Support NeoGAF

[jarrod]

Thats not a standard, its the way its done. Industry outsiders need to understand that. Can you imagine the cost that would be added to game production if the game makers were forced to clean up and retest their code? Nothing good will come of this for "US" the game players.

I imagine the cost would be inconsequential if they simply focused their efforts on cleaning up "questionable" content alone. Things like nudie textures or fucking routines.

Nobody's abdicating everything must be cleaned up and retested, simply whatever small bits of questional content the publisher might not "intend" the end user to find. Stop blowing this out of proportion.

 

[Guy LeDouche]

I imagine the cost would be inconsequential if they simply focused their efforts on cleaning up "questionable" content alone. Things like nudie textures or fucking routines.

Nobody's abdicating everything must be cleaned up and retested, simply whatever small bits of questional content the publisher might not "intend" the end user to find. Stop blowing this out of proportion.

If it costs more time/resources to delete code than to just lock it off, then its not worth it. With everything else they had to worry about during the dev time, using a simple code lock that is still 100% effective to its purpose (you still can't access the minigame without a hack) is perfectly fine.

stick with what you know - excel speadsheets.

 

[jarrod]

Regardless of intention, Rockstar produced and distributed pronographic content on their disc without submitting said content to the ESRB. And even after that, they lied about it. Doesn't take a douche to realize the problem here... I'm sure Rockstar now believes deleting the code would've been well worth the cost.

 

[Synbios459]

While I don't think Rockstar should be held accountable for what a person (that wasn't authorised or endorsed by Rockstar) changed in the game, I do think they should get in trouble for lying about it. I also think that the ESRB should've just said "Well this wasn't good, but from now on just shows us what is in it, disabled or otherwise".

The ESRB also needs to put pressure on Publishers to not pressure devs because Publishers ALWAYS give rediculous deadlines. Who knows, maybe had they had more time Rockstar would've taken it out. While I do agree that leaving it in the PC and Xbox version was dumb they had to hurry and release the PS2 version.

What I don't understand is why Publishers aren't more sympathetic towards devs. I realise that it is good to give a deadline so devs will have a date to work towards and not get lazy (Like Bungie making Halo 2 which they themselves admited) I think that if the devs can show that they're are making considerable progress on the game and they want to take stuff like that out the Publishers should let them.

 

[TheDiave]

Apparently yes, because look at what the ESRB is doing to Rockstar.

...although I strongly disagree with it.

 

[krypt0nian]

Where does the personal responsibility of the user come into play here?

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

If it costs more time/resources to delete code than to just lock it off, then its not worth it. With everything else they had to worry about during the dev time, using a simple code lock that is still 100% effective to its purpose (you still can't access the minigame without a hack) is perfectly fine.

stick with what you know - excel speadsheets.

How about this. If they don't intend to put the sec minigame in, DON'T MAKE THE DAMN THING! It's not like rockstar was forced to make this. It's obvious such a minigame would get it an AO rating, yet they did it anyway. I don't think anyone is advocating that Rockstar should be sued, or even fined for what is on the disc, but they have a resoponsibility to the ESRB and to the parents to disclose what the public can find on the disk. I don't see how this is so hard for people to understand.

The underlying point is if you don't want something objectionable to cause you problems, don't make it in the first place. Nobody is advocating that anything the developer doesn't inted you to see should be removed. Debug levels and the like that are not normally accessible have been in games for ages, and that's never been a problem. The problem only arises when the said "inaccessible" material is of a more mature nature then the game with which it ships.

 

[jarrod]

Where does the personal responsibility of the user come into play here?

When they turn 18.

 

[mrklaw]

Regardless of intention, Rockstar produced and distributed pronographic content on their disc without submitting said content to the ESRB. And even after that, they lied about it. Doesn't take a douche to realize the problem here... I'm sure Rockstar now believes deleting the code would've been well worth the cost.

they didn't submit it to the ESRB, because it isn't in the game. you have to change the gamecode to get it to appear.

How about this. If they don't intend to put the sec minigame in, DON'T MAKE THE DAMN THING! It's not like rockstar was forced to make this. It's obvious such a minigame would get it an AO rating, yet they did it anyway

Maybe thats why they took it out? Maybe they thought it'd squeeze an 'M', but realised at the last moment and blocked it off? As mentioned here already, games change a lot during development.

 

[DarienA]

The problem only arises when the said "inaccessible" material is of a more mature nature then the game with which it ships.

I'm glad you worded it this was because I have to ask... how is that material more mature than the nature of all the violence you can already cause in the game?

In the US... violence is ok... sex... oh hell no. It's funny because I read the gameindustry.biz article where the BBFC(British Board of Film Classification) looked at it and said... so what? The US is morally confused... and has been for eons.

 

[jarrod]

they didn't submit it to the ESRB, because it isn't in the game. you have to change the gamecode to get it to appear.

It is on the disc however. Which is what the consumer's buying.

Should all sellers not be responisble for their entire products, only their "intended" usage? That's the real issue here.

 

[krypt0nian]

When they turn 18.

You can't think that even comes into play here right?

Its all about "harming the kids!!!!11!!!!" who shouldn't even be playing this in the first place. They can get more graphic content at Barnes and Noble from unrated paperbacks. Rating systems are twisted and meaningless for the most part.

The EULA defense is the best case scenario for R* now....the only thing they should take heat for is lying about it once they were exposed.


Hell ONLINE games get the "out" from the ESRB. They need to add a statement that any changes/mods are not the responsibility of the maker.

 

[Guy LeDouche]

Regardless of intention, Rockstar produced and distributed pronographic content on their disc without submitting said content to the ESRB. And even after that, they lied about it. Doesn't take a douche to realize the problem here... I'm sure Rockstar now believes deleting the code would've been well worth the cost.

OH NOES!! not teh pr0no! an adult game with adult content?! surely you jest.

regardless...

Do you have any idea how games are made? The content cannot be accessed without a hack. I would bet 99% of all games released have environments, textures, sound files, etc that were once part of the game but got scrapped for any number of reasons.

that's okay, little Johnny! Kill all the random citizens you want, but you can't look at boobs!

 

[mrklaw]

It is on the disc however. Which is what the consumer's buying.

Should all sellers not be responisble for their entire products, only their "intended" usage? That's the real issue here.

But whats on the disc is just a bunch of 0s and 1s. If you have enough time on your hands, I would expect it'd be possible to hack any PS2 game to be offensive. All its doing is poking bits in the memory.

If desired, you could probably give Barnie a boner with a gameshark hack. Just find a vertex near his crotch, and adjust its location slightly.....

 

[daegan]

It is on the disc however. Which is what the consumer's buying.

Oh really? You mean to say that I'm buying folders and files and lines after lines of code?

No. Buying a game is buying an experience. The same as buying a movie ticket, buying a concert ticket is buying an experience. When you buy GTA: SA you're not paying for the code or the audio files or the textures, you're paying for the story of Carl Johnson and his return home.

Now, if it was something optional but still in the game - something you could slam a code in for right quick - I would understand it. But this is not in any part of the game - it's locked away in such a manner that you can't get to it without messing with the code somehow.

The method of messing with the code doesn't matter. Yes it's easier to do it with a GameShark. That doesn't make it any less modifying the code of the game to run in a manner that provides you with a different experience than the creators of that experience intended.

 

[jarrod]

OH NOES!! not teh pr0no! an adult game with adult content?! surely you jest.

regardless...

Do you have any idea how games are made? The content cannot be accessed without a hack. I would bet 99% of all games released have environments, textures, sound files, etc that were once part of the game but got scrapped for any number of reasons.

that's okay, little Johnny! Kill all the random citizens you want, but you can't look at boobs!

This is a an ethical issue, not a moral one. Learn the difference douchebag.

But whats on the disc is just a bunch of 0s and 1s. If you have enough time on your hands, I would expect it'd be possible to hack any PS2 game to be offensive. All its doing is poking bits in the memory.

If desired, you could probably give Barnie a boner with a gameshark hack. Just find a vertex near his crotch, and adjust its location slightly.....

The texture sets and animation routines are on the disc as designed by Rockstar. Again, this isn't some random code hack here... Rockstar left questionable code on the disc and really have nobody to blame but themselves for what's happened.

Oh really? You mean to say that I'm buying folders and files and lines after lines of code?

No. Buying a game is buying an experience. The same as buying a movie ticket, buying a concert ticket is buying an experience. When you buy GTA: SA you're not paying for the code or the audio files or the textures, you're paying for the story of Carl Johnson and his return home.

Now, if it was something optional but still in the game - something you could slam a code in for right quick - I would understand it. But this is not in any part of the game - it's locked away in such a manner that you can't get to it without messing with the code somehow.

The method of messing with the code doesn't matter. Yes it's easier to do it with a GameShark. That doesn't make it any less modifying the code of the game to run in a manner that provides you with a different experience than the creators of that experience intended.

You're paying for a physical product, not a time restricted experience. That's rather clear actually, this is like buying a magazine, DVD, toy, computer, car, gun.... not a movie or concert.

 

[Xenon]

in the US... violence is ok... sex... oh hell no. It's funny because I read the gameindustry.biz article where the BBFC(British Board of Film Classification) looked at it and said... so what? The US is morally confused... and has been for eons.

So what your saying is a game like GFA shouldn't be as violent?

 

[E2G]

Just check out movie ratings and compare those with violence and those that dare show a woman's breast uncovered.

btw, GTA was already rated M for mature so what's the big deal... we all know kids start having actual sex way before they're allowed to play it :lol and for those that don't... just let them live it out through a game... those poor, poor, porn addicted kids...

This is just as stupid as the fact that American are deemed responsible enough to enroll in the army and kill others or get killed at the age of 18, but alcohol is a big no no until 21.

As to not stray from the main subject; I've done a few programming classes and have barely begun to understand the big picture, but I for one can tell you that a game can easily come out to millions of lines of coding. And the work is usually split-up between multiple programmers who's only task is to make it work. Needless to say how sloppy some can be by using questionable variables and coded comments only he can understand. Telling developers to double check WORKING code for disabled contents that might affect the rating, but if removed could ultimately cause bugs which in turn will cause delays, more work, more time, more money for something that wasn't even meant to be found. That's like going to a Blockbuster and telling them that they should watch every single game and movie each time they are returned in order to filter out the defective copies. The sheer amount of time required just makes it impossible.

You also have to understand that working code for a programmer is much like a painting is to a painter. Disabling a code is like hiding it in the closet, erasing it however is destroying the solution to a problem. It's not like this code was meant to cure diseases or what-not but it is still a form of expression.

Heck, you might as well say that Action Replay and Gameshark would get the heat for this. It's like stealing someone else's weed and reselling it on the basis of it wasn't yours so you’re not doing anything wrong.

As for the Lambo in GT3, they spent 3 intensive weeks of there lives building that model, texturing it, tweaking the cars response... and some would like for them to just delete that... think about that.

Determining if the intention was there or not is a much too grey area to even go there. The only time it could be obvious is if an abuse is present; as if GT3 had 50 unlockable unliscenced cars. btw, GT3 had a Lambo in it because the liscence negotiations regarding the Lambo came to a close realy late in the development cycle. The content was create in the anticipation of an approuval.

 

[Guy LeDouche]

This is a an ethical issue, not a moral one. Learn the difference douchebag.

This is a personal responsibility issue actually.

You have to intently hack the game to unlock the minigame. R* had this minigame as part of the game at some point, but obviously the ESRB would have labeled it as A/O so they locked it off so that you could never access it while playing the game the way it was intended.

Because this whole debate has been pretty worthless so far, the burden of proof has always been on you. Provide some legal prescedent or give it up.

 

[jarrod]

Because this whole debate has been pretty worthless so far, the burden of proof has always been on you. Provide some legal prescedent or give it up.

Against "intended use" in products? It's gone both ways before legally for drugs, baby toys, software licenses... GTA could be seen as any of those.

But then, we're not talking legal anything here. Again, this is an ethical issue... Rockstar sold a product with questionable (and unrated) content included, though they never "intended" said content to be seen.

 

[Xenon]

Wow some of you people really don't get do you. So your saying since games for M 16+ (even though its not even an enforced rating and I'm sure kids can still get the game) has violence than there is no reason they shouldn't get the sex too, that is totally ignorant of the media that GTA exists on. Video games are violent! The only reason we are where we are today is 20 years of a slow progression.

In the beginning it was hard for anyone to take the violence seriously because the graphics were so bad. Who cares if that glob of pixels shoots that other glob of pixels. But then came MK and the graphics were more realistic(compared to what had been out there before) with BLOOD. This was a big leap and it brought the government spotlight to violence in games and eventually a rating system to give parents some idea of what content is in a game. There have been other games that have grabbed the spotlight. GTA:3 got heat because of the level of realism it brought to the violence. But that was just a little under tens years after the whole MK explosion. So the violent content has been gradually been increasing over time with a few notable spikes.

R* went from implied sex GTA:3 to straight out full view f*cking in GTA:SA. They deserve to get some shit for even trying it and leaving on the disc. All this talk of "this is really a problem with American morals" is just a smoke screen to defer blame that should fall solely on R*. It’s amazing what lengths people will go to defend their fav games/company.

I have a feeling things are only going to get worse with the level of realism with this next gen. R* didn't help matters much.

 

[RuGalz]

Mock up scenario which happens all the time #1:

Producer sends out email "We gotta pull the sex stuff out of the game, whoever is responsible for it please do so immediately!"
Rookie programmer #l337 goes in and comment out line #6969 in file fuck_your_ugly_ass_gf.sc and submit changes.
Rookie programmer #1337 replies the email "It's been removed sir!"
Producer plays new build and verfies that it's gone and sends the game off.

It's funny people expect the producer and QA to scan the disc and make sure the code unhackable or the content is 100% removed.

R* as a whole, may or may not know the content was still left on disc. We don't know the truth.

R* was dumb for not investigate more before respond publically that it was all hacker's work. Or it was dumb for them to lie such thing to save face. We don't know the truth.

Now they are patching the game, recalling the game due to pressure from all angles. Some people are calling it a stunt they planned in order to get more publicity.

I don't think I can buy enough popcorn to finish watching this soap opera.

 

[DCX]

Yes. Even if it's hidden, the devs still put it there.

I know this is kind of a ridiculous analogy, but it's like you hiding a stash of marijuana in a wall, and then your uncle, who happens to be a cop, brings over his police dog on an offduty casual family visit, and the dog finds the marijuana. Are you still responsible for the marijuana even if it wasn't meant to be discovered?

My point is, just because something is hidden doesn't mean it doesn't count.

Well it would thrown out of court becuase there wasn't a proper search warrant for it...

DCX

 

[DCX]

Hmmm...well maybe games should now come iwth a disclaimer like DVDs do, where it states that bonus features are not rated in this product, same with online games where rating don't seem to be in effect. If GTA:SA had that disclaimer, they would be good, hidden or not...

DCX

 

[jarrod]

Well it would thrown out of court becuase there wasn't a proper search warrant for it...

DCX

Not if you willingly let your uncle in your home. Then you've essentially submitted to a search.

 

[DCX]

Not if you willingly let your uncle in your home. Then you've essentially submitted to a search.

Are you kidding? There is such a HUGE Grey area there. It's like my whole " if you care someone and they die, did you murder them? " The general theme was if you knew the individual had a heart problem etc then yes you could be charged but if not, it could/would be written off as incident.

DCX

 

[jarrod]

Are you kidding? There is such a HUGE Grey area there. It's like my whole " if you care someone and they die, did you murder them? " The general theme was if you knew the individual had a heart problem etc then yes you could be charged but if not, it could/would be written off as incident.

DCX

What?

There's a legal grey area sure, but if you let the officer/dog into your home willingly (and they found something) you've pretty much screwed yourself. I have no idea what care/murder scenario you're talking about though.