gta: San Andreas

[JBPACKER4]

hey i was curious if anybody else had heard about this! i could believe it.
it's rating has changed from M to AO...i think it was a dumb move to put a hidden sex mini-game inside, but they got what they deserve.

[Gamer_V]

Yeah I follow all gamenews. Now that they've changed it, some b*tch is chasing the sims 2 because you can get away the blur, but it's like a frigging barby doll (so I've heard) Some peepz really need to get a live.

[Dosser]

I think it was already close to being Adults Only (what with all the drugs, killing, stealing, organised crime, pimping etc), it was just this thing that pushed it over the line.

[Moo]

There are a couple of things that really make me mad about this. First off, the game was hidden and the only way to access this was to mod files. If it was an intended part of the game, then yes, I could understand the A rating. Secondly, people are more worried about kids seeing a little skin than all the violence such as killing and stealing. Oh, lets let our children play a violent game but wait, oh no, there is a little sex in this game, there is no way my children can play this game. I mean come on people, are f***ing stupid are you. Also the game was rated M, for players 17+. Now by the age of 17 one should know what sex is and most likely would have engaged in it or at least seen it on the tv or internet in any way shape or form. The A rating is for players 18+. What's one year going to do. Absof**kopositively nothing. Sex is a natural thing and any person will have to come to terms to it eventually. :Angry: God, I hate how stupid people are.

P.S. Sorry about the language if it offended you. Maybe you could whine to your Senators. Then they could give the internet an A rating due to it's graphic nature. AHHHHHHHHHHh!!

[Gamer_V]

You're absolutely right. I've seen a lot of forums, and believe me, almost erverybody agrees. However, here in holand the game already was 18+ (people here aren't allergic to sex, but to violence), and it's not as if anybody listens to the ratings. (I've got san andreas since the launch, so I was like 14 when I got it)

[Moo]

Finally, someone who agrees with me. Another thing people need to get through their thick skulls is that it's just a game. No more than pixels or polygons or whatever they call them. What happens in a game doesn't mean it will transfer to the real world.

[dosraider]

That is part of the whole problem, most people know it's a game, and when they end it they can mentaly get out of it. But regrettably a minority can't leave it, when they have done some racing game, they seems to think the road also is a racing game. Same goes for violence ,and yes sexuality in games.
And as usual it aren't the smartest who can't turn the switch.
Alas again.

[Dopefish]

The real problem is that games that are completly ok, like Unreal Tournament, are also given the M rating. With an AO, parents may start to realize that these games are not suitable for children, which they aren't. It desensitizes people, having fun by randomly walking around killing people for money, dealing drugs, sleeping with (and occasionally pimping) prostitutes, etc. There is something seriously wrong with little kids playing this stuff.
I don't know too much about the "Hot Coffee" mod but it's probably one of the more harmless parts of the game. The game goes farther than an R-rated movie does. Sex may be "a natural thing that all people must come to terms with", as you put it, but killing prostitutes, stealing cars, and dealing drugs are not.

Honestly, considering that most arguments against the AO rating consist of "OMFG those fucking cunt-bitches need to die many times! I'll ram TNT up their ass and kill them myself for being so stupid!" kind of proves their point. I've yet to see a well thought out, logical argument as to why GTA: SA deserves a non AO rating.

Ratings were created as a response to the Sega CD game, Night Trap, which at the time created a huge buzz due to the fact that there were fullmotion videos of girls getting their necks drilled and blood drained and the like. So Sega and Nintendo made up their own rating systems, which worked for a while but then the ESRB came about to give universal ratings to all games. The logic behind ratings is that parents could be aware of what it is their children are viewing and playing, after all, most people consider it the parent's job to keep an eye on what their kids see and do. For a while, things were good. The problem is that the AO rating is so rarely used while "M" is given to any game that has blood. So Unreal Tournament and Wolfenstein 3D are rated "M" despite the fact that these games are far less harmful to the developing psyche of a child compaired to other M rated games like Postal, State of Emergency, The Suffering, or GTA. Most parents are under the impression that games haven't changed too much since they Atari days. The AO rating lets parents see right away that this game was not ment for children.

[Dosser]

I think there is a flaw in the system. The American system sounds poor from what I've heard (there seem to be only 3 ratings), but to be fair the Australian system (and I think similarly the European system) suffer from the same pitfalls.

The problems are that although there is a wide spectrum of ratings, most commercial games will fit into M15+ (an Aus rating which means it is aimed at mature people of 15 years age). This makes it really shocking when the occasional game gets a higher rating, and basically makes the whole ratings system irrelevant (after all, they all have the same rating, who would know the difference).

I think there needs to be a more universal system where games are rated on a sort of numerical sliding scale: such as 95% adult. This might mean more work for the 'raters', having to think hard about whether a game is worth 62 or 65 for example, but it makes more sense. Parents can then make up their own cutoff points, say they won't let their kids play games that have a 70% or above.

This way relatively innocent strategy games that depict killing such as say Warcraft or the old red alerts would not be on the same level as the pimp-bashing, whorebanging, mafia themed evil killfest that is GTA, and similarly games that depict realisting, unnecessary gore would be known as such.


Aside from the flaws in the rating system, what makes GTA so shocking is people can do that. Most teenage kids could probably steal a car if the opportunity arose, they could punch someone to death, or start a gang or pay a prostitute. I'm not saying they would do so entirely because it happens in GTA, but it really hits home when a game is set in a relatively normal city (not normal, but it is closer than most games).

It's one thing to play as a soldier who is forced to shoot at his zombified comrades on the moons of mars, but a game about a guy who shoots people in a city for personal profit is completely different.

[Gamer_V]

But it's not about that. The game's full of violence, let's kill some hookers and burn their bodies... Oh wait! It's sex with their clothes on which can only be attainded with illegal modding so lets sue Rockstar, this is just too rude! OMG WTF !!!!11111

(I'm trying to make a bad point here, we're complaining about America in this topic )

[CityMouse]

Finally, someone who agrees with me. Another thing people need to get through their thick skulls is that it's just a game. No more than pixels or polygons or whatever they call them. What happens in a game doesn't mean it will transfer to the real world.

I'm not a big fan of censorship-I think they do the ratings for liablity purposes. Because anyone can comit some kind of crime and blame it on the video game.