Another blow for game devs in general
by Matt Benfall · in General Discussion · 07/21/2005 (5:14 am) · 168 replies
"Going forward, the ESRB will now require all game publishers to submit any pertinent content shipped in final product even if is not intended to ever be accessed during game play, or remove it from the final disc."
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/20/news_6129500.html
Bottom of the article.
My thoughts:
First of all, this whole GTA-thing is blown entirely out of proportion. Not to sound like an anti-Americanite, but down here (in Aus) they showed a clip from the mod on the 6pm news. To limit that to 18+ instead of 17+ and effectively killing the sales for Rockstar causes three issues to come to my mind:
1) Holding the original developers responsible for content created by third parties.
This is pretty self-explanetory. While Hot Coffee may point pretty much straight to the devs, how long before someone sues someone over a nude skin that Little Johnny downloaded?
2) Games being unfairly restricted in terms of sales by differences in censorship between mediums.
Movies, TV, and books all have far, far more explicit violence and sex than in any game I've seen, but in this case specifically, nothing in GTA would have caused it to be rated higher than M15+ if it were a TV show with the same effect. Sure, limbs fly off, but the graphic violence is so abstract it has no impact. Soldier of Fortune, on the other hand, towers above nearly all other games in the graphic violence field, but where's the hoo-hah over that? Is it because he's a soldier not a criminal?
3) ESRB's statement about all content must be made available to them upon review.
Added headache and delays to games, while the devs comb over everything to make sure stray code and assets aren't hanging around. Now, something coded for kicks & giggles overnight might end up hurting a game's rating, even if players can never access it, ever.
Thoughts?
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/20/news_6129500.html
Bottom of the article.
My thoughts:
First of all, this whole GTA-thing is blown entirely out of proportion. Not to sound like an anti-Americanite, but down here (in Aus) they showed a clip from the mod on the 6pm news. To limit that to 18+ instead of 17+ and effectively killing the sales for Rockstar causes three issues to come to my mind:
1) Holding the original developers responsible for content created by third parties.
This is pretty self-explanetory. While Hot Coffee may point pretty much straight to the devs, how long before someone sues someone over a nude skin that Little Johnny downloaded?
2) Games being unfairly restricted in terms of sales by differences in censorship between mediums.
Movies, TV, and books all have far, far more explicit violence and sex than in any game I've seen, but in this case specifically, nothing in GTA would have caused it to be rated higher than M15+ if it were a TV show with the same effect. Sure, limbs fly off, but the graphic violence is so abstract it has no impact. Soldier of Fortune, on the other hand, towers above nearly all other games in the graphic violence field, but where's the hoo-hah over that? Is it because he's a soldier not a criminal?
3) ESRB's statement about all content must be made available to them upon review.
Added headache and delays to games, while the devs comb over everything to make sure stray code and assets aren't hanging around. Now, something coded for kicks & giggles overnight might end up hurting a game's rating, even if players can never access it, ever.
Thoughts?
About the author
#162
There is absolutely zero need (or tolerance for) insults, flames, or spam based posting technique when it detracts from the use of the forums of the general community.
The language/personal insult above was modded out, and I would also like to have the rest of the discussion toned down as well. This isn't a forum for conspiracy theories or personal attacks, but flame baiting others due to your posting style or content isn't appropriate either.
Thanks!
08/09/2005 (3:49 pm)
Ok, guys, let's all cool our jets on this one. Everyone (and that means everyone!) take a step back and a few breaths...this is not a flame-style debating forum, but a resource for Torque developers to discuss issues in a polite and civilized manner that are appropriate for the community.There is absolutely zero need (or tolerance for) insults, flames, or spam based posting technique when it detracts from the use of the forums of the general community.
The language/personal insult above was modded out, and I would also like to have the rest of the discussion toned down as well. This isn't a forum for conspiracy theories or personal attacks, but flame baiting others due to your posting style or content isn't appropriate either.
Thanks!
#163
...and I also read a quote somewhere that noted the ESRB was more interested in maintaining power, or something like that. I do think all this type of content should have been more tightly controlled from the beginning.
Hey, at least I've tried to listen. I just don't feel the same about this issue as the rest of the members. I think it is good, at the least, because it's gonna get debated to death.
Now some clarification:
Do I side with politicians like Hillary hopping on the bandwagon and trying to get political mileage out of this? H[edit]eck no! She can keep her nose out of this! The rest of the politicians with her.
Do I think we deserve creative freedom? Heck yeah!
Do I want Rockstar/Take-Two to seriously suffer financially? Not in the least! They produce other great content I'm sure. They might suffer financially, but it will probably be transient.
Do I think parents need to monitor what their kids do/buy/play? Goes without saying.
:-)
Greg
08/09/2005 (3:54 pm)
@ Joshua:I stand corrected. You are right....and I also read a quote somewhere that noted the ESRB was more interested in maintaining power, or something like that. I do think all this type of content should have been more tightly controlled from the beginning.
Hey, at least I've tried to listen. I just don't feel the same about this issue as the rest of the members. I think it is good, at the least, because it's gonna get debated to death.
Now some clarification:
Do I side with politicians like Hillary hopping on the bandwagon and trying to get political mileage out of this? H[edit]eck no! She can keep her nose out of this! The rest of the politicians with her.
Do I think we deserve creative freedom? Heck yeah!
Do I want Rockstar/Take-Two to seriously suffer financially? Not in the least! They produce other great content I'm sure. They might suffer financially, but it will probably be transient.
Do I think parents need to monitor what their kids do/buy/play? Goes without saying.
:-)
Greg
#164
I'll sit down now. ;-)
[edit] I'll sit down now. after I respond to Pat
@Pat: Your swipe at me is thinly veiled at best.
Straw-man: you are most definitely referring to your own arguments.
Spam post: I responded to each response as posted, I "didn't know" that wasn't allowed!!
Crying:I can handle profane responses on my own, friend. Why don't we just put
his response back in. I was trying to see if employees here were going to tolerate it because the poster supported their position.
@Mod: suspend me if you want. (Would you like that Pat?)
Now I'll sit down.
Greg
08/09/2005 (3:55 pm)
Understood.I'll sit down now. ;-)
[edit] I'll sit down now. after I respond to Pat
@Pat: Your swipe at me is thinly veiled at best.
Straw-man: you are most definitely referring to your own arguments.
Spam post: I responded to each response as posted, I "didn't know" that wasn't allowed!!
Crying:I can handle profane responses on my own, friend. Why don't we just put
his response back in. I was trying to see if employees here were going to tolerate it because the poster supported their position.
@Mod: suspend me if you want. (Would you like that Pat?)
Now I'll sit down.
Greg
#165
Studipity should be extremely painful.
08/09/2005 (4:30 pm)
The government isn't there to 'protect the children' or against a parent's stupidity. Stupid parents tend to breed stupid kids that hopelessly lack the concept of personal, or parental, responsibility - everthing, everything is someone else's fault. Because, for some reason, to state otherwise is wrong in that we don't want anyone to 'feel bad'. This 21st century litigious society of ours has turned seemingly rational people into blabbering paralipophobics (fear of responsibility).Studipity should be extremely painful.
#166
I find your argument somewhat silly.
The government is here to do whatever the masses decide it needs to do -- and since the very beginnings of society, one of the most important things to a society is to take care of it's young.
One of the things I and many others want from our society (and hence our government) is the help protecting our children. For example, I want it to be illegal to sell/give drugs or alcohol to children -- For there to be consequences if someone does. I think we can agree this is a good idea. No one can be with their kids 100% of the time -- they go to school, participate in clubs, go over to a friends house, etc.
08/11/2005 (11:25 am)
Quote:The government isn't there to 'protect the children' or against a parent's stupidity. Stupid parents tend to breed stupid kids that hopelessly lack the concept of personal, or parental, responsibility - everthing, everything is someone else's fault. Because, for some reason, to state otherwise is wrong in that we don't want anyone to 'feel bad'. This 21st century litigious society of ours has turned seemingly rational people into blabbering paralipophobics (fear of responsibility).
Studipity should be extremely painful.
I find your argument somewhat silly.
The government is here to do whatever the masses decide it needs to do -- and since the very beginnings of society, one of the most important things to a society is to take care of it's young.
One of the things I and many others want from our society (and hence our government) is the help protecting our children. For example, I want it to be illegal to sell/give drugs or alcohol to children -- For there to be consequences if someone does. I think we can agree this is a good idea. No one can be with their kids 100% of the time -- they go to school, participate in clubs, go over to a friends house, etc.
#167
You want to protect the children? Educate them.
Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security.
-- Benjamin Franklin
08/11/2005 (11:56 am)
OK, but I don't see how a kid seeing a pair of breasts or two people bumping uglies is harmful. I mean I saw the first episode of "Over There" and an Iraqi insurgent's torso is blown apart by a grenade, but his legs where still walking. This was on at 10PM EDT on the cable channel FX. However, if a television program where to show a pair of breasts in the same time slot parents would be 'outraged' and demand that the government 'should do something about it'. Something like that already did happen - and it was a single breast during superbowl. The funny thing is that majority of the 'outraged' parents probably didn't even see the broadcast in the first place and just 'heard about it'. The American culture is very unusual in that violence (and extreme violence at that!) is perfectly acceptable, but sexual content (and I would certainly not characterize all nudity as sexual content) is grounds for humongous financial penalty and incarceration. I fail to see how government regulation (current or impending) is 'protecting the children' in these manners.You want to protect the children? Educate them.
Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security.
-- Benjamin Franklin
#168
You dont have to look far for AO material on TV.
Just look at :
Nip Tuck
MTV
VH1
Rescue Me
you name it
Just channel surfing can cause exposure to AO material.
09/12/2005 (5:37 am)
Additionally, I think what you'll see is game publishes less friendly to modders. Although the code to do the minigame was included, most games can be skinned modded hacked etc and ultimately, the pundits in DC dont care or understand the technology enough to seperate the publisher from the modder, and will hold the publisher responsible. So as a result, they will get gunshy and go back to the closed book attitude of game enhancements.You dont have to look far for AO material on TV.
Just look at :
Nip Tuck
MTV
VH1
Rescue Me
you name it
Just channel surfing can cause exposure to AO material.
Torque Owner Joshua "RegularX" Birk
That they lied or at least grossly misrepresented? Sure, I think we all agree there.
That this is a publicity stunt or that it has much relevance anymore, I don't think you have anything for evidence there. Just conjecture and conspiracy.