Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Editorial Entertainment Games

Video Game Scandals Are Boring 86

Posted by Zonk from the here-here dept.
The Guardian Gamesblog has an editorial up registering the author's frustration with VG-related scandals. From the article: "No matter who weighs into the arguments, however, be it Hilary Clinton or the latest pious whining superstar of the American Religious Right, one fact remains: the videogames industry just can't do scandal. Let's face it, a few laughable scenes of polygonal coupling does not a Watergate make. Even the troubled relationship between Jude 'mind-blowing in bed' Law and Sienna 'pictured without engagement ring' Miller is more interesting than this limp tale of adolescent sex fantasy, Christian self-righteousness and coding."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Video Game Scandals Are Boring More

Video Game Scandals Are Boring

Comments Filter:

  • no kidding (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 21, 2005 @09:12AM (#13123305)
    I mean, like, can you believe that the princess ran off with that big dragon, only to leave her darling plumber behind?

  • Be thankful. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by harks ( 534599 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @09:17AM (#13123337)
    The last thing anyone wants is another stupid "scandal" that doesn't matter for anything.
    • That's the problem though is these scandals do mean something whether or not this flaimbait article thinks so or not... We are living in a very dangerous time and most people aren't even aware of it thanks to the mainstream media. Our rights have been tip-toeing right out the door for years now, and one day we're going to wake up in a very limitted world. The US has been having this happen a lot, but other countries aren't escaping it either. We've got to fight for every personal freedom we still have left
  • After reading the news release:

    The Parents Television Council, one of several media watchdogs that have criticized Rockstar and the ESRB, called on the game publisher to recall the game and offer refunds.

    "I tip my cap to that first step of showing responsibility," said Tim Winter, the council's executive director. "Phase two needs to be absolutely getting to the bottom of this coding issue. How did it get into that game? How did it get past the ratings board?"

    -----------------

    I just have to ask:

    How did this game get into the hands of someone Younger than 17 to cause all this?????

    How is it, that it is now an ADULTS only game when it consisted of Shooting, Pimping, Drug Trafficking, Carjacking....etc....???????????

    Why do we refuse to ask these questions...rather than "How did the code get there anyways?"

    These statements from persons who obviously never coded anything show pure ignorance. However, this ignorance is going to cost Game Companies, Publishers, Distributors a LOT of time and Money. All because rather than ask the Parents of children to do their Jobs, our government feels they have enact laws to "prevent" this stuff.

    BORING?!? I don't consider watching the basic 'freedoms' being taken away 'Boring'. I consider it a very scary situation as I wonder what else they are going to be taking away. Maybe thats the whole problem....people cannot be bothered with anything NOT involving instant drama....in the Immortal words of one H. Simpson...."SHINY!"

    Have we become a Nation of Homers?

    • Have we become a Nation of Homers?

      Have we ever been anything else?

    • These statements from persons who obviously never coded anything show pure ignorance. However, this ignorance is going to cost Game Companies, Publishers, Distributors a LOT of time and Money. All because rather than ask the Parents of children to do their Jobs,

      The parents *are* doing their jobs - they are checking the ratings level on the box and making a decision as to whether or not the game is suitable for their children. The central problem is this the developer lied to the ratings board resulting

  • Yes. but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wbren ( 682133 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @09:30AM (#13123442) Homepage
    Stories about blog entries about video game scandals that appear on Slashdot are even more boring.

    Seriously though, the outrage over GTA's sex game (or should I say 'Crude Polygon Stacking Game') is purely politcal, not moral. A sex scene in an adult video game is to be expected. From TFA: "...sex in a GTA game - should we really be shocked by that? Frankly, I'd be more shocked to discover that Rock Star hadn't considered such a feature."

    This whole 'scandal' reminds me of the scene in The People vs. Larry Flint where Flint is before a crowd asking which is more obscene: scenes of people being tortured and beaten, or scenes of people having sex? Sure, there was a brief uproar when GTA came out, but people eventually accepted the violent content and went on with their lives. But sex? Oh dear Lord, whatever will we do? Grow up.
  • It's that no one thought of and made popular a good name for the scandal ending with 'gate'. HotCoffeeGate?

    Also, it's hard to get much out of a scandal with nothing but a faceless corporation- part of a good scandal is the very accusation is almost a scandal in itself (try saying to your co-workers, 'what do guys think of that traitor, Karl Rove?' vs. trying to explain the intricacies of Rockstar putting a hidden less-than-hardcore sex mini-game into a video game). The conservatives should have singled o

  • Mod article +1 Troll (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CaseM ( 746707 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @09:34AM (#13123470)
    for the "Christian self-righteousness" comment. This fiasco has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with a few vocal minorities who think parenting is a job best left to regulations and rules.

    If anything, the conservative "Christian" circles I used to run in advocated taking personal responsibility for the activities of their children, including the content of the videogames they played.
    • Agreed. I can see the Christian parents: "Gosh.... I thought Johnny was only killing police officers, stealing cars, and using foul language... I had no idea he was seeing boobies"

      But any time, we can take a swipe at a group we don't like, hey, go for it.
      • Exactly...most Christians' keep their views and opinions to themselves. It's the outrageous zealots that go acting like idiots in front of the press, and now it seems people think that's how we all are. Even an atheist would probably be against their kids playing GTA if they knew what really went on in it.

        • Re:Mod article +1 Troll (Score:5, Interesting)

          by MyLongNickName ( 822545 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @10:11AM (#13123785) Journal
          Not sure they keep their opinions to themselves, but I know what you mean. They are more interested in policing their own house, and educating friends, not picketing the Capitol building.

          And yeah, no responsible parent is letting their 12 year old play this game. Not sure I'd play it myself as a full grown (physically ) adult. I don't understand the thrill in these type games.
    • or the "Christian self-righteousness" comment.

      Didn't you know, it's ok to talk badly about christians, but don't ever say anything about another religious group or you are commiting 'hate speech'.

      If anything, the conservative "Christian" circles I used to run in advocated taking personal responsibility for the activities of their children, including the content of the videogames they played.

      Typically people from the right are more into taking personal responsibility. The fact that the right has a
  • And yet, the Guardian and Slashdot both continue to run stories about this "scandal", fueling the fire.

    Were all the news media outlets to ignore these tempests in teapots, they would blow over in seconds.

    Instead, the media outlets do whatever they can to pump them up into full blown hurricanes.
  • I blogged about this here [nonperiodic.net], but this is all about the 2008 US presidential election. Hillary Clinton knows that if she wins the primary, her Republican opponent will attack her on family values. She's positioning herself as a centrist, value-driven candidate (along with her support of the war in Iraq) to take the bullets out of her future opponent's gun. This has absolutely nothing to do with video games. It is all about pouncing on an easy issue.
  • this limp tale of adolescent sex fantasy, Christian self-righteousness and coding.

    Riiiiight. Because if someone is self-rightious, he *must* be Christian. If someone tries to turn the latest "OMG Think of Teh Childaran!!11one" issue into her own personal gain, well, that's just because she's a religious nut, right? I mean, Hillary Clinton [gamespy.com] is known for being a pawn of the Relgious Right.

    Now, I agree that this whole issue has been blown waaaaay out of proportion, and I agree with the author that this i

    • But let's put the blame where it belongs: 1. Rockstar for putting something stupid like that in the game, and 2) self-seeking politicians who want to leave a "legacy" of "protecting the people from themselves". This isn't a "right/left" issue... this is a "freeedom/government regulation" issue.

      You seem to have made a typo. Let me fix it for you:

      But let's put the blame where it belongs:

      parents who buy inappropriate games for their children because it's easier to give them what they want than it i

      • I completely agree that parents who buy a "mature" game for their kids, and then find out it has "mature" content, have no right to be outraged. I meant to put that in, but I hit submit a second too early. ;)

        However, I disagree that "the parents are to blame" is all their is to this case. The "bad parents" didn't go and hide a sex game inside of GTA. Rockstar did. They hid content from the ESRB, something they had to know would cause problems. That is their culpa. They get blame for that.

        and the poli

        • I disagree. Rockstar didn't "hide a sex game" in GTA. It is inaccessible without modifying the game code. I own the PS2 version, and I can't get to this through game progress or a combination of button taps. I would need an AR Max.

          They decided not to use it, so they locked the code up and left it in place. Irresponsible? I suppose. But what need is there to report that to the ESRB? It has to be hacked to be used. It is not a part of gameplay, or even a true easter egg. Just an idea that went sour.
          • I disagree. Rockstar didn't "hide a sex game" in GTA. It is inaccessible without modifying the game code. I own the PS2 version, and I can't get to this through game progress or a combination of button taps. I would need an AR Max. They decided not to use it, so they locked the code up and left it in place.

            Ok... They put it in there, then locked it up, and didn't tell anyone. I.E., they deliberately obscured it's existance, to prevent it from being found. I think if you look up the word hid in a dictiona

            • Ok... They put it in there, then locked it up, and didn't tell anyone. I.E., they deliberately obscured it's existance, to prevent it from being found. I think if you look up the word hid in a dictionary, like this one, you will find that what they did does, in fact, constitute hiding. It's not a matter of agreeing. The word "hide", as currently defined by modern english, perfectly describes what they did.

              Meow, kitty.

              By that reasoning, putting a winter coat in the closet for the summer is hiding it

              • Meow, kitty.

                I've never heard that expression before... what does it mean?

                By that reasoning, putting a winter coat in the closet for the summer is hiding it.

                Um, only if you're putting it in the closet to keep it from being found.

                Hiding carries with it an implied malicious intent.

                No it doesn't. In fact, hiding in this case shows non-malicious intent -- they didn't want people to find it, becaus they didn't want people to play it. I don't think this is a case of malicious intent. If you know anot

          • It was completely irresponsible. They never intended to market GTA as an Adults Only game. Why was the content created in the first place? It had no business being in the code, ever.

            The result is going to cost them millions of dollars, and some juvenile programmer is going to lose his job.

            Why is the ESRB involved? Because the game developer couldn't be trusted to clean their code. It doesn't matter that it's not accessible on the PS version or that they never intended for it to be accessible in any versio
            • It was completely irresponsible. They never intended to market GTA as an Adults Only game. Why was the content created in the first place? It had no business being in the code, ever.

              The ESRB is meant to rate the *game*. If the code isn't used by the game, no harm. So you think the code shouldn't have been made? Fine, that's your opinion. My opinion on the subject is, I think it's funny. Part of the whole appeal to the series is how risque it is. It is a societal "no-no". And so the code was probably writt
              • What this boils down to is, you are placing the blame on the corporation for something a fan did.

                Yeah, that fan created the content, snuck into Rockstar's offices and placed it on the master so that it would get burnt onto millions of CDs and distributed worldwide.

                If the content hadn't been created, the fan could not have exploited it. It's not whether or not we find the content objectional, there was a strong probability that it would reflect badly on Rockstar and it serves no useful purpose. You don't
        • They hid content from the ESRB, something they had to know would cause problems. That is their culpa. They get blame for that.

          You mean if I bought an R rated movie and it turned out to be NC-17 I should get angry?

          But I'm getting more than I originally paid for!

          If I bought a Muture game and I didn't see one drop of blood or here at least an F word or two then I'd be rather irrate.

    • Re:Oh, please... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Nytewynd ( 829901 )
      But let's put the blame where it belongs: 1. Rockstar for putting something stupid like that in the game, and 2) self-seeking politicians who want to leave a "legacy" of "protecting the people from themselves". This isn't a "right/left" issue... this is a "freeedom/government regulation" issue.

      I think the entirety of this scandal is that Rockstar circumvented the ESRB rating system. For that, I do personally believe they are in the wrong. I am not going to get into a debate about what is good or bad
      • I'll bet you $100 dollars that Rockstar could have shipped the game, with the sex, and it would have sold, and it would have cleared the ESRB. They may have hidden it as a marketing technique, or it may have been a design decision, or any number of other reasons. God of War contains a sex mini-game and it passed ESRB just fine. Rockstar has not been 100% forthright on this issue, but I doubt that this was an attempt to bypass the ESRB - they could have gotten this on shelves perfectly legitimately.

      • Re:Oh, please... (Score:2, Informative)

        by p4ul13 ( 560810 )
        Here is what Rockstar did:
        ... 3) Publish hack after game is on shelves

        Rockstar did not publish any hacks or patches to open up the sex game. Game modders poking around in the code found it and released a patch for unlocking it.

      • Oh, and the ratings system, as with movies, is 100% voluntary. There is no legality involved here.
      • That's great, except for the fact that you are wrong. For whatever reason, they decided to disable that portion of the game. It got rated without that content. External parties went back in and enabled it. No big deal. The only way Rock Star did anything wrong is if you could prove that they left that content in there to be discovered and made it easily unlockable.

        And use correct terms. They did not have a 'secret hack'. They had a mini-game that was too stupid to include with the game so they dis
  • No matter what kind of fines and punishments R* gets for the scenes, all the publicity created by the scandal certainly will attract enough customers to more than cover the expenses. And my bet is that it was perfectly intentional...

    Just imagine - if the scenes were there, included legally, rated 18, achievable without a mod - who would ever give a shit? They are crap and insignificant, so they'd go as a short paragraph in every "in-depth review" and 15 mins of play of an average teen. Nobody would give it
    • But there shouldn't be a fine for it. This should be dictated by the industry and consumers, not the government. The only fines they should have to pay is people not buying their game if they don't like what's in it...
    • No matter what kind of fines and punishments R* gets for the scenes, all the publicity created by the scandal certainly will attract enough customers to more than cover the expenses.

      Let's put a stop to this thinking right now - I'm seeing it elsewhere too.

      Read this and learn how the real world works. [take2games.com]

      The important part: As a result of the re-rating of the game, Take-Two is lowering guidance for the third fiscal quarter ending July 31, 2005 to $160 to $170 million in net sales and a net loss per share
    • I wouldn't call it a "failed marketing scheme"... its more of a "damn successful marketing scheme."
  • ...video game scandals and political debates over video game controversy are boring is because nobody believes that they're dangerous enough to do anything about it on the censorship side. I remember the big PTA rally against GTA when they first found out that you gained life by getting a hooker into your car and you got bonus points for killing her afterwards. But do the consersatives really believe that these games are harmful? Not enough of them.

    It is true that there are those who have been either aband
  • to most people, however it is getting more coverage here than any scandal in recent history. This is not suprising as this is a news site for nerds. My mother who is by no means a nerd and I had a long discussion over the phone about it, basically we discussed most of the points made on slashdot (she brought up a few of the better ones herself). This boring scandal should show just how large the video game industry has become and how serious the non-gaming public is begining to take the video game industry.
  • Most Americans just don't seem to care about their rights (and responsibilities) being eroded. The GTA:SA "scandal" dealt with freedom of speech and parental responsibility, neither of which interest the populace.

    In the wild, the mother bird feeds the baby bird food that she's already eaten. Human parents should take similar responsibility for the information their children are ingesting. Or to remove a layer of abstraction, parents should simply play the games their children want to play to evaluate th

  • Even the troubled relationship between Jude 'mind-blowing in bed' Law and Sienna 'pictured without engagement ring' Miller is more interesting than this limp tale of adolescent sex fantasy, Christian self-righteousness and coding

    Before the mods decide to mod this post into oblivioin as a troll, flimbait or being off topic I would like to say that I am responding the the last line of the summary directly. Logically this cannot then be off topic and, a troll, flamebait or any other negative mod. That said

    • >What the editors and most people on slashdot fail to realize, likely because they cannot get over their own rejection of God, is that real Christians are not "self righteous" in fact the two are mutually exclusive.

      Very impressive use of the "no true Scotsman" fallicy. That should invalidate your post too much for me to bother responding, but sometimes I can't help myself.

      Non-belivers (or even liberal believers) can have problems with things that conservative Christians (or memebers of other reli

    • So responding directly to an article is trolling? Fortunately the alternative to rejecting the truth is an eternity in hell, so there is no need for me to get angry with you. Your choice is simple, Hell or the service of the God who created everything.
      • Let me respond in kind with a:

        "Whooooooga booga!@#" to you to, buddy.

        See, this is the "self righteous" attitude that the original poster was likely commenting on.

        Guess what... there are millions of people out there with views different from your own. Many of them are likely very decent and moral people (following in the "do unto others" mentality - even without Jesus!).

        And now, throwing caution in the wind of being modded down to troll or worse, I ask that you kindly stick your God, Hell, and whatever

      • So responding directly to an article is trolling?

        I probably would have gone for "off topic" due to the amount of time spent going off on a tangent. Your own perspective of what you and other Christians believe is on-topic, but why you believe it is off-topic, especially when it takes that long to say it.

        Fortunately the alternative to rejecting the truth is an eternity in hell, so there is no need for me to get angry with you. Your choice is simple, Hell or the service of the God who created every

        • You're telling me that without intentionally harming anyone else, I'm bad and will go to hell.

          Even if it were the case where you had never done any harm to another person, nor thought of harming another person, Yes that would still be the case. This is my point about self righteousness vs real christianity... Real christians realize that everybody is bad and going to hell. Yes that is right everybody. God then reached down and took some folks who were going to hell and for no reason in them and for His ow

        • especially when it takes that long to say it.

          Technically, he didn't "say" all that... he just pasted in things other people have said. The big post was a massive mash of copyright-infringing plagiarism.

          Paste a few clauses into google to see where they came from (although maybe the original author approved duplication for evangelical purposes, but it's still dishonest to omit attribution, especially in this context)
          • I don't know what you were reading, but the only things I quoted are: Hebrews 7 (which I did cite) and the post I was replying to.

            Now if you are accusing me of plagiarizing God by quoting and attributing scripture then I suppose it should be noted that He did in fact approve it for evangelical purposes.

            So what exactly did I not properly attribute?
            • So what exactly did I not properly attribute?

              Learn to quote, and learn a little HTML. If 95% of your post is a paste from some other page, that's a signal you should just link to that page, and not waste our time and space.

              Oh, and as for the criminal copyright infringement, that's because you used the New International translation, which was published in 1973. Only versions published more than 97 years ago are in public domain and legal to use here.
              • 1) I did quote
                2) I know a lot of html and have been using sgml probably longer than you have been alive (for more than 30 years)
                3) Wrong version and I followed proper style for it as directed by its publishers.

                Just because you don't like a message ... don;t just go and make up crap about someone saying it. Learn to be a bit more accurate.

                Oh and accusing someone falsely of a crime in a public forum ... At least in the US where I live and the servers are located is a crime its called slander.
      • Here's what I don't understand. If God created everything wouldn't that mean He is responsible for creating skepticism in people? Why would God (especially the infinitely loving and forgiving God that described by Christians) sentence one of his children to an eternity in Hell just for behaving the way he was created to behave? Note that I'm not rejecting the idea of God but rather the notion that I must believe with absolute blind faith in what some organized religion tells me.

        This is probably vastly
        • I would never ask anyone to believe with blind faith. There is a point where faith must take over, but let me describe it with a little astronomy.

          Christianity is a rational religion. From a particular world view and rule/ moral set everything starts to make sense. Are there somethings that deny rationality? Certainly there are since rationality is based on history, empiricism and logic, while if there is a super-natural (and I would propose that there is) the super part means it denies both logic and empir
  • Umm, Hillary is far from the "Religious Right". As a matter of fact, most of the people that have been complaining about the game are special interest groups on the left side of politics claiming, "won't somebody think of the children?!?"
  • Video Game Scandals Are Boring... yet, Slashdot's been reporting the Hot Coffee case, what, five times ?
  • Hillary Clinton or another "pious whining superstar of the American Religious Right"?

    Since when was Hillary Dubya's right-hand man? (And yes, I do mean man)

  • GameSpot has a news item [gamespot.com] that indicates the ESRB has officially slapped the AO rating on GTA San Andreas. Looks like a lot of retails are starting to pull it.

  • Wrong reason for no scandal (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sigma 7 ( 266129 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @01:40PM (#13126343)
    the videogames industry just can't do scandal. Let's face it, a few laughable scenes of polygonal coupling does not a Watergate make.


    This is not correct - the real reason behind the lack of scandal is because there is no scandal.

    I've told one of my parents - one who does critical views of politics (which sometimes differ from mine) about this. He simply laughed, because there isn't much difference between the Mature (M:17+) and Adults Only (AO:18+) ratings. The only way it could be a scandel is if the game was rated either as Teen (T:13+), Everyone (E:any age) or any other similar rating.

    I said this before, and I'll say it again: 13-17 is considered a large gap, while 17-18 is considered a trivial.

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close