NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/thesims2/news_6129609.html

Amazing. I've downloaded this patch myself and, just like EA said, there is no genitalia showing. It's the same exact this as a naked Barbie doll. I wouldn't know about the naked guys on The Sims 2.

In any case....we let attorneys work over the video game industry and force them to rerate GTA:SA, we exposed a weakness in the industry. Now people are planning their own little free-for-alls and will attack any video game that have even the slightest bit of inappropriateness.

Congratulations. I hope your all happy when the only games available to those under 18 would be Pokemon and Mario.

Although I'm sort of hoping for a recall. Then at least I'll get my money back for this lousy game.

Congratulations. I hope your all happy when the only games available to those under 18 would be Pokemon and Mario.


It's just a fad. It'll burn itself out soon enough

Thats just plain funny.

And I thought I had too much free time on my hands. Oh my "god", if these people could at least look at the fucking games they want to see burned in a big pile of games, porn and certain differently minded people, as well, I assume.
But don't hope on them keeping Mario on the market. Just look at him - he looks like a gay porn star of the 70s. Hell, I'm pretty sure somewhere out there there's a film called "Mario Bros - Family Matters, Pt. IV".

Those Barbie dolls are evil. We must ban them all!!

This guy is really beginning to piss me off.

Once you give a little ground, everybody will dogpile on you it is a known fact. It actually happens to a lot of industries around the world almost daily.

Anyways the political activists have been looking for a new target since they utterly smashed the tabaco industry... (really the lawyer in the story is just out to make a buck off swinging public opinion, thats why many lawyers become political people later in life, because the businesses go hand in hand really, its all about timing and attacking the weakest of the herd at the time based on public opinion)

Kinda like the Russians taking eastern poland after the germans decimated western poland.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/thesims2/news_6129609.html

Amazing. I've downloaded this patch myself and, just like EA said, there is no genitalia showing. It's the same exact this as a naked Barbie doll. I wouldn't know about the naked guys on The Sims 2.

In any case....we let attorneys work over the video game industry and force them to rerate GTA:SA, we exposed a weakness in the industry. Now people are planning their own little free-for-alls and will attack any video game that have even the slightest bit of inappropriateness.

Congratulations. I hope your all happy when the only games available to those under 18 would be Pokemon and Mario.

Although I'm sort of hoping for a recall. Then at least I'll get my money back for this lousy game.

...Meh...He...Muh...Huh...

GUH?!! *dies*

Does this "Thomas" guy have a life outside of party-pooping?

Does this "Thomas" guy have a life outside of party-pooping?

Evidently not.

Funny. Like I said in another thread, welcome to the Fascist States of America. I'll add: Land of the Litigious, and the Home of the Oppressed.

I’m just glad to know, that with an entire sect of a religion dedicated to destroying us, with thousands of Mexican criminals sneaking across the boarder every year, and with gangs of kids shooting each other in the streets, that this is what our fine politicians have decided to focus on. :rolleyes:

I’m just glad to know, that with an entire sect of a religion dedicated to destroying us, with thousands of Mexican criminals sneaking across the boarder every year, and with gangs of kids shooting each other in the streets, that this is what our fine politicians have decided to focus on. :rolleyes:

...I need a drink...

Naked sims look exactly like the Barbie and Ken dolls...

The "sex" aka, woohoo is massively censored, and even if you're one of those perverts who uses the moveobjects cheat to move the bed when the sims are going at it like rabbits. they are clothed in underwear not even in a sexual position... :rolleyes:

(Yes, I'm a hardcore simmer; I have over 50 hacks for my game so I've seen how they work).

IE:

Without mods.......

Teens can't have sex; children aren't allowed to even make cereal - only an instant meal or have a snack.

Toddlers and infants can't die...

With mods....

Teens can have sex, and it's exactly like the adult one.

Uhm...there are mods in works for the others.

Congratulations. I hope your all happy when the only games available to those under 18 would be Pokemon and Mario.

I will be. Under-18's should be doing something a bit more productive than playing GTA or the Sims.

I will be. Under-18's should be doing something a bit more productive than playing GTA or the Sims.
And I will be playing GTA: Saffron City, starring Mario. Mario will go around using his pokemon as weapons to piss off the cops and pull hits in order to work his way up the local gang ladder of one of the three gangs in the area: Team Rocket, Team Magma, and Team Aqua

Colodia, thank you for the ammunition.

Click here (http://ai-rants.blogspot.com/2005/07/and-esrb-arent-only-assholes.html) tp read my uncensored reply about the article that Colodia links in the first post of this thread.

I will be. Under-18's should be doing something a bit more productive than playing GTA or the Sims.
:rolleyes:

Ihatevacations']And I will be playing GTA: Saffron City, starring Mario. Mario will go around using his pokemon as weapons to piss off the cops and pull hits in order to work his way up the local gang ladder of one of the three gangs in the area: Team Rocket, Team Magma, and Team Aqua
Sorry but GTA hasn't hit the new Nintendo consoles.

:rolleyes:
:fluffle: there, there...there aren't too many of him around right now.

Ihatevacations']And I will be playing GTA: Saffron City, starring Mario. Mario will go around using his pokemon as weapons to piss off the cops and pull hits in order to work his way up the local gang ladder of one of the three gangs in the area: Team Rocket, Team Magma, and Team Aqua
It'll be easier knowing that only "Busted" is an applicable method of failing, as well. :p

:rolleyes:
I stand by my assertion.

This guy is really an a$$hole!

Colodia, thank you for the ammunition.

Click here (http://ai-rants.blogspot.com/2005/07/and-esrb-arent-only-assholes.html) tp read my uncensored reply about the article that Colodia links in the first post of this thread.

May the Gods of the Holy Motherboard bless you, and may you continue to rock on!

May the Gods of the Holy Motherboard bless you, and may you continue to rock on!
~_^ only reason I know all this is because I basically have no life outside of NS, Guild Wars and Sims 2...

The censors have been waiting on pins and needles for years watching games and movies get raunchier waiting for the best chance to jump up screaming bloody amoral societal destruction. My friends, the time has come. All of the nutters are coming out of the woodworks to shirk off their responsibilities as responsible guardians and berating the various industries for producing things that do exactly what they want them to do: help their botoomline in anyway possible

Hey, if you don't like it, do what I do and let the man know. Here's his info:

305-666-4366
jackpeace@comcast.net
Jack Thompson, 1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111, Coral Gables, FL 33146

his website is www.stopkill.com

I say we let him know what we think of people who trample on the first amendment.

Hey, if you don't like it, do what I do and let the man know. Here's his info:

305-666-4366
jackpeace@comcast.net
Jack Thompson, 1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111, Coral Gables, FL 33146

his website is www.stopkill.com

I say we let him know what we think of people who trample on the first amendment.
Thank you. This man's gonna get an earful.

Though he'll probably ignore me.

actually, the responses people seem to get are very witty, with such comments as "I thoughtfully emailed "antiviolence crusader" Jack Thompson (the trial lawyer from last issue's Head to Head article on videogame violence). His email address is available at www.stopkill.com. I recieved the following response: "Sorry you don't like my points. I like yours... on your head. Are those horns, by the way?"
-Anonymous

if you get one, please post it, what a way to discredit him, show him for the nutjob he is

Hey, if you don't like it, do what I do and let the man know. Here's his info:

305-666-4366
jackpeace@comcast.net
Jack Thompson, 1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111, Coral Gables, FL 33146

his website is www.stopkill.com

I say we let him know what we think of people who trample on the first amendment.

I'll do one better!

RUN-DOS//:asshatscan/terminateip...

Oh please. Sims 2 is far from a "sex game". It is a life simulator, so yea there will be sex in it but the majority of the game takes place in clothing. So what if a cheat allows the barbie doll private areas to be seen, even with the blurs in place you can still make the sims have sex.

EA even went so far as to make incest and child sex not only not part of the game but impossible. They did leave homosexual marriage in it, but I believe that was more of a social statement than anything else.

I’m just glad to know, that with an entire sect of a religion dedicated to destroying us, with thousands of Mexican criminals sneaking across the boarder every year, and with gangs of kids shooting each other in the streets, that this is what our fine politicians have decided to focus on. :rolleyes:

Yep I belive its called scape goating. Done to try and devert blame for our problems off of them and on to anything else that people will belive.

Colodia, thank you for the ammunition.

Click here (http://ai-rants.blogspot.com/2005/07/and-esrb-arent-only-assholes.html) tp read my uncensored reply about the article that Colodia links in the first post of this thread.

God I love you and I think I want your children, Rock on!

Colodia, thank you for the ammunition.

Click here (http://ai-rants.blogspot.com/2005/07/and-esrb-arent-only-assholes.html) tp read my uncensored reply about the article that Colodia links in the first post of this thread.
I like how your "blog entry" (which is not the same as an "article") spends the majority of the time calling this lawyer dirty names (since that obviously proves him incorrect) and very little time with his actual arguments. It's also nice that you ignore irrationalities like some middle ground and that the content that is allowed in the Sims 2 may be just a little over-board for a T rated game. However, the best part is that you completely ignore pointing out major differences and similarities between this case and the GTA:SA case...

I like how your "blog entry" (which is not the same as an "article") spends the majority of the time calling this lawyer dirty names (since that obviously proves him incorrect) and very little time with his actual arguments. It's also nice that you ignore irrationalities like some middle ground and that the content that is allowed in the Sims 2 may be just a little over-board for a T rated game. However, the best part is that you completely ignore pointing out major differences and similarities between this case and the GTA:SA case...

And YOUR arguments linking the two would be? I have a fair number of scalpels and assorted surgery tools to pick apart a good argument and they haven't been used in some time.

And YOUR arguments linking the two would be? I have a fair number of scalpels and assorted surgery tools to pick apart a good argument and they haven't been used in some time.
Are you talking about linking the two games? If you are, I'll tell you, but either way, I think anyone who is going to criticize the Gamespot article (or at least the guy featured in it) needs to draw comparisons between the two..because that's what this lawyer is doing, and it's hard to debunk his ARGUMENTS (and not just his personality...which doesn't matter any) if you're not comparing/contrasting the two games. He's basing his argument on precedent, but Kryozerkia wants to debunk his arguments without going back to the precedent that's been set?

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/thesims2/news_6129609.html

Amazing. I've downloaded this patch myself and, just like EA said, there is no genitalia showing. It's the same exact this as a naked Barbie doll. I wouldn't know about the naked guys on The Sims 2.

In any case....we let attorneys work over the video game industry and force them to rerate GTA:SA, we exposed a weakness in the industry. Now people are planning their own little free-for-alls and will attack any video game that have even the slightest bit of inappropriateness.

Congratulations. I hope your all happy when the only games available to those under 18 would be Pokemon and Mario.

Although I'm sort of hoping for a recall. Then at least I'll get my money back for this lousy game.

Now this is pathetic. What precisely are they saying for those of us that are to lazy to click on the little linky. Are they threatening recall? Are they threatening to change it? I haven't heard politicians on this matter. No matter! I doubt this one will lead anywhere because I haven't heard politicians talking about it. Once they do then I'll start to worry about it.

Now this is pathetic. What precisely are they saying for those of us that are to lazy to click on the little linky. Are they threatening recall? Are they threatening to change it? I haven't heard politicians on this matter. No matter! I doubt this one will lead anywhere because I haven't heard politicians talking about it. Once they do then I'll start to worry about it.
So far, it's only 1 lawyer saying anything (so far as the article mentions) and a quote from an EA guy (some important position in the company) saying that his statements are unfounded...

As much as I hate Maxis and Rockstar, I'm more disturbed by this ongoing crusade against them. My god, enough with the censoring.

So far, it's only 1 lawyer saying anything (so far as the article mentions) and a quote from an EA guy (some important position in the company) saying that his statements are unfounded...

Good. As long as its only 1 lawyer no one will care about it. Besides, Maxis is upfront with this series. They spell everything out clearly.

As much as I hate Maxis and Rockstar, I'm more disturbed by this ongoing crusade against them. My god, enough with the censoring.
What do you hate about those two? And what do you think of their parent companies, EA and Take-Two (respectively)? And who do you consider to be a good game producer?

by the way, just as a reference, The Sims 2 is rated T for Teen for "Crude Humor, Sexual Themes, and Violence"

This is one of the weaknesses of the American government.

There's a WAR going on against terrorism.

And what are we doing? We're bitching about video games and girls wearing flip-flops in the White House.

What do you hate about those two? And what do you think of their parent companies, EA and Take-Two (respectively)? And who do you consider to be a good game producer?

I'm not a fan of more or less any game Rockstar has produced, with the GTA series being largely overrated. And Maxis has a tendancy to get a good idea and then beat it into the ground. I'm not too much on judging parent companies, but neither one is bad - just games that aren't too much my fancy.
I give Konami props for the Silent Hills, though much of their lineup seems bubbly at best. Squaresoft Enix is fairly reliable for quality.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/thesims2/screens_6129609.html?page=1

Oh god, they're kissing, ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!

It's disgusting, it's amoral, it's a horrible and sinful act! I can't believe our children are seeing such smut, the game should be banned and the designers stoned to death!

This is the very downfall of our society.



Ok I'm done.

I'm not a fan of more or less any game Rockstar has produced, with the GTA series being largely overrated. And Maxis has a tendancy to get a good idea and then beat it into the ground. I'm not too much on judging parent companies, but neither one is bad - just games that aren't too much my fancy.
I give Konami props for the Silent Hills, though much of their lineup seems bubbly at best. Squaresoft Enix is fairly reliable for quality.
Eh, as much as I loved the original Silent Hill (and by the way, if you haven't played that game at 3 am, you don't know how good it is), Silent Hill 2 faces the same problem that you mention with Maxis about beating it into the ground. Two was absolutely shitty compared to 1, and I haven't even thought about looking at any of the other new versions of the games.

Also, Squaresoft is a good company, but I can't really think of any good Squaresoft products outside of Final Fantasy, and not even all of those are exactly stellar.

As far as defending Maxis and Rockstar, both of them do something very well that Squaresoft and Konami don't really do...Maxis and Rockstar both explores the limits and push gaming to the edges.

If you want to go into more detail about this, start a new thread (title it something like "Good and Bad Gaming Companies" or something...and I'll go there and try showing you how Maxis and Rockstar are doing more for the gaming industry (on the technological/theoretical/philosophical end) then Konami or Squaresoft...

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/thesims2/screens_6129609.html?page=1

Oh god, they're kissing, ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!

It's disgusting, it's amoral, it's a horrible and sinful act! I can't believe our children are seeing such smut, the game should be banned and the designers stoned to death!

This is the very downfall of our society.



Ok I'm done.

I believe they are naked.

If you want to go into more detail about this, start a new thread (title it something like "Good and Bad Gaming Companies" or something...and I'll go there and try showing you how Maxis and Rockstar are doing more for the gaming industry (on the technological/theoretical/philosophical end) then Konami or Squaresoft...

I'm likely to be popping off soon, but if you're on tomorrow I'll get that thread going around then.

I believe they are naked.
You can see she's wearing a bikini, and if you played the game you'd know that naked people always have the blurry squares over them.

Sorry.

People complain about Bush. But they should be trying to kill Jack Thompson. I sincerely hope he has simply identified an area he believes he can make easy money from, because if his beliefs are sincere the only rational course of action is a bullet in his head.

Moreover, I hope someone realizes just how much damage could be done to the industry because of this, preferably before said damage is done. Essentially, it doesn't mean developers have to remove certain code - it means modding has to become impossible, because anybody who can skin or texture can turn Barbie's Horse Grooming Hour into something smutty.

I have a strong desire, if this passes, to open a game store and sell both these games to anyone who wishes to walk in.

This whole thing pisses me off. I don't care about the ratings. If a person (no matter what age) wishes to buy the game, and they have their parents consent (the parents should at least to SOMETHING to research into the game, even if it's just reading reviews), they should have the RIGHT to buy it. Free speech and expression for all!

I believe they are naked.
Actually, I think they are wearing swimsuits.


So why exactly are people pissed off at Maxis? They have never intentionally had full nudity in a game, though there are a few glitches which sometimes allow for it, a cheat which allows for the censorship to be "switched off" (in which case, the user would be intentionally entering this cheat, which is giving consent to the non-censorship), and there are always (USER-MADE) nude patches and (once again, USER-MADE) anatomically correct nude skins and meshes. However, Maxis does not take responsibility for the USER-MADE content, as it clearly states in its terms of use. Also, as it has been said, the nude skins that come with the game resemble dolls rather than an accurate human anatomy. It is far from video game porn.


On another note, my little brother and I managed to rent GTA: San Andreas for X-Box the VERY DAY that the rating on the game went up. *Giggles.*

They have never intentionally had full nudity in a game
Nor has Rockstar.
(in which case, the user would be intentionally entering this cheat, which is giving consent to the non-censorship)
And by purchasing the game, the user is giving consent to viewing that content...would parents fly for some sort of ruling that allowed 13 year olds to buy cigarettes, because attempting to purchase a pack demonstrated their "consent" to smoke? No.
and there are always (USER-MADE) nude patches and (once again, USER-MADE) anatomically correct nude skins and meshes.
That's not what this controversy is about. If "Hot Coffee" was an entirely user-made mod (or even partially made user-mod, beyond just unlocking locked content), GTA:SA wouldn't've got the heat it got.
However, Maxis does not take responsibility for the USER-MADE content, as it clearly states in its terms of use.
And? Rockstar doesn't take responsibility for a modded version of its content either, and again, GTA:SA is getting in trouble.
Also, as it has been said, the nude skins that come with the game resemble dolls rather than an accurate human anatomy. It is far from video game porn.
That's pretty much the controversy here. I haven't seen it, but regardless of what it resembles, the fact that the people are naked and they engage in "adult" activities is what would make the difference in a "T" and an "M" rating, or an "M" and an "AO" rating.

Nor has Rockstar.

And by purchasing the game, the user is giving consent to viewing that content...would parents fly for some sort of ruling that allowed 13 year olds to buy cigarettes, because attempting to purchase a pack demonstrated their "consent" to smoke? No.

That's not what this controversy is about. If "Hot Coffee" was an entirely user-made mod (or even partially made user-mod, beyond just unlocking locked content), GTA:SA wouldn't've got the heat it got.

And? Rockstar doesn't take responsibility for a modded version of its content either, and again, GTA:SA is getting in trouble.

That's pretty much the controversy here. I haven't seen it, but regardless of what it resembles, the fact that the people are naked and they engage in "adult" activities is what would make the difference in a "T" and an "M" rating, or an "M" and an "AO" rating.
1. I was under the impression that the subject of discussion was primarily The Sims 2.
2. Sex is not primarily an "adult" activity. In my home state, 14 years is the legal age of consent, which is, coincidently, TEEN AGE!
3. Consent has everything to do with it. If it was a minor who view "inappropriate" content, than it was the parent's responsibility to keep that from happening. If it was an adult who viewed the content, than they consented to do so, and if they are offended by it, that's pretty much too bad on their part for their own stupidity.

1. I was under the impression that the subject of discussion was primarily The Sims 2.
2. Sex is not primarily an "adult" activity. In my home state, 14 years is the legal age of consent, which is, coincidently, TEEN AGE!
3. Consent has everything to do with it. If it was a minor who view "inappropriate" content, than it was the parent's responsibility to keep that from happening. If it was an adult who viewed the content, than they consented to do so, and if they are offended by it, that's pretty much too bad on their part for their own stupidity.
Your arguments are flawed.

1. The subject of the discussion primarily is The Sims 2, but GTA:SA has set the precedent for controversial games and rerating. To say that I can't compare the precedents set by GTA:SA to The Sims 2 is absurd.

2. We're talking about an American company, an American ratings board, American politics, and a primarily American audience...and in America, the precedent is that you've got to be 18 to view pornography, and sex is viewed as an "adult activity."

3. Your argument is that the ESRB rating doesn't matter at all and ESRB should just put whatever they want on the box, because either way, even if ESRB puts an "EC" (Early Childhood) rating on GTA:SA, it's the Parent's Responsibility?

Your arguments are flawed.

1. The subject of the discussion primarily is The Sims 2, but GTA:SA has set the precedent for controversial games and rerating. To say that I can't compare the precedents set by GTA:SA to The Sims 2 is absurd.

2. We're talking about an American company, an American ratings board, American politics, and a primarily American audience...and in America, the precedent is that you've got to be 18 to view pornography, and sex is viewed as an "adult activity."

3. Your argument is that the ESRB rating doesn't matter at all and ESRB should just put whatever they want on the box, because either way, even if ESRB puts an "EC" (Early Childhood) rating on GTA:SA, it's the Parent's Responsibility?
You're making far too many assumptions.

1. I was only attempting to make sure I understood what the topic of discussion is. I never suggested that you shouldn't or couldn't compare GTA: SA to TS2.
2. I suppose you have me there.
3. I did not say that, either.

3. I did not say that, either.
But that's what you're IMPLYING.

The parent is responsible for monitoring what games a child should and should not be playing. The ESRB content rating is to assist parents in properly choosing a game that they will feel comfortable allowing their child to play.

That's what the controversy involving San Andreas was. The content in the locked part of the game was not included when considering the ESRB content rating, and it was part of the code put into the game by the producers. If it were purely a 3rd-party mod, then Rockstar wouldn't be in trouble and ESRB wouldn't rerate the game, they'd simply warn parents to monitor what websites their children are visiting and what things they are downloading.

Here's what bothers me about "The Sims," and why I think that the arguments against it aren't entirely unfounded. The fact that there is an on/off switch in the code. That means the nudity actually DOES exist in the game (no matter how barbie-dollish) where as Maxis could have simply designed the sim's nude skin to be "the blur" and then any real nudity would legitimately be wholey a third-party mod.

But that's not the case. Much like San Andreas, the explicit content really does exist in the original code, it's simply locked...and much easier to unlock than the explicit content in San Andreas...

Meh. I'd be more worried by the fact that my Sims games always deform (after five minutes of arguing with the damned crybabies because they want to set fire to the kitchen and pee on the floor, whilst I would like them to get a job) into a Saw/Dr. H. H. Holmes sadism romp. Let's see Barbie on Ken, or bathrooms with doors that disappear on you while you are taking a -ahem- sit? Teenagers sneaking out, or trapping kids in swimming pools and cackling malevolently whilst they drown? Of course, they don't seem properly upset by their plight, but I like to pretend.

There is no sex in The Sims 2. Was that needed to be said? I'm just skimming through posts.

There is no sex in The Sims 2. Was that needed to be said? I'm just skimming through posts.

In the game its called "make woohoo"

and there are always (USER-MADE) nude patches and (once again, USER-MADE) anatomically correct nude skins and meshes

That's not what this controversy is about.

Actually, it is. The name of this thread is, "Didn't I say this would happen? Attorney already getting on The Sims 2's/ESRB's case.", not "Still more back-and-forthing on Rockstar Games and GTA".

And it's about some bastard lawyer making himself rich by shitting on everyone's parade, too.

But that's what you're IMPLYING.

The parent is responsible for monitoring what games a child should and should not be playing. The ESRB content rating is to assist parents in properly choosing a game that they will feel comfortable allowing their child to play.

That's what the controversy involving San Andreas was. The content in the locked part of the game was not included when considering the ESRB content rating, and it was part of the code put into the game by the producers. If it were purely a 3rd-party mod, then Rockstar wouldn't be in trouble and ESRB wouldn't rerate the game, they'd simply warn parents to monitor what websites their children are visiting and what things they are downloading.

Here's what bothers me about "The Sims," and why I think that the arguments against it aren't entirely unfounded. The fact that there is an on/off switch in the code. That means the nudity actually DOES exist in the game (no matter how barbie-dollish) where as Maxis could have simply designed the sim's nude skin to be "the blur" and then any real nudity would legitimately be wholey a third-party mod.

But that's not the case. Much like San Andreas, the explicit content really does exist in the original code, it's simply locked...and much easier to unlock than the explicit content in San Andreas...
San Andreas was already explicitly (and, may I say, creatively) violent. You could already beat pedestrians and policemen to death with a dildo or vibrator. It was already bloody. It was always meant to be extremely shocking and explicit in every aspect.

The Sims 2, however, was meant to parody life. It was meant to be light-hearted and fun. The creators and programmers tried very hard NOT to cross any lines.


It's also important to note, reflecting on a previous post on yours, that even with censorship OFF, you will not see the full bodies of the Sims having "Whoo-Hoo", as they call it, unless you make a specific effort to move or delete the bed, dressing room, or hot tub they are "Whoo-Hoo"ing in.

In the game its called "make woohoo"
I know, that's kinda cute and kinda disgusting at the same time. :p

Here's what bothers me about "The Sims," and why I think that the arguments against it aren't entirely unfounded. The fact that there is an on/off switch in the code. That means the nudity actually DOES exist in the game (no matter how barbie-dollish) where as Maxis could have simply designed the sim's nude skin to be "the blur" and then any real nudity would legitimately be wholey a third-party mod.

But that's not the case. Much like San Andreas, the explicit content really does exist in the original code, it's simply locked...and much easier to unlock than the explicit content in San Andreas...
I can't possibly see what you find offensive about undressed Ken and Barbie dolls. What on Earth is the matter with you?

Actually, it is. The name of this thread is, "Didn't I say this would happen? Attorney already getting on The Sims 2's/ESRB's case.", not "Still more back-and-forthing on Rockstar Games and GTA".

And it's about some bastard lawyer making himself rich by shitting on everyone's parade, too.

No, that's not what the controversy is about. The controversy about GTA:SA is THE SAME as the controversy about The Sims 2, but the problem is, it seems like every NSer that has ever played either of these games wants to piss on some lawyer and say his arguments are completely unfounded. While I too am annoyed by all this, I'm not so incompetent to claim that either of these arguments against these games is completely unfounded.

These games BOTH contain explicit content that is not mentioned in the ESRB rating, regardless of whether or not it is meant to be part of the original game...the fact is, it's NOT a 3rd party mod that is what the lawyers are attacking...

In the game its called "make woohoo"
Exactly.

But you never SEE what woohoo does. Therefore it can't FULLY be equated for sex.

Of course babies HAPPEN to pop out of the mother a few days later. But who says that was the result of the whoohooing YOU saw? ;)

Honestly. You see nothing. You see a LOT more when they make out.

No, that's not what the controversy is about. The controversy about GTA:SA is THE SAME as the controversy about The Sims 2, but the problem is, it seems like every NSer that has ever played either of these games wants to piss on some lawyer and say his arguments are completely unfounded. While I too am annoyed by all this, I'm not so incompetent to claim that either of these arguments against these games is completely unfounded.

These games BOTH contain explicit content that is not mentioned in the ESRB rating, regardless of whether or not it is meant to be part of the original game...the fact is, it's NOT a 3rd party mod that is what the lawyers are attacking...
*whips out copy of Sims 2*

T for Teen (Ages 13 and up)
Crude Humor (Haven't witnessed that)
Sexual Themes (Woohooing, but not like you see anything. Everything else is blurred. I see more watching basic cable.)
Violence (Fires, I believe)

No, that's not what the controversy is about. The controversy about GTA:SA is THE SAME as the controversy about The Sims 2, but the problem is, it seems like every NSer that has ever played either of these games wants to piss on some lawyer and say his arguments are completely unfounded. While I too am annoyed by all this, I'm not so incompetent to claim that either of these arguments against these games is completely unfounded.

These games BOTH contain explicit content that is not mentioned in the ESRB rating, regardless of whether or not it is meant to be part of the original game...the fact is, it's NOT a 3rd party mod that is what the lawyers are attacking...

I DO NOT consider a 3rd-party skin that shows a nipple and a darkened pubic mound to be either EA Games' concern or 'explicit'. What issues do you have?

Judging from the posts being made here (I haven't played The Sims 2, but I have played The Sims), The Sims 2 seems to be the same as The Sims. There is the ability to turn the blur off, and there is the ability to move objects while the sim characters are "making whoohoo."

JUST AS IN THE CASE OF GTA:SAN ANDREAS, the point isn't not that it is difficult to access this material and that you have to make a specific effort to view it. The point is THE CONTENT DOES EXIST WITHOUT THIRD PARTY MODS, and you can even access the content in the sims without a 3rd party mod. In GTA:SA you at least needed a third-party mod to access the content, and you actually violate TOS by accessing the content...with the Sims, this isn't the case...

I DO NOT consider a 3rd-party skin that shows a nipple and a darkened pubic mound to be either EA Games' concern or 'explicit'. What issues do you have?
How fucking DENSE is the NS Community? THIS CONTROVERSY ABSOLUTELY IS NOT ABOUT THIRD PARTY MODS.

Judging from the posts being made here (I haven't played The Sims 2, but I have played The Sims), The Sims 2 seems to be the same as The Sims. There is the ability to turn the blur off, and there is the ability to move objects while the sim characters are "making whoohoo."

JUST AS IN THE CASE OF GTA:SAN ANDREAS, the point isn't not that it is difficult to access this material and that you have to make a specific effort to view it. The point is THE CONTENT DOES EXIST WITHOUT THIRD PARTY MODS, and you can even access the content in the sims without a 3rd party mod. In GTA:SA you at least needed a third-party mod to access the content, and you actually violate TOS by accessing the content...with the Sims, this isn't the case...
Oh yeah? So what?

How fucking DENSE is the NS Community? THIS CONTROVERSY ABSOLUTELY IS NOT ABOUT THIRD PARTY MODS.
We're so dense we make nuclear fusion, baby!

That can SO be a cheesy pick-up line!

Judging from the posts being made here (I haven't played The Sims 2, but I have played The Sims), The Sims 2 seems to be the same as The Sims. There is the ability to turn the blur off, and there is the ability to move objects while the sim characters are "making whoohoo."

JUST AS IN THE CASE OF GTA:SAN ANDREAS, the point isn't not that it is difficult to access this material and that you have to make a specific effort to view it. The point is THE CONTENT DOES EXIST WITHOUT THIRD PARTY MODS, and you can even access the content in the sims without a 3rd party mod. In GTA:SA you at least needed a third-party mod to access the content, and you actually violate TOS by accessing the content...with the Sims, this isn't the case...

Utter bullshit.

Now, why do you have issues with depictions of naked human bodies, especially depictions of naked human bodies that quite noticeably and incongruously lack genitalia or nipples? That is what I would like to hear.

What is wrong with the human body?

San Andreas was already explicitly (and, may I say, creatively) violent. You could already beat pedestrians and policemen to death with a dildo or vibrator. It was already bloody. It was always meant to be extremely shocking and explicit in every aspect.
Hence, when there was more content then the ESRB originally knew about, they bumped the rating up from M, to AO.

The Sims 2, however, was meant to parody life. It was meant to be light-hearted and fun. The creators and programmers tried very hard NOT to cross any lines.
Unfortunately, however, they did...and as soon as a politican steps in (or maybe possibly even without politician intervention), The Sims 2 will likely be bumped up from T to M, and if not, more description may be added to the T rating.


It's also important to note, reflecting on a previous post on yours, that even with censorship OFF, you will not see the full bodies of the Sims having "Whoo-Hoo", as they call it, unless you make a specific effort to move or delete the bed, dressing room, or hot tub they are "Whoo-Hoo"ing in.
Again, the point is the fact that that content IS in the game and IS viewable WITHOUT third party mods.

Utter bullshit.
Good job, instead of making a cogent argument, you just CLAIM that I'm wrong.

Now, why do you have issues with depictions of naked human bodies, especially depictions of naked human bodies that quite noticeably and incongruously lack genitalia or nipples? That is what I would like to hear.

What is wrong with the human body?
I personally don't have a problem with the human body, but this issue isn't about me. This is about you farkers always saying "oh, it's the parents that aren't doing a good job of parenting," but the fact of the matter is, the ESRB rating is there to HELP the parents in their job. How are Parents supposed to know a game's contents without the ESRB rating? This is a case of the ESRB trying to make their ratings symbols more accurate (so they can continue to hold some legitimacy and we avoid actual LAWS involving game content) and you guys are against it?

Judging from the posts being made here (I haven't played The Sims 2, but I have played The Sims), The Sims 2 seems to be the same as The Sims. There is the ability to turn the blur off, and there is the ability to move objects while the sim characters are "making whoohoo."

JUST AS IN THE CASE OF GTA:SAN ANDREAS, the point isn't not that it is difficult to access this material and that you have to make a specific effort to view it. The point is THE CONTENT DOES EXIST WITHOUT THIRD PARTY MODS, and you can even access the content in the sims without a 3rd party mod. In GTA:SA you at least needed a third-party mod to access the content, and you actually violate TOS by accessing the content...with the Sims, this isn't the case...
1. You are deciding that content is explicit without actually viewing it.
2. As it just so happens, I have the warning label for "The Sims 2" on the back of the box right here. "T: Crude Humor, Sexual Themes, Violence". I think that just about covers it, doesn't it?
3. There is nothing an unmodded The Sims 2 that the average 13 or 14 year old would find shocking, or even a 12 year old. I know. I happen to be in that age range.
4. The GTA: SA rating probably should have been higher from the very beginning anyway.

I personally don't have a problem with the human body, but this issue isn't about me. This is about you farkers always saying "oh, it's the parents that aren't doing a good job of parenting," but the fact of the matter is, the ESRB rating is there to HELP the parents in their job. How are Parents supposed to know a game's contents without the ESRB rating? This is a case of the ESRB trying to make their ratings symbols more accurate (so they can continue to hold some legitimacy and we avoid actual LAWS involving game content) and you guys are against it?
How was ESRB inaccurate? Their rating was right on the money. People are simply trying to enlarge the problem and make it seem as if it is the central part of the game.

1. You are deciding that content is explicit without actually viewing it.
2. As it just so happens, I have the warning label for "The Sims 2" on the back of the box right here. "T: Crude Humor, Sexual Themes, Violence". I think that just about covers it, doesn't it?
3. There is nothing an unmodded The Sims 2 that the average 13 or 14 year old would find shocking, or even a 12 year old. I know. I happen to be in that age range.
4. The GTA: SA rating probably should have been higher from the very beginning anyway.
1. I reiterate, I've played the original Sims games (and a few of the expansions). Much of the game remains pretty much the same from what I've seen in trailers, and based on the similar methods of turning off the blur and moving objects, I can pretty well understand what the content is...naked bodies...regardless of the detail, are naked bodies.
2. "Sexual Themes" does not cover nudity, or naked sex. "Strong Sexual Content, Nudity," covers naked bodies and naked sex.
3. This is likely because your parents are a lot less strict on you than a lot of parents I know. They are strict on their children and don't even let them see PG13 movies until they are actually 13, etc. There are some children who are very sheltered, and you can get the nudity and naked sex without 3rd party mods...and that's not stuff you can see in PG-13 movies...
4. That's your personal opinion, and maybe you're right, but maybe The Sims rating needed to be higher in the first place too.

How was ESRB inaccurate? Their rating was right on the money. People are simply trying to enlarge the problem and make it seem as if it is the central part of the game.
It doesn't matter if it's a central part of the game or not. In a movie, if there are two people having sex in the background and there is some nudity, that movie is rated R, even if you never see those characters any where else and it's not a central part of the storyline. The fact of the matter remains that it IS a part of the content that the content rating is supposed to cover...and yet the ESRB overlooked it.

The explicit content in GTA:SA is not a central part of the storyline and you could easily play the whole game and never see that minigame...and in fact, based on purely following GTA:SA's storyline, the game should be rated T. But that's not what the rating depicts. The rating is based on the ENTIRE content.

1. I reiterate, I've played the original Sims games (and a few of the expansions). Much of the game remains pretty much the same from what I've seen in trailers, and based on the similar methods of turning off the blur and moving objects, I can pretty well understand what the content is...naked bodies...regardless of the detail, are naked bodies.
2. "Sexual Themes" does not cover nudity, or naked sex. "Strong Sexual Content, Nudity," covers naked bodies and naked sex.
3. This is likely because your parents are a lot less strict on you than a lot of parents I know. They are strict on their children and don't even let them see PG13 movies until they are actually 13, etc. There are some children who are very sheltered, and you can get the nudity and naked sex without 3rd party mods...and that's not stuff you can see in PG-13 movies...
4. That's your personal opinion, and maybe you're right, but maybe The Sims rating needed to be higher in the first place too.
1. You still have not actually seen the content you are complaining about.
2. It is NOT strong sexual content. The animation itself does not actually include intercourse. It's quite amusing, when you think about it.
3. No. This is because most parents don't even bother to discover what their children are watching, playing, etc.
4. I know plenty of children who are sheltered by their parents but have still been exposed to sexual content, rather it be online, on television, or whatever. AGAIN, it is the parent's responsibility and obligation to make sure their children are not being exposed to anything they feel is "inappropriate".
5. Yes, you can see nudity and "whoo-hoo" without mods, but only if you make a specific effort to do so.
6. I am well aware of what is opinion and what is fact, thank you very much.

It doesn't matter if it's a central part of the game or not. In a movie, if there are two people having sex in the background and there is some nudity, that movie is rated R, even if you never see those characters any where else and it's not a central part of the storyline. The fact of the matter remains that it IS a part of the content that the content rating is supposed to cover...and yet the ESRB overlooked it.

The explicit content in GTA:SA is not a central part of the storyline and you could easily play the whole game and never see that minigame...and in fact, based on purely following GTA:SA's storyline, the game should be rated T. But that's not what the rating depicts. The rating is based on the ENTIRE content.
:rolleyes:

You think the ESRB overlooked explicit sexual acts? Do you know how the ESRB rates games? Do you honestly think, for their own sake, that they would POSSIBLY overlook this?

:rolleyes:

You think the ESRB overlooked explicit sexual acts? Do you know how the ESRB rates games? Do you honestly think, for their own sake, that they would POSSIBLY overlook this?
"overlook" as in "did not see"

"overlook" as in "did not see"
Don't post here again in my thread until you come back with the full steps of how ESRB rates a game. Then you'll be a bit more knowledgable in what your arguing over.

--snip--
You turned 4 points into 6...

And the main theme of your post was this:

Because the "average" parent doesn't monitor their children closely and doesn't parent their child 24/7, the ESRB shouldn't worry about the accuracy of their ratings to much, because we (the ignorant gamers of NS) will just use "bad parenting" as a scapegoat.


Look, as much as I hate it when video games and music are used as a scape goat, more and more I'm realizing that the people who defend games and music use "bad parenting" as a scapegoat. The ESRB ratings are supposed to help the parents who want to be good parents, and you guys are up in arms about a lawyer who has noticed that the rating for a particular game may not necessarily be accurate?


You guys shouldn't be complaining about these guys or the ESRB anyway. If it weren't for the ESRB, there'd be STRICT LAWS governing who can and can't see what content in games...
It's against the laws to sell R-rated tickets or movies to minors. The same can't be said for M or AO rated games...

Don't post here again in my thread until you come back with the full steps of how ESRB rates a game. Then you'll be a bit more knowledgable in what your arguing over.
Fine, "overlook" as in "did not see" as in "attention was not brought to"

In a nutshell, the developer fills out a survey listing all the not-so-clean content, sends that in with a video of the game’s plot and the questionable scenes, along with other supplemental material (the game’s script, song lyrics, etc.). Three or more people with no affiliation with the game industry watch this video and fill out a survey. The board plays through parts of the game (not all, just parts) and takes all this information to designate a rating for the game.

There is a point many people here are missing. In a lot of arguments against both this Lawyer's views on The Sims 2, and the ESRB's decision on GTA:SA, people repeat the line that it is the parent's responsability to decide what their kids can watch. This is a flawed argument against raising the rating of any game because neither side denies this. The whole idea of video game ratings is to give parents a tool with which they can make an informed decision on whether a game is appropriate for their children to purchase. Both sides of the argument agree that the decision should be up to the parents, what they disagree on is whether the ratings should cover everything that is included in the actual disc, or only what is included in the standard game as it is meant to be played.

You turned 4 points into 6...

And the main theme of your post was this:

Because the "average" parent doesn't monitor their children closely and doesn't parent their child 24/7, the ESRB shouldn't worry about the accuracy of their ratings to much, because we (the ignorant gamers of NS) will just use "bad parenting" as a scapegoat.


Look, as much as I hate it when video games and music are used as a scape goat, more and more I'm realizing that the people who defend games and music use "bad parenting" as a scapegoat. The ESRB ratings are supposed to help the parents who want to be good parents, and you guys are up in arms about a lawyer who has noticed that the rating for a particular game may not necessarily be accurate?


You guys shouldn't be complaining about these guys or the ESRB anyway. If it weren't for the ESRB, there'd be STRICT LAWS governing who can and can't see what content in games...
It's against the laws to sell R-rated tickets or movies to minors. The same can't be said for M or AO rated games...
Once again, you are assuming I have some kind of issue with the ESRB. I think the ESRB does serve a purpose, and I think it serves its purpose well.

[quote[In a nutshell, the developer fills out a survey listing all the not-so-clean content, sends that in with a video of the game’s plot and the questionable scenes, along with other supplemental material (the game’s script, song lyrics, etc.). Three or more people with no affiliation with the game industry watch this video and fill out a survey. The board plays through parts of the game (not all, just parts) and takes all this information to designate a rating for the game.[/quote]Ding, ding, ding!

1. The affiliate-less people surely would be trying to "whoo hoo" as quickly as possible to see how it goes
2. The developers certainly told it in their survey. Don't you dare say they didn't No way they can hide THAT!
3. The BOARD played the game.
4. The public knew of whoohooing the second the game came out.

Don't you think the ESRB had their eyes bloated with as much sexual content as they could muster?

"Woohoo" just shows the two sims flailing their arms and legs and making weird sounds, they do nothing else. Hardly strong sexual content.

Now I have managed to make quite violent sims, resulting in extreme cases of domestic violence. Several of his family members ended up moving out after several large fights. I guess that is where the violence rating comes in.

I tend to torture my sims, refusing them bathroom access. Making them sleep outside, or in pools of water. Murdering sims is easy, just put them in a 1x1 room with the floor being a pool, they fall asleep and drown.... but I digress.

Even kids as young as six take the clothes off barbie dolls, just to see what it looks like.

Tragic Sim Deaths:
http://img319.imageshack.us/img319/720/leader1000152py.jpg
http://img319.imageshack.us/img319/1539/leader1000253nd.jpg

"Woohoo" just shows the two sims flailing their arms and legs and making weird sounds, they do nothing else. Hardly strong sexual content.

Now I have managed to make quite violent sims, resulting in extreme cases of domestic violence. Several of his family members ended up moving out after several large fights. I guess that is where the violence rating comes in.

I tend to torture my sims, refusing them bathroom access. Making them sleep outside, or in pools of water. Murdering sims is easy, just put them in a 1x1 room with the floor being a pool, they fall asleep and drown.... but I digress.

Even kids as young as six take the clothes off barbie dolls, just to see what it looks like.

Tragic Sim Deaths:
http://img319.imageshack.us/img319/720/leader1000152py.jpg
http://img319.imageshack.us/img319/1539/leader1000253nd.jpg

:eek: Last I saw THAT many gravestones, I was watching the first few minutes of Saving Private Ryan. Jesus Christ. I like your Sims 2 strategy!

"Woohoo" just shows the two sims flailing their arms and legs and making weird sounds, they do nothing else. Hardly strong sexual content.

Now I have managed to make quite violent sims, resulting in extreme cases of domestic violence. Several of his family members ended up moving out after several large fights. I guess that is where the violence rating comes in.

I tend to torture my sims, refusing them bathroom access. Making them sleep outside, or in pools of water. Murdering sims is easy, just put them in a 1x1 room with the floor being a pool, they fall asleep and drown.... but I digress.

Even kids as young as six take the clothes off barbie dolls, just to see what it looks like.

Tragic Sim Deaths:
http://img319.imageshack.us/img319/720/leader1000152py.jpg
http://img319.imageshack.us/img319/1539/leader1000253nd.jpg
Younger, when they wish to change the clothing.

Ding, ding, ding!

1. The affiliate-less people surely would be trying to "whoo hoo" as quickly as possible to see how it goes
2. The developers certainly told it in their survey. Don't you dare say they didn't No way they can hide THAT!
3. The BOARD played the game.
4. The public knew of whoohooing the second the game came out.

Don't you think the ESRB had their eyes bloated with as much sexual content as they could muster?
Just as the ESRB didn't know about the GTA:SA content, the ESRB probably didn't know about the possibility of removing the blur (which doesn't add any content to the game, not a 3rd party mod), nor about the possibility of moving objects.
However, the ESRB hasn't made a statement about The Sims 2 yet, so we don't know whether or not they knew about the content being questioned. If they did, fine, and their rating stands. If they didn't (and my guess, as it's not part of the main story line, although it's part of the game and doesn't need a 3rd party unlock, unlike San Andreas, they didn't know) then why don't you guys want the ESRB to review the game again and determine whether or not the rating should be changed? The ESRB's purpose is to help parents and you guys don't want the ESRB rating games based on the entire content and yet you claimed "bad parenting."

So I'm going to sleep, and this thread will slowly become a boring circle of everyone agreeing on the "bad parenting" scapegoat.

:eek: Last I saw THAT many gravestones, I was watching the first few minutes of Saving Private Ryan. Jesus Christ. I like your Sims 2 strategy!
I like to import Britney Spears, light the fireplace, and watch her burn to whore hell.

My mother killed my biological father (her ex-husband)'s likeness in the original game. (With some expansions) She then proceeded to place a dance floor around the tombstone and used the phone object to throw a party or five so that the rest of our family's likenesses could celebrate. :D

Similarly, in GTA, as I go along, I kill every prostitute I encounter, brutally, often with a sex toy for my own personal amusement. :p

:eek: Last I saw THAT many gravestones, I was watching the first few minutes of Saving Private Ryan. Jesus Christ. I like your Sims 2 strategy!

Well, technically thats the first sims game, but the premise is the same.

These particular sims were part of a cult that.... well you get the picture.

So I'm going to sleep, and this thread will slowly become a boring circle of everyone agreeing on the "bad parenting" scapegoat.

I never said a damn thing about 'parenting'. I think a lot of people act like their kids are made of porcelain, though. I saw naked people when I was young. On television. In popular movies. I didn't grow up to be a rapist.

It was funny. Big-time funny. Laugh-'til-you-choked funny. Naked people looked hilarious when I was young. Why do people go out of their way to sexualize the human form in all capacities? It's always very disturbing to encounter people who are inordinately uptight about things like nudity, and insist on correlating this to some kind of perverse interest in sexually or criminally deviant behaviour.

What do I care for the smothering sensibilities of soccer moms? Or any old run-of-the-mill neopuritan fascist?

The point is THE CONTENT DOES EXIST WITHOUT THIRD PARTY MODS, and you can even access the content in the sims without a 3rd party mod.
I haven't played The Sims 2 yet, so I haven't had a chance to see what actually "happens" when Sims "have sex," but I know good and well what happens in the first rendition of the game.

I played the first game actively for four years. I knew every in and out of every expansion pack and every object in that game. Have you played this game for more than that, my friend?

I saw what happened when the Sims "had sex." In one instance, they kissed, and a dialog popped up asking if they wanted to have a baby. That's it.. In another instance, using the heart-shaped Love Bed, the Sims go under the covers and you see rumples in them moving to and fro whilst the Sims laugh giddily. Using the "move_objects" cheat, you can move the bed while they are doing their thing. You know what you will see? Two Barbie bodies scrunched up next to each other, completely still, doing nothing. There wasn't a penis, nipple, or labia in sight. Only two flesh-coloured sprites laying next to each other.

And I saw what happened when the censorship was removed from naked Sims' bodies. The men had a flesh-coloured nothing where their genitals should be. The women had breasts, but they were drawn like Sailor Moon (no nipples). They also had a flesh-coloured nothingness for genitals. I don't even think the patch that removed censoring was used on the younger boys and girls. Even if it was, I've looked at the raw skin files merely by doing research on the engine. The boys' and girls' bodies looked exactly the same.

If you're going to get picky, you can actually see a naked body right out of the game's box if you buy one of the showers (the "normal" shower with a semi-clear glass door). If you rotate the viewpoint to the right angle, you can see (gasp) A NIPPLE-LESS BREAST OBSCURED BY BLUE PIXELS! Our children are corrupted!

I'm so glad my parents didn't raise me as a protected child. They told me things as they were and as they happened. They didn't lie to me about sex or any other "coming-of-age" knowledge. I've been playing video games actively since I was four-years-old, but I didn't turn out to be a violence-driven, hormonal retard. Just because I play video games doesn't mean I'm a moron; hell, I just graduated from high school in the top quarter of a class of 600 with a 3.7 GPA, and I'm attending an excellent university next year. My father told me over and over this summer that he was the proudest he had ever been of me.

Maybe video games aren't so bad, no? But you parents wouldn't know, since you don't take time with your children and instead sit them in front of the idiot box.

I
[snip]
I saw what happened when the Sims "had sex." In one instance, they kissed, and a dialog popped up asking if they wanted to have a baby. That's it.. In another instance, using the heart-shaped Love Bed, the Sims go under the covers and you see rumples in them moving to and fro whilst the Sims laugh giddily. Using the "move_objects" cheat, you can move the bed while they are doing their thing. You know what you will see? Two Barbie bodies scrunched up next to each other, completely still, doing nothing. There wasn't a penis, nipple, or labia in sight. Only two flesh-coloured sprites laying next to each other.
[snip]

That's The Sims. In The Sims 2, they have sex, but they call it "Making Whoo-hoo".

Undefined naked bodies blurred out engaging in nondescript sexual acts (for if you actually DO use the cheat that is creating all this controversy, the two Sims are clothed and essentially wrestling each other) is most definately deserving of a Teen rating. There is no mature sexual content to be found in the game, and is not deserving of a Mature or Adults Only rating.

On a side note, how many more insinuations about EA consciously aiding sexual predators do you think it will take before EA drills this guy with a defamation lawsuit?

That's The Sims. In The Sims 2, they have sex, but they call it "Making Whoo-hoo".

Even in the Sims 2, the "sex" consists of a cutscene of them getting into bed and then rolling around in bed. If you use the move objects console code and move the bed, they aren't having anything that even vaguely resembles sex.

Even in the Sims 2, the "sex" consists of a cutscene of them getting into bed and then rolling around in bed. If you use the move objects console code and move the bed, they aren't having anything that even vaguely resembles sex.
Well, it was definitely meant to parody sex, and it can result in the birth of an infant Sim. :)

I've come up with the only logical solution. We abolish the Bill of Rights and execute the game programmers. Also, we have a nation-wide ban on electronic communications, and also make it illegal to bathe, except on weekends. Now we can live happier lives, just tlike the peasents of 1500's Catholic-ruled Europe. Isn't that what you always wanted, to be bossed around by some fat old guy with a bug hat? Don't you just love to kill cats for no reason whatsoever? Don't you just love working 17 hour days and having to give all of your earnings to the goverment. Of course, you salary is in food, which you only get so much of, and 90% of that goes to the local government officials.

Isn't it wonderful?

[sarcasm off]

Also, we have a nation-wide ban on electronic communications

Like Greece.

Like Greece.

Anyone one found in possesion of a cellular phine shall be sentanced to 100 whips from the Cat 'O Nine.

Are you talking about linking the two games? If you are, I'll tell you, but either way, I think anyone who is going to criticize the Gamespot article (or at least the guy featured in it) needs to draw comparisons between the two..because that's what this lawyer is doing, and it's hard to debunk his ARGUMENTS (and not just his personality...which doesn't matter any) if you're not comparing/contrasting the two games. He's basing his argument on precedent, but Kryozerkia wants to debunk his arguments without going back to the precedent that's been set?

Unfortunately, there is some basis as to the debunking of Thompson's allegations. Here is his statement.


In the statement, Thompson says, "Sims 2, the latest version of the Sims video game franchise ... contains, according to video game news sites, full frontal nudity, including nipples, penises, labia, and pubic hair."

In accordance to the others who have played Sims 2 with the corresponding mods, their testimonies indicates that this is not the case, and that the model used is no more offensive than a barbie type doll.

Should this be true, it is then possible to create a counter suit against Thompson on the basis of deliberate and misleading slander. Precedent only applies if the case is the same. However, the use of misleading statements and falsehoods cannot stand up under the court of law if you wish to use precedents.

His arguments are based on claims that appear to be debunked on many fronts by other users. If true, EA can argue that by ruling against it, a precedent will be set where all facismile humans such as manequinns, statues and dolls would be ruled similarly as well.

In a broad general sense, the argument might make sense. However, when looking at the details, they appear to be false and incapable of acquiring a court ruling.

I've come up with the only logical solution. We abolish the Bill of Rights and execute the game programmers. Also, we have a nation-wide ban on electronic communications, and also make it illegal to bathe, except on weekends. Now we can live happier lives, just tlike the peasents of 1500's Catholic-ruled Europe. Isn't that what you always wanted, to be bossed around by some fat old guy with a bug hat? Don't you just love to kill cats for no reason whatsoever? Don't you just love working 17 hour days and having to give all of your earnings to the goverment. Of course, you salary is in food, which you only get so much of, and 90% of that goes to the local government officials.

Isn't it wonderful?

[sarcasm off]
What you appear to not realize is that if it weren't for the ESRB, there WOULD BE LAWS against video games. As it stands, there aren't any rules at all concerning video games. You can put whatever you want in it, but the ESRB needs to be appropriately rate it. Why? Because if they can't, the government steps in, and that's when it gets really ugly. Which is why I can't figure out why so many NSers are so opposed to letting the ESRB review this case...

In accordance to the others who have played Sims 2 with the corresponding mods, their testimonies indicates that this is not the case, and that the model used is no more offensive than a barbie type doll.

Should this be true, it is then possible to create a counter suit against Thompson on the basis of deliberate and misleading slander. Precedent only applies if the case is the same. However, the use of misleading statements and falsehoods cannot stand up under the court of law if you wish to use precedents.

His arguments are based on claims that appear to be debunked on many fronts by other users. If true, EA can argue that by ruling against it, a precedent will be set where all facismile humans such as manequinns, statues and dolls would be ruled similarly as well.

In a broad general sense, the argument might make sense. However, when looking at the details, they appear to be false and incapable of acquiring a court ruling.
First off, I never said you can't debunk ANY of his claims. I merely was trying to argue that his claims aren't entirely off-base. His arguments includes content from 3rd party mods (which means what he's saying isn't a complete lie, and I'm inclined to believe someone told him it was actual game content, and being a lawyer and not a gamer, he believed them). It's true that if this were a court case, the 3rd party mod content likely wouldn't hold any water, however, there is still some content worth questioning in The Sims 2.

The ESRB should by the end of next week release a statement noting whether or not they knew about this content (removing blur, moving objects, etc to see nude sims, regardless of how barbie-doll-ish they look like). If the ESRB knew about the content, then case closed, and The Sims 2 keeps its rating. If the ESRB didn't know about the content, then the ESRB absolutely MUST be allowed to review the game again and possibly rerate it. Who knows, it may stay teen, it may be bumped. But the point is, if the ESRB just let's this fly...

You guys have to understand that this isn't necessarily entirely about the game even. It's essentially about the ESRB's public approval. If the ESRB doesn't give-in some to these lawyers and review games that include content that's brought into question, then the ESRB allows the lawyers to debunk the ESRB, and thus, create space for the GOVERNMENT to step in and provide laws to determine who can and can't buy games. And honestly, that's worse than the ESRB bumping every game's rating up one notch... (especially for me...I'm already 18...).

And by the way, if the government steps in, they'll probably get away with limits on free speech. I wouldn't be surprised if they said that GTA:SA was a threat to national security and could be used for terrorist training...and they banned it under PATRIOT act provisions...

The ESRB is a VERY, VERY, GOOD thing...and any REAL gamer knows this...

The ESRB is a VERY, VERY, GOOD thing...and any REAL gamer knows this...
I agree. I'd rather have self-regulation than government regulation.

I agree. I'd rather have self-regulation than government regulation.
Amen.

Just an interesting note...I work at an entertainment retail store (multiple types of media), and I sold more copies of GTA:SA in five hours today than I have for every other shift combined since I started at the store (about 2 months)...

First off, I never said you can't debunk ANY of his claims. I merely was trying to argue that his claims aren't entirely off-base. His arguments includes content from 3rd party mods (which means what he's saying isn't a complete lie, and I'm inclined to believe someone told him it was actual game content, and being a lawyer and not a gamer, he believed them). It's true that if this were a court case, the 3rd party mod content likely wouldn't hold any water, however, there is still some content worth questioning in The Sims 2.

1) Then he's a thick-headed reactionary with a socio-political agenda and an axe to grind. What kind of a fool would make such incredible assertions without checking the facts as provided? Why, a self-assured fool, of course. The kind of fool who thinks he can ride a wave of fear, loathing, and ruinous self-doubt on the part of well-intentioned but hopelessly unduly-concerned, socially-conservative parents (who, left to their own devices, probably wouldn't risk their children playing with anything more contentious than a pogo stick, but I digress).That he stands to profit from the controversy he has, and is, generating, is appaling.

2) Eek, Ken and Barbie are naked (sans genitalia or mammary glands)on my teenagers' computer screen. Quick, break out the chastity belts.

All this talk about how these nude Sims have 'Barbie Doll' bodies has led me to one conclusion: All children's dolls with removable clothing need to be banned for explicit content. [/sarcasm]

Petition, anybody?

Petition, anybody?

It'll only get ignored.

It'll only get ignored.

I thought Democrats always made petitions? :)

Well Petition Online petitions are always ignored.

All this talk about how these nude Sims have 'Barbie Doll' bodies has led me to one conclusion: All children's dolls with removable clothing need to be banned for explicit content. [/sarcasm]

Why make it sarcasm? Your right. If our nation is now coming to this, might as well ban that too while they're at it.

Why make it sarcasm? Your right. If our nation is now coming to this, might as well ban that too while they're at it.

Not from your nation, but I'm assuming that anything going on with the Sims 2 in the US would still affect Canada... Though really, if they are going to hop on a video game for having doll-like nudity if you alter it slightly, then the next logical step is to actually ban dolls that can be nude... especially since some dolls are probably more anatomically correct than what you see in the Sims.

Well, I wrote this guy an e-mail and I got the most confusing and vaguest response ever. Here it is with me editing out my name and e-mail (for obvious reasons)

Dear Marylan:

The picture you've sent [immediately below my letter] is objectionable for
a 13 year old as far as I'm concerned, particularly since it is embedded in
the Sims 2 game, unclockable easily with a simple cheat code that is being
distributed by the New York Times!

You don't walk around nude in your home with the blinds open, do you,
Marylan, or in front of 13 year olds? If you think the below okay for kids,
then send me your address and I'll alert the authorities.

Many parents wouldn't want their kids playing this game at the age level of
"T," with no ID check at the time of purchase, given the amount of
reproductive activity in the game and the ability to remove "the blur." The
problem, Marylan, is that there are a bunch of video game companies that are
being deceptive, with the help of the ESRB, in slipping this into our homes
with no adequate warning that they are doing so. Electronic Arts is in fact
collaborating with the modders to put pubic hair, genitalia, nipples, etc.
on the Sims 2 figures, including the children. The pedophiles out there
love it, which is why the mods are all over the adult porn sites.

You aren't concerned about that, now are you Marylan? You cherish your
"freedom" more than the innocence of other people's children, now don't you
Marylan?

You don't want me to be the arbiter of moral in America? Fine, the vast
majority of Americans don't want the ESA and ESRB to be the arbiter of
morals either nor women who think nudity distributed to other people's kids
is their business but stopping them is nobody's business, right Marylan?

We're going to have legislative hearings all over the place now, now that
the ESRB was found to be totally inadequate to prevent the "Hot Coffee"
fiasco. Let's decide, through a democratic process, whether the below
hidden, embedded material is appropriate in a "T" game. I can abide the
democratic conclusion on that, but I bet you cannot.

John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law

1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111

Coral Gables, Florida 33146

305-666-4366

jackpeace@comcast.net



July 23, 2005



Steve Bené, Attorney
VP, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
Electronic Arts Inc.
209 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood City, CA 94065 fax: 650-628-1422 email: copyright@ea.com



Re: The Sims 2 and Porn



Dear Mr. Bene:



Mods are readily available via the Internet to turn the characters in your
company's The Sims 2 into nudes with exposed genitalia. This includes the
children in the game. EA has made this modding easy by making it readily
possible to remove "the blur" from the genital areas. Even the New York
Times' web site is providing this cheat code to remove the blur.



Adult "porn sites" are featuring, via free downloads, the mods that allow
the consumer to customize the appearance of the labia, nipples, pubic hair,
and penises. As you know, The Sims 2 already features reproductive
activities in this "T" rated game.



Such modding is made more likely by public statements by the game's creator,
Will Wright, that he supports the modding of the game.



To the extent that your company does absolutely nothing to crack down on
this apparent infringement upon EA's copyrighted material, which is in
possible violation of its various software agreements and warnings, then EA
collaborates, in every sense of the word, with the modders to put this
material into the hands of consumers, many of whom are children, given the
inviting "T" rating on the game.



I urgently ask Electronic Arts to stop this modding activity by appropriate
means, otherwise the "T" rating given the game by ESRB means, for all
practical purposes, nothing and breaches trust with parents.



Regards, Jack Thompson



Copies: Media

U.S. Senators Clinton, Lieberman, Brownback, Santorum

California Assemblyman Leland Yee




----- Original Message -----
From: Marylan Dean
To: jackpeace@comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 10:07 AM
Subject: I am Very Concerned


I just read Gamespot's article on Jack Thompson, and I am angry that Mr.
Thompson does not have all his facts straight. Even after the update, he
still believes the Sims 2 is a terrrible, terrible game. I want to reassure
Mr. Thompson that the Sims 2 is a wonderful, non-violent game where I, as a
46-year old Christian woman, can not only play without being offended, but
enjoy the official Sims2 website knowing how heavily patrolled it is to
guard against inappropriate content. Both the website and the game are very
family-oriented.
The above image is taken from the Sims2 on my game. I have removed the
blur in my game, and this is how detailed Sims look when the blur is
removed. This Sim is not modified in any way. I resent Mr. Thompson for
attacking the only PC game I play, and I want to assure parents of gamers
all around the world that this is simulated life without the real-life
problems. The basic Sim theme is to build family dynamics.
Thank You, Marilyn S Dean aka NoRealLife2
Please feel free to contact me for any reason. I will be happy to talk to
you if you want to publish or forward my letter.

This Email has been scanned for viruses, courtesy of Tnets.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "*********" <*****@hotmail.com>
To: <jackpeace@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 7:07 AM
Subject: A novel thought


> I just thought I'd contact you to propose to you a novel idea. You know
all
> those violent video games you've been harping on about and how people are
> going out and killing other people because of them? If a person wants to
go
> out and kill a human being, they will do so, regardless of how many
violent
> video games they've played in their time. John Lee Malvo would have still
> killed those people without Halo. I've played Manhunt and Grand Theft
Auto:
> San Andreas and I have no desire to go put a plastic bag over someone's
head
> and watch them suffocate or even carjack someone and go on a killing
> rampage. The only thing I object to in Manhunt is the plastic bags
> themselves (I'm an environmentalist).
>
> People are more perceptive than you think. People can tell the difference
> between reality and fantasy. Someone who doesn't has a very fragile
mindset.
> People will kill people regardless of video games. It is not the video
games
> that is the problem. It is the mindsets of people that make them want to
go
> out and kill someone that is the problem and these people need help.
Banning
> video games will not help them, they will still kill other people. The
only
> thing banning video games will accomplish will be annoying people who
enjoy
> them, with full knowledge that it is fantasy, not reality.
>
> Also, I should mention your attitude towards sex in video games. The "hot
> coffee" in San Andreas is totally inacessable without a mod, and people
who
> play it on consoles will never be able access it. People who have the time
> and effort to mod it on computer are just sad individuals. Let them enjoy
> their fun. And the people on the Sims are about as anatomically correct as
a
> Ken and Barbie doll. And yes, people do have sex in life. The Sims is a
life
> simulator. It seems a little beyond me that you would object to sex when
it
> actually occurs on a day to day basis. It is a totally natural thing. And
> even the Sims does not display it graphically and in detail.
>
> Honestly Jack, you will not solve anything. Put some time and effort into
> conserving the environment or preserving our civil rights.
>
>

Let him take this to court. A lawsuit of this type costs upwards of $100,000 and this one has no chance of winning. Do you think its gonna hurt the game companie's pockets? Think again. This is gonna hurt only the lawyer's own pockets and his reputation.

Let him take this to court. A lawsuit of this type costs upwards of $100,000 and this one has no chance of winning. Do you think its gonna hurt the game companie's pockets? Think again. This is gonna hurt only the lawyer's own pockets and his reputation.

The pathetic thing is he's not even responding to my e-mail. Mine's down the very bottom. I'm going to re-send it to him and hope he actually gathers up the brain cells to understand that's the message I sent him.

I still haven't gotten my own reply from him.

Why make it sarcasm? Your right. If our nation is now coming to this, might as well ban that too while they're at it.

And take one more baby-step towards living in the world's largest open-air prison camp. Completely safe and secure from harm from without and within, bans on children's toys, and the pride of ignorance permeating the air.

Take a bow, you twenty-first century American cipher, you.

Let him take this to court. A lawsuit of this type costs upwards of $100,000 and this one has no chance of winning. Do you think its gonna hurt the game companie's pockets? Think again. This is gonna hurt only the lawyer's own pockets and his reputation.

He's also driving hundreds, if not thousands, of people to the store to buy Sims 2 to see what the big deal is. :)

Well, I wrote this guy an e-mail and I got the most confusing and vaguest response ever. Here it is with me editing out my name and e-mail (for obvious reasons)

Dear Marylan:

The picture you've sent [immediately below my letter] is objectionable for
a 13 year old as far as I'm concerned, particularly since it is embedded in
the Sims 2 game, unclockable easily with a simple cheat code that is being
distributed by the New York Times!

You don't walk around nude in your home with the blinds open, do you,
Marylan, or in front of 13 year olds? If you think the below okay for kids,
then send me your address and I'll alert the authorities.

Many parents wouldn't want their kids playing this game at the age level of
"T," with no ID check at the time of purchase, given the amount of
reproductive activity in the game and the ability to remove "the blur." The
problem, Marylan, is that there are a bunch of video game companies that are
being deceptive, with the help of the ESRB, in slipping this into our homes
with no adequate warning that they are doing so. Electronic Arts is in fact
collaborating with the modders to put pubic hair, genitalia, nipples, etc.
on the Sims 2 figures, including the children. The pedophiles out there
love it, which is why the mods are all over the adult porn sites.

You aren't concerned about that, now are you Marylan? You cherish your
"freedom" more than the innocence of other people's children, now don't you
Marylan?

You don't want me to be the arbiter of moral in America? Fine, the vast
majority of Americans don't want the ESA and ESRB to be the arbiter of
morals either nor women who think nudity distributed to other people's kids
is their business but stopping them is nobody's business, right Marylan?

We're going to have legislative hearings all over the place now, now that
the ESRB was found to be totally inadequate to prevent the "Hot Coffee"
fiasco. Let's decide, through a democratic process, whether the below
hidden, embedded material is appropriate in a "T" game. I can abide the
democratic conclusion on that, but I bet you cannot.

John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law

1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111

Coral Gables, Florida 33146

305-666-4366

jackpeace@comcast.net

[snip]


Wow, what a little bitch. :p

Seriously, though, that email just makes it clear that this so-called professional has NO IDEA what he's talking about.

You know what we need? Research on what teens ACTUALLY find shocking. I think the average teen HAS been exposed to porn at least once in their life, probably more like 10-20 on average. (And I'm talking about a 13-year old teen.)

Has it ever been proven that nudity would be harmful to children's development? Is this considered criminal?

This lawyer seems to think that Electronic Arts is conspiring with pedophiliac porn sites to demoralize the video game industry, which, of course, is just plain bullshit. Electronic Arts does NOT supply the user-made mods, and if the mods are "erotic" or "adult" in nature, it is the USER'S responsibility to create their own anti-offense disclaimer.

Children are NOT innocent by nature, and protection of freedom of speech IS far more important than bumping the rating of a simple video game from a T to an M.

Dammit, now I've got to complain to this guy.

He's also driving hundreds, if not thousands, of people to the store to buy Sims 2 to see what the big deal is. :)
Eh...not really. For a stunt like this to result in increased sells, the game has to be worth playing in the first place...all the people even remotely interested in this game aren't interested in it for the nudity...and anyone not interested in it isn't going to go get it just for the nudity...they're out buying GTA:SA...

This lawyer seems to think that Electronic Arts is conspiring with pedophiliac porn sites to demoralize the video game industry, which, of course, is just plain bullshit. Electronic Arts does NOT supply the user-made mods, and if the mods are "erotic" or "adult" in nature, it is the USER'S responsibility to create their own anti-offense disclaimer.

It's the creators of the mods' responsibilities to make aware what the mods contain, but most do that.

And those pedophile comments are just the sort of unsubstantiated libel and/or slander (as I imagine he's saying them aloud as well as in print) that a company like EA isn't going to continue to tolerate.

You guys do realize though that EA genuinely does support 3rd party mods, even if they do so under the table, right? Last I checked (which was quite a while ago), EA links to Sims fansites which include downloadable mods (maybe none that draw the extreme stuff, but mods nonetheless) and I believe they even host some mods on their site...

They do the same thing for other of their games as well. And as far as a business perspective goes, it's a completely logical idea to allow mods. Why? Mods allow a user to further customize the game and tailor to their interests if the final product was good, just not exactly to their liking. In turn, they sell more expansion packs...

With another EA game (Battlefield 2), I believe they got some of the people who worked on the Desert Combat and allowed them to start working on BF2 mods before the full game was even released...

You guys do realize though that EA genuinely does support 3rd party mods, even if they do so under the table, right? Last I checked (which was quite a while ago), EA links to Sims fansites which include downloadable mods (maybe none that draw the extreme stuff, but mods nonetheless) and I believe they even host some mods on their site...

They do the same thing for other of their games as well. And as far as a business perspective goes, it's a completely logical idea to allow mods. Why? Mods allow a user to further customize the game and tailor to their interests if the final product was good, just not exactly to their liking. In turn, they sell more expansion packs...

With another EA game (Battlefield 2), I believe they got some of the people who worked on the Desert Combat and allowed them to start working on BF2 mods before the full game was even released...

It doesn't matter. To say that EA is complicit in the creation of pedophilic mods is untrue. The individual creators of the game might endorse the creation of all sorts of perverse mods, and may even create them themselves on the side, but to say that EA, the corporate entity that publishes the game, endorses such creations is false and, in my opinion, a bad idea by Mr. Thompson

You guys do realize though that EA genuinely does support 3rd party mods, even if they do so under the table, right? Last I checked (which was quite a while ago), EA links to Sims fansites which include downloadable mods (maybe none that draw the extreme stuff, but mods nonetheless) and I believe they even host some mods on their site...
[snip]

It does support third-party mods, but does NOT feature explicit mods on their main site (unless it gets by their filters/moderators). Their generous support of mods is really one of the best features of The Sims 2.

Jeez, i've never seen anything at all risqué at all in the sims. What would people want us under-16's to play? Mario and Yoshi?

In my opinion, it's pathetic. Lawyers should be working more on prosecuting real crime than BS like this.

And take one more baby-step towards living in the world's largest open-air prison camp. Completely safe and secure from harm from without and within, bans on children's toys, and the pride of ignorance permeating the air.

Take a bow, you twenty-first century American cipher, you.

What are you babbling about? I don't want to see that happen but if you put it into this lawyer's logic, that is precisely what he wants to do.

This was my commentary/rant on my LJ about the matter.

Those of you who follow the gaming news online will doubtless be aware one of the more significant events of our industry has come to pass in the last few days. Specifically, the GTA: San Andreas 'Hot Coffee' incident. GameSpot on the matter. (http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/20/news_6129500.html) There are many other GS articles, and I am without hesitation in saying every other internet (And shortly, every print) publication on the industry will be rife with the matter.

For those not willing/able to track down the info, the short version follows.

Rockstar's game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was recently released for the PC. Being hacked open (For both legal and illegal purposes.) in short order, it was discovered that there was code on the discs which presenting minigames based around the act of having sex. Normally, when CJ is doing well with his girlfriend(s), he will be invited in for 'hot coffee', which is accompanied by an exterior shot of the house and some sound effects. The code which was discovered changed that, as it put the players inside the house, doing standard minigame things such as rhythmically moving the analogue sticks or pressing buttons, accompanied by what can only be described as comedic 'porn'. There are no genitalia or any form of nudity, as far as I am aware.

This mod quickly circulated the internet, and shortly came to the attentions of such concientious individuals as Leland Yee, Hilary Clinton, and the ever-terrifying Jack Thompson. Calls were made for investigations, as Rockstar insisted the content was created by modders, who in turn said they had merely found and unlocked pre-existing code. It soon became apparent that with the right devices (Gamesharks and the like) one can unlock similar minigames on the original console version, quite conclusively showing that the code does indeed exist on the discs themselves (And, indeed, on my own copy of the game.). The upshot of which is, GTA:SA has been branded as a dreaded Adults-Only game by the ESRB. Most - possibly all - major retailers (Notably Wal*Mart, GameStop, Target, Circuit City, and Best Buy.) refuse to stock the AO classified games; this is why companies are generally quite motivated to avoid such a rating.

Still, let us get back on track, lest it turn into a Treatise on Ratings. Take-Two's stock has taken a big hit, and the direct cost (Due to unsellable already ordered stock, for example.) is now believed to be in the order of $40,000,000+, although most are confident it will only increase sales in the longer run (IE, GTA 6.) due to the increased appael (What says 'buy me' more than 'don't buy that'?). More significantly is the general implication for the industry itself.

Bear in mind that this content was no easy feat to access. PC gamers had to conciously and deliberately acquire the mod from the internet, whilst console gamers had to go even further, acquiring entirely seperate hardware. However, the presence of the coding on the disc - regardless of difficulty or even possibility of accessing it - appears to have been sufficient to raise the rating, and Take-Two Interactive are having to reissue the game with the offending code removed, and the original M rating intact.

And now, we come to the issue which shows what the actual danger to the industry is. The Sims 2 is worse than Hot Coffee (http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/22/news_6129609.html) according to - yep - Jack Thompson. Let us put aside that removing the pixellation in Sims games only results in Barbie-doll esque results (One needs entirely seperate skins to actually put sexual organs in.). Instead, I would like to call attention to the possibility of where this is going. Yes, removing offensive if almost inaccessable code and removing codes to remove nudity is, I suppose, an understandable demand. However, it seems reasonably plain that one of the most major things which will be targeted will be user-created mods. No matter what is done with, say, UT2K7, it will be a simple matter for a texture maker to put nudity in. I have no hesitation in expecting such things to be siezed upon by this rabble, and that is where the problems really begin (Nevermind the question of 'how do Maxis show people in the shower without them being nekkid?'); the only answer would be to remove the capability of people to mod. I don't know about too many games, but if Bethesda were punished because Better Bodies mod for Morrowind features full nudity, and were forced to remove the capacity for players to mod the game, Morrowind would lose a startling amount of content. I can't even begin to think of how much damage Civilization would suffer if this occurred (Modding in Civ IV will reportedly be more powerful than most other games to date.).

I find it unlikely to think that the case against The Sims 2 will go very far. Largely because someone will show how desensitized Quake has made them, and they will shoot Jack Thompson (I know I would if I could get a clear line of sight.). Moreover, Kelsey, who is 9, sees nothing much in the nakedness other than perhaps occasional amusement. I think the proposed accusations are the very apex of speciousness, but you never know what people will do when angry lawyers speak.

I sincerely hope that Jack Thompson has simply found a cause which he can make money from. If he is simply screwing my industry for green, I can hate his mercenary attitude, but I can at least accept he's not a ninth-generation inbreed. If, however, his views are sincere then the only rational course of action for any civilized person is to imprison him for the remainder of his life, and remove all methods of his communication with the outside world. Or simply to kill him. The person who states in sincerity the words "much to the delight, one can be sure, of pedophiles around the globe who can rehearse, in virtual reality, for their abuse." with regards to unpixellated sim children, however, surely cannot be regarded as a rational individual. Without going too deeply into the psychology or methodology of pedophilia, I'm reasonably certain that absolutely no 'training' (regarding for example grooming or convincing children to stay quiet) whatsoever can be provided by this sort of - at most - unsavory voyeruism. (Though most would argue it merely comical.)

Finally, I cannot fathom why intercourse and nakedness are issues large enough to gain an AO rating, whilst the wanton murder of hundreds of innocent civilians with military-level firepower is merely M. The West - and sad as I am to admit it, America in particular - has some severely aberrant views on sex. It seems as though the only two camps which exist in our societies are the camp which is lecherous and misogynistic, and the camp which is so prudish they make cardboard appear deviant.

Don't worry, LL's got this one.

Funny. Like I said in another thread, welcome to the Fascist States of America. I'll add: Land of the Litigious, and the Home of the Oppressed.
I tend to think of us as a Bitchtocracy, only those who bitch the loudest are served.

That has its good and bad to it, but it's certainly irratating.

I am really upset mostly with Rockstar, not for putting the sex bit in GTA:SA-that's fine, that's the game they made and frankly after shooting everyone in sight and stealing cars to get everywhere it's pretty mild.

What I'm upset about is them putting it in there and being disengenious about it. Had they been upfront about it they could have even been arogant about it. "What, what says we have to entertain kids? Can't we make a game for grown folk?" But instead they hid it, knowing full well someone would find it and once they did, thanks to the internet, everyone would know where it was.

Why I'm pissed is they not only called down the shitstorm on themselves, but on the industry as a whole and gave a foothold to the crusaders to prove their point to the remote control parents of the world-made the job of censorship and nanny stating that much easier. It was irresponsable and arrogant of them. They could of been crusaders but instead they are weasels. I am pretty pissed off at them because of it.

I tend to think of us as a Bitchtocracy, only those who bitch the loudest are served.
Haha, that's siggable. :D

What are you babbling about? I don't want to see that happen but if you put it into this lawyer's logic, that is precisely what he wants to do.

Hey, if you're not against pedophilia, you're in favour of Sims 2.

Are you starting to see where the path of demagoguery leads?

Will you only finally react against the coccooning of America after the fact, when you no longer have the means to regain the freedoms that are being eroded?

Don't worry, LL's got this one.

LL (http://www.lennonlegend.com/)?

Hey, if you're not against pedophilia, you're in favour of Sims 2.

I play the Sims 2 dude but I'm not a pedophilia. What are you implying? I'm against this attack on the Sims 2 and I hope that they don't recall it or alter it because that'll take away from the game. Its even stated on the box what the game involves.

So I have to ask you, what are you smoking?

Are you starting to see where the path of demagoguery leads?

Just that I hate lawyers.

Will you only finally react against the coccooning of America after the fact, when you no longer have the means to regain the freedoms that are being eroded?

Interesting that I haven't lost any of my freedoms so what freedoms have I lost? I dont have to buy GTA nor the Sims 2. I buy The Sims games because I like it. I don't buy GTA because I don't like it. You have a problem with that?

Don’t sweat it Corneliu. Dobbs has a bad habit of assuming, because people don’t agree with him on one thing, that they disagree with him on everything.