson, the author of "Everything Bad is Good for You," argues fatuously that a decline in carjacking could conceivably be tied to games like "Grand Theft Auto" because they let kids act out these fantasies.
This argument rests on the assumption that suburban teen lads, the principal buyers of game systems, constitute a collective power keg of violence defused by PlayStation2. To test the thesis, I asked my nephew about "Grand Theft Auto." His parents won't let him have it, but he claims he hasn't had the urge to pistol whip anyone either. (Although he did talk his sister into getting inside a garbage can, then rolled it down a hill, in the name of science.)
Interestingly enough, game publishers seem to understand the impact of public opinion on their business. Commentators to sites like Gamasutra point out that putting an "Adults Only" rating on a game is the kiss of death for sales.
I admit I'm not a huge fan of video games. Even as a kid I really couldn't get fired up about "Pac-Man." I also believe that they can suck up inordinate amounts of time and contribute to the obesity problem.
But I'm also very impressed with the creativity of the industry. Seriously. The vast majority of games are actually more interesting than critics allow. If anyone knows of any that let you run anachronistic scenarios--such as "What if the Aztecs had cars?"--let me know. And the titles--"Destroy All Humans," "Solar Boy Django," "Escape of Bipeds"--beat anything coming out of Hollywood. There's a certain level of weirdness that is very engaging.
"Grand Theft Auto," however, is not your Rubicon.
Biography
Michael Kanellos is editor at large at CNET News.com, where he covers hardware, research and development, start-ups and the tech industry overseas. He has worked as an attorney, travel writer and sidewalk hawker for a time share resort, among other occupations.
See more CNET content tagged:
Grand Theft Auto, Rockstar Games, First Amendment, kid, retailer
I do tend to side with Take-Two, those scenes are not actually in the game. The game must be hacked to open them, therefore, they should not be held liable (I actually don't even believe that these sex scenes are a problem being that the game is about murdering and stealing anyway).
This is just a nice way for our lame politicians to make noise and get their names in the papers. Way overblown.
-Rick
I'll admit that I'm not completely informed on exactly where the code is, but here's where I draw the line: If the scenes were put in the game from the start, it's the author's fault for putting them there - period. If it's an add-on that merely takes advantage of GTA's ability to expand (like a DOOM 'WAD' file), then the author is probably blameless.
This was always the REAL goal of such "ratings systems".
If we are going to start targeting the stores that sell the games, Then we should also target the parents who buy the games for the children.
Jon
What would the govt. getting involved in the sales of video games help? Really. I am asking this to define the argument. Could it make a difference?
And, on the other hand... Do we really believe that bit of gameplay was never meant to be seen? C'mon. 1-It was complete. We've all played the Mario hidden world where you go down the pipe and die because the world was incomplete, or the 'hidden levels' of other games. If they are there for developers only, usually they aren't so well done. I mean, this is a mini-game. Period. 2-Would it shock us so much if a game publisher actually used uncommon viral mkting techniques to sell games? See Ourcolony, Ilovebees, and the latest xbox 360 technique with the teen taking pics of himself w/a borrowed 360 raving about it! 3-Crap like this is there to shock us and make us all want to go buy it just to see what all the fuss is about. Narc ring a bell? You mean you get to take the drugs and hallucinate and it changes the gameplay? However, this game sucked and the hype didn't play out. GTA is by all accounts a well-made (if horrible) game. It may continue to help them for quite a while. 4-Isn't it accessible on the PS2 by going thru a cheat code? I don't have a PS2 so I can't check, but this is something I have been told. If the problem was a download then maybe I could forgive Rockstar, but if it was accessible by code, then they totally intended it to be found.
I'm sure the schoolyard is full of youngsters bragging how they have been playing the Hot Coffee mod. Shame on them. Sad that it's working so well.
http://athomemama.blogspot.com
Gaming and Tech
No. You have to use a 3rd party utility, like GameShark, which allows you to enter codes that would otherwise be unaccessable in the retail version. This is not some "hidden level". You can also access this on modded Xboxes, but again you're not playing the retail product without 3rd part intervention. Off the shelf, on a non-modded Xbox or PS2 you will never be able to get to this unless you use 3rd party utilities, which BTW seem to violate Rockstars EULA.
correctly, would leave the game rated M). To get the nude
figures on a PS2 I think you'd have to have a modded console
and use a modified game, not just modify the save file (and, to
reiterate, the save file can't be modified from within the
(unmodified) game itself, there is no "cheat code" such as press
up down up up down down start select (L1 L2 L3 L4 x) to
activate it.
My thoughts on this are: multiple servings of "no big deal", and a
helping of "the content wasn't actually in the game if it has to be
modified from outside the game to view it".
No big deal: a) the scene is fully clothed; b) the language and
action in the game is much MUCH more "mature" than a simple
fully-clothed sex scene (the stats for the game list how much
you've paid for prostitutes and the strip club); c) the game is
already rated "not for children"; d) to download the mod, you'd
have to get it from the Internet - if your kids are downloading
this, they're already downloading stuff you'll find much more
objectionable, and makes this sex scene downright family-
friendly; e) it's CARTOON SEX, get a life!
As for the content not "really" being in the game: where do you
draw the line for how much of the game (and the save file is as
much a part of the game as anything) needs to be modified
before it counts as "new content" being added to the game
instead of "old evil bad content" hidden in the game? The ONLY
way to view the content is inside the game, it isn't like they have
hidden video files that you can play using standard programs. I
take a hard line: if even 1 bit has to be modified (from outside
the game itself), then it wasn't there. Now, I agree that it is
possible to actually hide stuff intentionally, but I think that
should only be considered as an issue in a criminal case, with a
high level of evidentiary proof, not in something like a ratings
issue, especially between two "adults-only" ratings.
An "Adults Only" rating doesn't "shame" people into not buying
it, it simply kills off most sales because most retailers don't have
any backbone to standing up to relatively small groups of very
vocal busy-bodies, and something like this is so tame that it
can't be sold as real porn, where it might make more money.
BTW, "X" is not a rating, but NC-17 is. X is an indication of a
lack of rating, and has been associated with movies that couldn't
get a rating because of explicit sex. But you could label
anything X and no one can stop you (common usage might
prevail in a false-advertising suit, though).
subtle - on the surface, it promotes violence, portrays women as
prostitutes that you can beat up, lets you kill cops and drive
dangerously. However, it isn't that straightforward: there's a lot
of social commentary in the cut scenes, for instance, decrying
the build-up of violence and drug use; the characters choose to
use violence to combat that, but that leads to additional
complications. Some characters are blatantly racist, other
characters call them on it. There's a lot of background
commentary in the random chatter, too ("It's so nice being
rich!"). In addition, killing cops, driving poorly, beating up
prostitutes, are all losing propositions as far as the game is
concerned.
If you're going to complain about something, if you look closely,
no one ever dies in the game! Whenever someone is "dead", an
ambulance comes along and "makes it all better". When you get
arrested, you "get out of jail" $100 lighter and all your weapons
confiscated. Complain that there's no consequences for your
actions, except that you do poorly in the game. Except, IT'S A
GAME, even if you could burn the whole city down and everyone
stayed dead it's JUST A GAME! The consequences in GAME terms
are just about right. Anyone basing their real life on what you
can do in such a game is an idiot who was going to do stupid
things anyway (and the game is NOT giving them useful
practice).
Little Timmy, 12 years old, puts GTA San Andreas on the counter. Somehow, he has the $50 in hand to purchase the game.
Cashier thinks to self: "Where the heck does a 12 year old get $50 in disposable income. Crud, it takes me 10 hours of working here to make that much. How many months of taking out the trash did he have to do to get that?"
Cashier says: Sorry, that game is rated M. I can't sell that to you unless you are 17.
Littly Timmy says: Mom, come over here and buy me this.
Timmy's Mom walks over and says irately: Why won't you sell this to my son?
Cashier: It's rates M for Mature and contains sexual content. foul language, and violence.
Timmy's Mom says: Whatever.
Timmy's Mom plunks down the $50 for it.
Everyone keeps thinking there is some magic bullet to solve this. Being an avid stereotypical game player, I guess that would be in the forehead of any politician using this as a platform to boost their chances at a higher office.
But seriously, lets get back to hot topics like hiding critical documents in bedrooms, lieing, illicit sexual content, and people mysteriously dieing around you. Sounds like some missions from GTA, but it's actually the Clinton Administration. Let's ban anyone involved in that from out gov't the same way that GTA has been effectively banned from stores.
Its not so good for a "free-society", though.
Granted people affiliated with religion do those things you mentioned, but the religion itself does not promote it in any fashion.
So when little Timmy goes to his mom and says look, the AO rating means nothing, I'll show you. She watches the game and sees nothing that she feels is offensive for a 15 year old kid (or whatever age) and comes to the conclusion there really isn't anything she feels is Adult Only rated in it and says to herself AO is OK.
Now that the kid has talked his mom into AO being OK he can get her to buy any game that legitimately is labeled AO.
Just wait until "Saints Row" for the xbox 360 is released. In the on line demos it has women in positions of giving oral sex (but no genitals are shown), however the women are topless and this game will probably receive a legitimate AO rating.
And this game being exactly like Grand Theft Auto excepting be another step in the AO direction the parents probably will get it for their kids thinking its the same thing. When in reality its worse. But the parents wont catch on to it unless they closely monitor the games they play.
I suppose this is just a stepping stone of our society becoming more and more desensitized.
And in case your ignorant to it, there are video games out there from Japan where they do promote sex, rape and pedophilia. Japan is just ahead of us on the desensitization scale.
To enabled this content you must download a hack. Which causes the player to be in sexual positions. Hackers added the content of changing the characters to be nude.
There are many hacks out there that would change the rating of games from E to AO if they were re-rated after the hack like Grand Theft Auto has been.
Also consider that TV has edited out reality documentaries of women getting their breasts examined, not appropriate for TV like that IMO, but it is OK to have since the viewers can not see any nipple. But if a hacker wrote a program you could put on your digital TV to descramble edited TV shows to show nipple do you think that they would stop airing those shows? No, and because they have been ruled TV safe it would not be fair to shut them down because a minority has chosen that they want to see them.
I do not support Grand Theft Auto. I do not play it and my kids will not either. But if we start misusing the rating system at people like this then it is going to invalidate it and the problem will become even worse.
- This is completely stupid!!!
- by October 14, 2005 6:16 PM PDT
- This is all nonsense. First of all the rating shouldn?t matter. If you can read and I?m assuming most parents who are complaining about the game can?t because all that they?re complaining about is a stupid sex scene added into the game by a third party. Now if sex is the problem, you should never have allowed your kid/s to get the game in the first place. It says clearly on the case that it is rated ?M? and it also list the reasons which include ?Intense violence?(Something that should be considered worst than sex) and ?Strong Sexual Content? Now would someone please tell me what is meant by strong sexual content? Would it had helped if it said ?Hardcore Porn? instead? Of course not because you?re most likely a bad parent to start with.
- Reply to this comment
-
(30 Comments)It?s not very hard to keep violent video games from kids, in fact it?s rather simple; All you have to do is take it away from them or just never get it in the first place. It?s that easy but most parents are too ******* lazy to pay any attention to their kids and expect the media to do it for them.
The scene/s which are in question were added by a third party, sure Rockstar placed some code there but it can only be accessed by hacking into the game code and altering it, something done with several games, such as The Sims, but I don?t see anyone ******** about that.
All Rockstar needed to do was to prohibited the modification of the game in any form and then they couldn?t be held liable for anything since someone would have broken the license agreement by doing so. Another simple way to end this discussion.
Of course this is not about the added scenes it?s about trying to stop violent video games, but this issue just gives the ***** something to make noise about and get noticed.
If you don?t like violent videogames then don?t buy them and don?t let your kids play them, stick with the gay Sponge Bob games. END OF STORY! Rockstar should sue for loss of sales and the cost of those new labels, and they would have an extremely good case?
"Violent videogames aren't the problem stupid people are" "Guns aren't the problem the people that use them are"