R* about to be in deep **** again?

[sikkinixx]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071101-rockstar-may-end-up-with-big-headache-over-unlocked-ao-content-in-manhunt-2.html

there are lots of stories on it but I was reading the ARS one at the time.

So those idiots just glued some mickey mouse solution on the game. You figure they would have learned from the Hot Coffee "scandal" to be a little more careful.

I think it is stupid that they had to change the game in the first place, and even stupid-er that they will get blamed for hackers messing with their game but still, come on you idiots! You KNOW people are gonna mess with your stuff!

[2nyRiggz]

I rather like the game but the blurred *bleep* is stupid....i can barely see whats going on..hate it.

I got it for the PSP and its cool...the story is better than MH1.



Bless

[zap2]

Forget that...ERSB approved it!

R* shouldn't get in trouble


But they still will!

[Oneness]

Forget that...ERSB approved it!

R* shouldn't get in trouble


But they still will!


No, R* should get in trouble. It sounds like the ERSB was very clear on the subject of hidden content after the Hot Coffee fiasco and the fact that R* was involved in that case should only escalate the fine.

[spyker3292]

No, R* should get in trouble. It sounds like the ERSB was very clear on the subject of hidden content after the Hot Coffee fiasco and the fact that R* was involved in that case should only escalate the fine.

Ya but this is *just* violence soo maybe it isn't as bad... well... maybe

[Dagless]

Should be interesting to see how this pans out. Silly Rockstar, learn your lesson!

[michaelltd]

Aren't they just doing all the things they do to get people talking about their games and create controversy?

Controversy sells.

[pcypert]

I think it's intentional on R* part. I applaud them despite the game and everything...they know how to get attention, market, etc. Maybe they do it in odd ways or ways I personally wouldn't...but they have success from it for now at least. They're games better keep being strong though because the second they drop in quality or if GTA IV sucks it'll come back and bite them so hard...

Paul

[GFLPraxis]

R* never learns.

I truly dislike them. They purposely make things overly violent/sexual just for the purpose of stirring up controversy, and gamers get the bad rap for it (and get worked up into ending up defending Rockstar from people like Jack Thompson).

[Dagless]

A shame to think these guys created Lemmings too.

[gkarris]

R* never learns.

I truly dislike them. They purposely make things overly violent/sexual just for the purpose of stirring up controversy...

and sales...

[MacRumorUser]

They purposely make things overly violent/sexual just for the purpose of stirring up controversy, and gamers get the bad rap for it (and get worked up into ending up defending Rockstar from people like Jack Thompson).

Exactly. That's why I have no sympathy for them and didn't shed a tear for manhunt 2's bannings.

[Markleshark]

See, the way I look at it... If someone can't just stumble across it (You have to hack the game, FFS) then I don't see the problem. The pr0n channels on Sky have a PIN code, any child could know that pin code and end up watching pr0n. A lot more easily than they could hack the game, anyway.

However... Rockstar should have learned their lesson, which is of course the main point, so no sympathy from me.

Edit:

It would seem the ESRB agree with me.


"Once numerous changes to the game's code have been made and other unauthorized software programs have been downloaded to the hardware device which circumvent security controls that prevent unauthorized games from being played on that hardware, a player can view unobscured versions of certain violent acts in the game," Vance said. "Contrary to some reports, however, we do not believe these modifications fully restore the product to the version that originally received an AO rating, nor is this a matter of unlocking content."


You may or may not like Rockstar, but I'm glad the ESRB showed a little common sense.

[Virgil-TB2]

I think it's intentional on R* part. I applaud them despite the game and everything...they know how to get attention, market, etc. Maybe they do it in odd ways or ways I personally wouldn't...but they have success from it for now at least. They're games better keep being strong though because the second they drop in quality or if GTA IV sucks it'll come back and bite them so hard.My fondest wish is for all the coders and "executives" at R* to meet with the same painful, degrading fates that most of their "characters" do in the software they push. Or perhaps have one of their family members violently assaulted by one of those comical insane killers that they idolize.

Stands to reason that if it's "great fun" in the game, that the real thing would be even more enjoyable for them. ;)

If you find this post offensive, my apologies but you see it's not really my fault.

My feelings have been warped and my sensitivity to violence has been degraded by exposure to all the movies and games where violent assaults, rapes, murders etc. are marketed to me as "fun times." :D

[sikkinixx]

My fondest wish is for all the coders and "executives" at R* to meet with the same painful, degrading fates that most of their "characters" do in the software they push. Or perhaps have one of their family members violently assaulted by one of those comical insane killers that they idolize.

Stands to reason that if it's "great fun" in the game, that the real thing would be even more enjoyable for them. ;)

If you find this post offensive, my apologies but you see it's not really my fault.

My feelings have been warped and my sensitivity to violence has been degraded by exposure to all the movies and games where violent assaults, rapes, murders etc. are marketed to me as "fun times." :D

I hope you say the same thing about all violent movies, books and music too, otherwise you're full of it.

[Shotgun OS]

who cares? I STILL don't see what the big fuss is about. Rockstar made the game that it made the M ratings, but left the extra content in it (locked away). If you want the extra content, you can hack it. Most people who hack the games are old enough to buy AO games anyway. I still think they should have been able to release it as it was without thew rating change.

[Virgil-TB2]

I hope you say the same thing about all violent movies, books and music too, otherwise you're full of it.Well I am not a hypocrite so I do.

Just so you know though I am not against all violence in movies and games or anything like that. There is a super huge difference (IMO) between the presence of violence and the glorification of violence.

My big problem with the kind of stuff R* makes is that they relish the violence to the point that they are almost worshipping it. They turn retarded insane jerks into heroes and propagate an attitude of acceptance towards their actions. Thousands of teenage boys are playing their games everyday and learning how to be complete A-holes in life; That psycho-killers are cool and hookers deserve to be killed just for existing.

There are no "middle of the road" characters in their games, let alone any actual nice people. Their world is uniformly populated by A-holes, killers, thieves etc. For instance if you could play Grand Theft Auto without stealing cars and killing hookers I might play it, and I wouldn't be concerned. The fact that they engineer the game so that one simply *can't* be a nice guy in it is what is so evil, and it's not even realistic. I'm actually a big fan of realism in games and movies.

The real world contains all kinds of complicated characters, not just jerks.

[psychofreak]

Thousands of teenage boys are playing their games everyday and learning how to be complete A-holes in life; That psycho-killers are cool and hookers deserve to be killed just for existing.


This is EXACTLY what I think about real life when I play the game :rolleyes:

[zap2]

Well I am not a hypocrite so I do.

Well I'll be waiting for you to get on all those other games which have sex, drug,murder and theft in them! Get to it, I want to see some post on MR about it!

The fact that they engineer the game so that one simply *can't* be a nice guy in it is what is so evil, and it's not even realistic.
The game is called Grand Theft Auto, and you'd like to be able not to steal cars? Thats like me wanting to play Super Mario Brother, but not jump on shells! Or play LoZ games, and not use a sword. Here an idea, don't buy the game(which I don't think you plan to) and stay out of others gaming habits!

Thousands of teenage boys are playing their games everyday and learning how to be complete A-holes in life; That psycho-killers are cool and hookers deserve to be killed just for existing.
.
No, there are not. There is NO proof that violent game negatively effect sound minded people(same thing TV, movies etc), as for people who were already unstable, then you can't blame games...or TV, or Movies. Not to mention parents need to make sure they are ok with the games their kids are playing

[Dagless]

To play devils advocate, I agree with Virgil. There were kids at my school who were completely fine, started playing GTA3 and started using the games terminology and talking about re-enacting scenes.

Course not everyone is like that. I was playing Mortal Kombat when I was 10 and it never affected me, infact it probably did the opposite since I've got some fear of meat and insides and such. :D

However if a violent game causes at least one death or accident because of idiots re-enacting or getting inspired (which does happen in all media) then it's going beyond fun and games.

That said I don't mind playing GTA. Sure it's not Shigsy styled genius or as well designed as Valves games. But they're a good distraction, just never on top of the playlist for me.

[Oneness]

[/QUOTE]No, there are not. There is NO proof that violent game negatively effect sound minded people(same thing TV, movies etc), as for people who were already unstable, then you can't blame games...or TV, or Movies. Not to mention parents need to make sure they are ok with the games their kids are playing[/QUOTE]

Two problems I have with this argument. First, once you divide people into two groups - stable and unstable - you have a ready made excuse when someone goes off and imitates a game - 'Well that person was just unstable. It's not the games fault'. Second, if you say that there is no proof that violent influences do not negatively effect children (or adults or that matter) then you have to say that neither do loving influences positively effect children. In that case you would have to say that once children are born they will grow up to be who they will be irregardless of the environment they are in which would negate decades of nature vs nuture studies.
Now to say its not the game's fault or the game's developers fault, but the fault lies with the parents does have a lot of truth to it, but that argument is akin to 'Guns don't kill people, people do' and 'Cigarette's don't kill people, it's the person decision to smoke that kills them.'
I think there is a balance somewhere in this whole violent game issue. We just have to keep dialogueing (sp?) and attempt to find it.

[pcypert]

I'm on the fence. If a game is compelling in itself with good puzzles and gameplay then I don't mind the violence. Some of the later GTA games have had loads of things on offer gameplay wise. If you can't seperate reality from games maybe you shouldn't be gaming. I mean we stomp on loads of mushrooms and turtles...if you're a turtle maybe you don't see it as innocent fun :D . But they're both 1's and 0's you know? So I'm stomping a mushroom here or killing a person here....I'm killing a pimp here and a terrorist in Rainbow 6.

Heck in Rainbow 6 one could actually get turned on to the idea and actually sign up and get paid to do that sort of thing!

Paul

[GFLPraxis]

I agree with Vergil mostly, though his wording of it is poor.

His point about the difference in the glorification of violence is very valid. There's violence for the intents of story; there's violence for the sake of realism; and even for the sake of immersion; and sometimes there's just senseless violence just for the sake of violence.

The whole intent of a Manhunt game is to cause pain for the sake of causing pain. And I really have no respect for a developer like Rockstar that tries to cause controversy by trying to be as graphic, violent, and bloody as possible just because they get free PR off of it.

And while it may not have any lasting mental effects on an adult, anyone who says it won't remain in a child's mind is kidding themselves. I played a lot of Sonic when I was little. I drew my own levels, I imagined myself as Sonic, I even tried to copy the art style of the Sonic comics.

If I played Grand Theft Auto? I would be imagining myself as a serial killer when I was a child.

Desensitization is a very real thing, but the media (and Jack Thompson) have turned it into such a buzzword that people just get all defensive when they hear it. JT would have you believe that picking up a controller automatically turns you into a serial killer.

Now to say its not the game's fault or the game's developers fault, but the fault lies with the parents does have a lot of truth to it,

Let me weigh in here that as little respect as I have for R* because of their capitalizing on glorifying violence, I completely believe that in the argument relating to children, the responsibility lies in the parents. Stores aren't even supposed to sell those games to minors. I have SEEN parents buy M rated games for 10 and 12 year olds. Parents treat video games as things they can buy to keep the kids busy, and do no research and don't even check the rating.

The problem lies with irresponsible parents who take no care to what their kids do. Not with the developers.

[2nyRiggz]

I see some of you guys talk about learning their lesson....what lesson would that be....the lesson of making a overly violent game to stir up things and have it sell very well?

Well If its like that then the lesson is learnt....this is what they want actually. They want the media/everyone to look at them.

Same stunt different day and yet we constantly fall for it....no lesson learnt just money being made.



Bless

[Dagless]

Manhunt 2 is selling very well?

[2nyRiggz]

Who knows the game has only been out a week....we'll have to wait and see.




Bless

[zero2dash]

You know, I'm getting to the point where I can't stand this company either. Seems like now all they're out to do is try and skate the 'thin line' they're walking on as tightly as possible, as well as rattle good 'ol Jack Thompson's cage and send him on another crusade every chance they get.

Truthfully though, I'm really not surprised. What's easier and cheaper...re-coding a game to bypass a certain portion (ie Hot Coffee) but leaving in the existing Hot Coffee code, or re-writing a game in its entirety with completely new code that has no Hot Coffee. Yep...re-coding and leaving the unmentionables in. I'm not surprised they did this and I'm sure that people will find the same code on the other releases.

Paging Jack Thompson...paging Jack Thompson...:rolleyes:

[atszyman]

I have zero sympathy for R* or those who demonize them. I don't like the whole violence for violence's sake crap that goes on in video games and movies these days, but I'm not going to say that the movies and games can't be made (should they be made is another question, but I'm not going to stomp on anyone's freedom of speech just because I disagree with what they are saying).

However you won't see me defend the creators when they are slapped with an A.O. or NC-17 rating, or when they are chastised or punished for not removing bits that were supposed to be removed. You made that movie/game, now live with the consequences. Sure it's easier to bypass the unused code than to remove it completely, but if you're going to leave it there you should know that someone will figure out how to access it (Hot Coffee should have already proven this to R*).

As for parents, there is a bit of a gap right now with parents who grew up before the internet and video games were as big as they are now. Unfortunately this also makes them not-as-aware of all of what is going on in games or what can happen on the internet, and they don't really care to find out. It's something their kids do, and their friends have these games so how bad could they be? We're in a gap right now where kids can pull the wool over their parents' eyes because the parents aren't aware of the content in games and the net.

Over the next 5-10 years this will change but they will introduce something new that parents won't be able to control/or have knowledge of and once again it will be the technology's fault rather than the inattentive parents. I'd look to sites like MySpace and Facebook (although they've already had troubles associated wit them), and cell phones for the next bit of damnable technology to become the whipping post while people campaigning against video games will get about as much attention as movie protests do now. Time moves on and the method for delivery of objectionable materials change. There will always be objectionable material out there, kids will seek it and they will usually succeed in finding it on the technology that their parents have the least familiarity with.

[GFLPraxis]

You know, I'm getting to the point where I can't stand this company either.

See, I'm not advocating a ban or anything, but...I have no respect for a company that deliberately tries to draw negative attention to the gaming industry just to increase thier publicity.

I also find it amusing that if you point out the possibility of kids playing the game, Rockstar will insist that it's a game for adults only, but they will vigorously fight against an AO rating. Just let it get the AO rating; people who want it will buy it. Oh wait, then you won't get as much publicity as GameStop won't carry it :rolleyes:

[zero2dash]

See, I'm not advocating a ban or anything, but...I have no respect for a company that deliberately tries to draw negative attention to the gaming industry just to increase thier publicity.

They're doing a great job of it and the industry certainly doesn't need it because of their antics. I agree wholeheartedly.

I also find it amusing that if you point out the possibility of kids playing the game, Rockstar will insist that it's a game for adults only, but they will vigorously fight against an AO rating. Just let it get the AO rating; people who want it will buy it. Oh wait, then you won't get as much publicity as GameStop won't carry it :rolleyes:

Absolutely, again - the BS that they pull and come up with...I'm just tired of it. It's like "we're going to push the envelope and throw as much questionable material in the game that we can, but as soon as you catch us on it, we're going to act like we're innocent victims and just acting on the true desires of the gaming public". And then Jack Thompson comes out of his hole and starts another tirade of insults and threats and more mock data about how game violence correlates with real life violence and the dog-and-pony show starts up again between these two.

Seriously...I wish Thompson would just finally have enough and decide to go on a kamikaze mission with a bunch of TNT strapped to his chest and run straight into the lobby of Rockstar HQ and take himself + Rockstar out. I'm not advocating violence in itself but seriously I'm sick of hearing about either of the two. Go away already. Gaming doesn't need your BS.

As much as I (and many others) rag on EA for some of the crap they do, at least they do still let developers make their games after they buy them out (Burnout, Time Splitters) and really, stuff like this (Rockstar/Take Two vs Jack Thompson) makes me somewhat appreciate EA for not going that far off the deep end themselves.

[sikkinixx]

I also find it amusing that if you point out the possibility of kids playing the game, Rockstar will insist that it's a game for adults only, but they will vigorously fight against an AO rating. Just let it get the AO rating; people who want it will buy it. Oh wait, then you won't get as much publicity as GameStop won't carry it :rolleyes:

But Sony and Nintendo won't put out AO games, this making the rating useless except for online PC games.

[zero2dash]

But Sony and Nintendo won't put out AO games, this making the rating useless except for online PC games.

...Microsoft either. :o

None of 'the big three' (console makers) will allow AO titles.

Truthfully I think the only reason they won't is, well...Nintendo won't, that's a given. They want to shed the "kiddie" image and I don't really think they HAVE a "kiddie" image per se, but Nintendo's out of the question. Microsoft and Sony - I don't think they'd allow an AO just because they don't want to be the first one to do it. If there was another console that did it first, then I think they'd be more willing, but I don't think they want to be that "ground breaker" in that regard.

I still don't see what the big fuss is about. I know 3rd parties generally perceive AO as alienating their prospective buyers, but if a game had an AO rating for a justified reason (other than being just blatantly subjective...in other words - if the content was justified and had a reason to be there) it wouldn't keep me from buying the game, personally, just because it had the AO rating.

[michaelltd]

Aren't the M rating and AO rating a measly 1 year difference (17 and up versus 18 and up)?

[GFLPraxis]

Aren't the M rating and AO rating a measly 1 year difference (17 and up versus 18 and up)?

Yes, but most stores don't stock AO.
It's similar to the difference between R and NC-17.