GTA:SA maybe to get retroactive AO rating?

[Krylo]

Actually, on the issue of the temp ban... I was informed he's been both warned AND banned before (for some reason only the warning was listed where we're SUPPOSED to keep track of that stuff, damn slackers), so it's not really temporary anymore.

I almost forgot to mention that.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Originally Posted by krylo

Actually, on the issue of the temp ban... I was informed he's been both warned AND banned before (for some reason only the warning was listed where we're SUPPOSED to keep track of that stuff, damn slackers), so it's not really temporary anymore.

I almost forgot to mention that.

So psr's got a perma ban now?

Krylo Says: Yes. I edited this in order to answer without further clogging the thread.

He really was quite a hipocrite search nintendo and there he is spouting his fanboyism.
but back on subject this really is a minor thing hilary gets her publicity, the soccer moms think theve won, and rockstar counts the large amount of profits even if they where fined and of course the 14 year old gamers like myself go back to being turned into the future killing machines so everyone wins!

[shiney]

After a bit of thought on the subject, I think the only reason they want it to be AO is because Hillary decided she wanted publicity. I know it seems rather a short view without much content, but honestly. People have been after the GTA games for ages. They will stop at nothing. So it's an obvious ticket into the limelight, and if she's really considering running in '08 (I hope not) then she wants to solidify her position with the super "family" idiots that have it in their heads that their stringent view on morals is how the country should be run.

I don't think this has anything to do with the stuff being discussed at all, for her at least. For her, it's political. For the lobbyists/whatever then krylo's point is the main theme. Because he's quite right.

[Magus]

Originally Posted by Mirai Gen

Anybody above the ages of 30 right now can be defaulted to 'not getting it'. I shall narrate a real situation with my own mother.

"I had just seen a game commercial..it's one of those shooter war games."
"Oh, it's probably Battlefield Vientam. It's a really popular, really fun game."
"Yeah, but it's so...gory."
"No, it's not, it's all virtual. I can handle it."
"Well I'd like you not to buy those kinds of games."
"...I'm sorry, what?"
"Well I believe that it's all programming...it's all a conspiracy to train gamers into becoming soldiers, and treating war like a virtual reality."
"...you're kidding, right?"
"No, and I would not want you to support these games, or play them either."

Dialogue based on true events, no names have been changed.

Wow, your mother played Metal Gear Solid 2 and actually understood the ending?

I must point out that GTA being attacked by both liberals AND conservatives makes it rather unique.

EDIT: Oh, and I assume "forced recall" means from retailers and such. I almost wouldn't mind if it was a forced consumer recall if it involved special forces commandos raiding my house to sieze my copy.

[Mirai Gen]

Originally Posted by krylo

Actually, on the issue of the temp ban... I was informed he's been both warned AND banned before (for some reason only the warning was listed where we're SUPPOSED to keep track of that stuff, damn slackers), so it's not really temporary anymore.

Thank you thank you thank you thank you!

Originally Posted by shiney

After a bit of thought on the subject, I think the only reason they want it to be AO is because Hillary decided she wanted publicity. I know it seems rather a short view without much content, but honestly. People have been after the GTA games for ages. They will stop at nothing. So it's an obvious ticket into the limelight, and if she's really considering running in '08 (I hope not) then she wants to solidify her position with the super "family" idiots that have it in their heads that their stringent view on morals is how the country should be run.

It's what it seemed like to me. My own parents, in a conversation I had with them when I brought this up, seemed to protest "Hilary does have a daughter, who used to be a teenager." Meanwhile forgetting the issue is, SHE is an advocate for the AO rating, not her daughter. Sure, life experiences and raising a child can give you a perspective, but I doubt Hilary's knowledge of parenting has nearly anything to do with Grand Theift Auto's sex minigame.

Hell, nor does any other soccor mom. If we're really protecting our children, why are we protesting pornography in it's cheesiest, most laughable form instead of the fully explorable, mass homicidal game?

[elephant_hunter]

Originally Posted by krylo

No, but they did say you'd be fucking hookers and killing them.

Is a pair of tits really all that much worse?

Actually, is a pair of tits even as bad? Even close? Seriously. This country is so backward in their ratings schemes that it makes me sick. "Horrible deplorable violence is ok just so long as no one says any naughty words!" ...or gets laid.

Think about that.

Think about the message THAT ideaology sends.

The GTA games have always had horrible deplorable violence. They've always had sex in the form of hookers and rocking cars. They've always had shooting cops and stealing cars and randomly slaughtering pedestrians for no reason other than to let the dark side of ourselves have a little fun.

Yet these parents are just fine and dandy with fucking and killing hookers, shooting cops, killing innocent people... but they have a problem with sex that actually shows tits?

I'd much rather my 16 year old came home telling me he just screwed his girlfriend than have the cops call me and tell me that he shot sixteen people whilst giggling.

Hell, I'd rather my 2 year old fucked some girl at preschool than hear that he killed someone. Yes, a 2 year old having sex is horrible, but not as horrible as ANYONE committing murder.

If we're so concerned about imitatible acts, why are we concerned about sex but NOT violence? As they obviously aren't concerned about violence if they already bought this game.

That's what I was bitching at the parents for. They're protecting their kids from ENTIRELY the wrong thing. They're letting them kill fake people for fun but not have fake sex for fun.

And no where did they mention a fine. No one mentioned a fine. Where do you get the idea that rockstar will be fined and even if they are there were 5 million copies sold on JUST the PS2 version of this game. Do you have ANY idea what the profit margin on this looks like? They could fine them 10 million dollars and still not touch JUST the PS2 profits, and any fine they have certainly won't be that big.

The fine, if there is one, will be nothing. The AO rating is nothing: They've already sold well over 5 million and probably over 10 million copies amongst all the platforms. People already know about the game. Taking it out of Walmart isn't going to hurt the sales much. People can still order it online easily enough.

Again, the whole thing is silly. It's not damaging Rockstar in the least, and it's not even alienating their target audience. Their target audience was always over 18.

It is my opinion, Rockstar should have removed the content in their game for ESRB ratings to be accurate. This is a crush to both ESRB and Rockstar. I doubt that you realize the purpose of ESRB and favors it has done for you.

The ESRB was established to prevent the government from making permanant legislation that would limit what games could and could not be published. Essentially a way of saying that the gaming community was mature enough to "handle it's own" if you will. This recent development with RS San Andreas is a total embarrassment to what we have established so far.

Popular culture has always preferred entertainment geared toward killing moreso than sex. I agree that killing is worse than nudity or sexual abuse, but would you risk our right to game on a technicality like that? And don't you think it would be kinda odd watching a porno flick with your son? Not exactly the "family" environment others expect. You can get sued and put in jail for that kind of behavior.

Now, on the subject of this scene being deeply embedded into the game's innards. I don't think the public gives a flying (anything?). Point is that they now realize that this scene could be the future of games. Maybe they're wrong, but the evidence sides with them. What was RS thinking when they made that? Was it possible that it was going to be part of the storyline? All they see is an man doing plainly doing it with another gal in a suite.

Originally Posted by krylo

PSR, no more using the word fanboy, the words 'fan' and 'boy' in tandem, or any other varient of fanboy. It's baseless, and incredibly hypocritical considering your activity in ANY thread ever mentioning Nintendo. And, moreover, it's starting to annoy me, considering you just called Meister, Rhyos, Mirai, and a lot of other people who have been handling this arguement far better than you have been fanboys.

Even more hypocritical when I draw upon your past experiences with anything by R*, or sharing similiar adult themes.

In short, your fanboyish hatred of everything R* doesn't change the fact that any punishment they get will be useless, and your calling everyone else fanboys two or three times in this thread has irritated me enough to pull rules.

You're the only person who's resorted to calling names, and I'm going to start considering that one flaming, because in the end, it's a deliberate insult, and an insult is a flame.

You can consider this, in and of itself, a proper warning, by the way. Your tone was arrogant as well as insulting, and this is FAR from the first time you've acted this way in the video games section, and it isn't even the first time in this thread.


Edit: You've already been warned in the past. See you in two weeks.

I don't know you, krylo. I can't say that I've seen anything to support your action. This isn't an attack against you personally, but my opinion on what is going down here in the forums. I find it cruel that you would push around the PSR Director because of his alternative opinion.

The words "fan" and "boy" can hardly be considered insulting. Unless you think Rockstar is not deserving of your fanship, think of it as an honorable position. Consider when a conservative calls a liberal "liberal". They might act like it's insulting, but a real liberal would take it for face value. An acknowledgement of their position.

Regardless of whether you felt insulted, you bothered to call him a fanboy back. On top of that you called him arrogant. He may or may not be, but making the last insult is never a mature decision. This leads me to believe that you were acting in anger and not seriously looking at what he had to say.

... easily a case of moderator abuse. I'll be talking to the admin.

[Krylo]

... easily a case of moderator abuse. I'll be talking to the admin.

The admin is the one that informed me he had been banned before and it should be upped to permanent banning due to past experiences with him and his over all attitude, so have fun with that.

Also, for one of your first posts questioning the moderators in public where you're likely to just get flack from other people is probably not a good plan. Especially after said moderator was thanked for doing what he did shortly after by two other posters, and you have no idea about said moderator's personality.

I'm actually one of the most patient and forgiving of us all. Meister might be a bit more lenient, but it's close.

Not to mention that it's against the rules, and less patient moderators have been known to warn and/or ban over it.

The words "fan" and "boy" can hardly be considered insulting. Unless you think Rockstar is not deserving of your fanship, think of it as an honorable position.

Firstly, whether or not I consider it insulting doesn't change the fact that it was meant as an insult.

Secondly, I've never said anything resembling being a fan boy to rockstar. I never even directly disagreed with PSR. My point of arguement is that this whole ordeal will glean nothing for anyone. I never actually said "Yay Rockstar." Or even anything close.

Thirdly, go read some threads wherein Nintendo is mentioned and watch PSR's behavior. That's what a fanboy is. They're immature, they're unreasonable, and, quite frankly, they're idiots. That's the definition and connotation he was going for.

Oh, and when someone has crossed the line enough to get a warning or a ban, yes we're allowed to tell them EXACTLY why they're getting in trouble and EXACTLY why it's worth x punishment. In this case PSR's was worth it because he IS arrogant, because he IS a hypocrite, AND because he WAS flaming.

It is my opinion, Rockstar should have removed the content in their game for ESRB ratings to be accurate.

They did. They removed a line of code making it inaccessable.

I doubt you realize how much work it would have taken to remove it in a more complete manner.

Now, on the subject of this scene being deeply embedded into the game's innards. I don't think the public gives a flying (anything?). Point is that they now realize that this scene could be the future of games. Maybe they're wrong, but the evidence sides with them.

Good. Maybe the public will stop buying MA games for children if they start to realize they aren't MADE for children.

That's the real reason this means nothing.

MA to AO is one year difference. MA is 17+ AO is 18+.

OMGS! ROCKSTAR IS GOING TO LOSE SALES OVER A ONE YEAR DIFFERENCE IN WHO'S SUPPOSED TO BUY IT!

No. Wait. The game is already famous enough that impulse buys (which is all Walmart stocking it is good for in the age of internet ordering) isn't making up any kind of appreciable profit margin. This is a game people buy because they heard about it and want it. Make it AO and the same people are going to get it, they're just going to get it off the internet.

Maybe, MAYBE they'll lose some sales because parents will actually realize that an AO game that Walmart doesn't stock isn't something their kids should have, but then they couldn't figure out an MA rated game that has gotten all kinds of publicity for being so morally repungent isn't, so there's little to no chance of that.

No. This isn't going to do anything to them even if it happens. Rockstar isn't complaining about it, and is being very adult about the whole thing. The ESRB isn't going to punish them in any appreciable way. It never even threatened to. At worst they'll do a forced recall, mark it all AO and then send it back to the retailers that'll still sell it.


And, lastly, don't quote entire posts to respond to parts. No one wants to scroll through all that.

[elephant_hunter]

The admin is the one that informed me he had been banned before and it should be upped to permanent banning due to past experiences with him...

Maybe the administrator would change his mind. He sounds like a very organized guy who knows his stuff. I think he'd listen to my opinion.

... questioning the moderators in public ... it's against the rules, and less patient moderators have been known to warn and/or ban over it.

I've read the rules entirely, posted a legitimate complaint and presented it in a very clear, acceptable format. The rules specifically state that I can do so. Of course, there would be nothing I could do to stop you from banning me and editing/deleting whatever I put here. Obviously you could twist the rules and make me out as especially combative and unruly. You don't need to reaffirm that you have an upper hand.

Firstly, whether or not I consider it insulting doesn't change the fact that it was meant as an insult.

Sometimes people misinterpret other's posts. Especially when they have bias against the post they are reading. I see it happen all the time. I even admit that I make a mistake myself. IMO, being a third party, he didn't make any insults, directly or indirectly.

Secondly, I've never said anything resembling being a fan boy to rockstar. I never even directly disagreed with PSR. My point of arguement is that this whole ordeal will glean nothing for anyone. I never actually said "Yay Rockstar." Or even anything close.

To my knowledge you haven't made any arguements in this topic against Rockstar Games, but you do make known awfully strong feelings when anybody questions them. Let me ask you this. Have you ever played violent video games? If you have and you enjoyed them, you probably also have sympathy for Rockstar.

Thirdly, go read some threads wherein Nintendo is mentioned and watch PSR's behavior. That's what a fanboy is. They're immature, they're unreasonable, and, quite frankly, they're idiots. That's the definition and connotation he was going for.

I don't believe that he thinks of people who defend Rockstar in the same manner. But if that's all true, why did you call him one back? Not to make a personal attack... but that was unnecessary, and certainly against the rules.

Oh, and when someone has crossed the line enough to get a warning or a ban, yes we're allowed to tell them EXACTLY why they're getting in trouble and EXACTLY why it's worth x punishment. In this case PSR's was worth it because he IS arrogant, because he IS a hypocrite, AND because he WAS flaming.

He might be arrogant and a hypocrite, but those aren't in the rules anyplace. I don't think he's either. As for the supposed flaming... It's not recognizable as a flame. That's kind of the whole point of my analysis. I think there was a lot of buildup against PSR Director because he held different opinions than many other people.

I doubt you realize how much work it would have taken to remove it in a more complete manner.

That'd be irrelevant. How did it get there in the first place? Why? Those are the questions parents would be asking. They don't care how long it would take the company to remove it. If mainly children are buying it, then they are the market. I know maybe one or two adults who played GTA on a regular basis. Almost every kid I know has beat and/or played the game.

And, lastly, don't quote entire posts to respond to parts. No one wants to scroll through all that.

I hope you can scroll through this better

[Staizer]

Quote:
... questioning the moderators in public ... it's against the rules, and less patient moderators have been known to warn and/or ban over it.

I've read the rules entirely, posted a legitimate complaint and presented it in a very clear, acceptable format. The rules specifically state that I can do so. Of course, there would be nothing I could do to stop you from banning me and editing/deleting whatever I put here. Obviously you could twist the rules and make me out as especially combative and unruly. You don't need to reaffirm that you have an upper hand.

Maybe the past few posts would be a good reason why you don't argue with a mod in public? Taking up posting space with off topic stuff isn't too happy-making for our beloved leaders.

Have you ever played violent video games? If you have and you enjoyed them, you probably also have sympathy for Rockstar.

Wow, the logic of this baffles me. I have played violent video games, I have played GTA 1 through Vice City (not finished any of them) personally they disgust me. That much violence for no other reason than to be violent is a waste of good programming space. To say that because I have played violent video games means that I have sympathy for R* is ludicris! If I have sympathy for anything it is all video games in general because of what this might mean about rating systems.

He might be arrogant and a hypocrite, but those aren't in the rules anyplace. I don't think he's either. As for the supposed flaming... It's not recognizable as a flame. That's kind of the whole point of my analysis. I think there was a lot of buildup against PSR Director because he held different opinions than many other people.

Alright, someone has a different opinion from someone else. That is definately a good reason to ban them. . . This board is FILLED with people who disagree with each other. The problem with being arrogant and hypocritical is that such people don't disagree nicely, they don't abide by the social rules that have been laid down by the mods, and hell by society as a whole. Also, they tend to get emotional and insult people when things don't go their way. The mods have stated, in the rules that you have read, that people should act nicely towards other people, and PSR hasn't, apparently on several occasions or he wouldn't have gotten the perma-ban.

That'd be irrelevant. How did it get there in the first place? Why? Those are the questions parents would be asking. They don't care how long it would take the company to remove it. If mainly children are buying it, then they are the market. I know maybe one or two adults who played GTA on a regular basis. Almost every kid I know has beat and/or played the game.

I almost fell over laughing when I read that. Really . . . children are NOT buying this game . . . that's kinda the point. PARENTS are buying this game, kids can't buy the game. If they are irresponsible enough to buy MA games for their kids what do they care if an extra year gets put on the game?

Also your statement that more kids are playing the game than adults is plain insane. I don't know any kids that play it, and quite a few adults that do. So obviously children don't play the game at all . . .

[Jagos]

Elephant Hunter:
Sometimes people misinterpret other's posts. Especially when they have bias against the post they are reading. I see it happen all the time. I even admit that I make a mistake myself. IMO, being a third party, he didn't make any insults, directly or indirectly.

PSRDirector:
Rock Stare is to blame for this, they put it in the game to start with, and they are supposed to show all things that would cause stuff like this, codes and otherwise that is easily accessible (and by easy means its in the game period.) . They didn't. They are going to be punished even if fanboys are going to whine about it.

This was posted right after my own. I am currently under the impression that my own view was dismissed along with me being called a fanboy. As I've said before because I've tried writing code before, it's a pain in the petulla. You work long and somethings you forget about. But because I feel that there's really no reason for an AO rating, does that really give a reason to ignore what I've said? No, I didn't like all the GTA games but I did have fun with the story of antiheroes. I have nothing personal against PSR. But I don't see why he had to go and indirectly call me a fanboy. Judging from what others have said, I'm not the only one that has had this occur to them. I usually don't comment on stuff like this but this seems to be a cause and effect kinda deal. It was brought up here so I'll comment on it. Afterwards, it's considered dropped as far as I'm concerned. Also, I am a third party as well. No one makes statements like that without a reason. That was an indirect flame IMO so I still side with Krylo on his ban especially after talking to other mods about it.

To my knowledge you haven't made any arguements in this topic against Rockstar Games, but you do make known awfully strong feelings when anybody questions them. Let me ask you this. Have you ever played violent video games? If you have and you enjoyed them, you probably also have sympathy for Rockstar.

I believe this thread will answer your question. But no need for personal inquiries. Namely in bold. http://www.nuklearforums.com/showth...t=10585&page=2
Your last sentence however boggles me... Mega man has robots going around being destroyed. The Legend of Zelda has a guy killing demons with swords. In some way shape or form, you have good destroying evil and yet Rockstar is picked out because they want to make a mature game for adults about real life situations? Granted State of Emergency was... eccentric but still. :p

That'd be irrelevant. How did it get there in the first place? Why? Those are the questions parents would be asking. They don't care how long it would take the company to remove it. If mainly children are buying it, then they are the market. I know maybe one or two adults who played GTA on a regular basis. Almost every kid I know has beat and/or played the game.

Irrelevant? Someone programmed it, that's true and no one denies that. BUT it was unaccessible. Similar to The Sims where people made naked skins for the pieces of code. Even now, can every last person who buys a copy of GTA for the PC access it unless they know and retrieve the Hot Coffee mod? No, children are not mainly buying games. The average gamer is 26 years old as the research is done by the IGDA. My experience of being an older gamer, I've seen more adults playing than kids. Just depends on where you are. And who is acting like a kid. (again: :P)

Now to be serious: EH, I don't know if you read the whole thread. I'll keep the belief that Rockstar removed the code and even in 5 years it won't matter. PSRD did make a snide remark dismissing my comments and possibly others. For that, among other offenses he was banned. If you can't learn your lesson and read the rules, then why post? It's a privilege just as arguing with a mod is. I hate to again sound like an old man but we are losing focus. This is mainly about the fact that R* is getting an AO rating about a game that's for adults already. I still don't see the difference one year can make on your maturity level.