Hot Coffee silliness

So for the past week or so, the nation has been treated to a rather drawn-out discussion of video games, ratings, and sexual content. One of the most popular games of the year, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, is the center of this little brouhaha. It seems the brain scientists at Rockstar (the developers of GTA) left some code and artwork in the game that lets users have sex with their "girlfriends." The issue here is the game is rated "M for Mature" by the ESRB (a self-policing entity for the video game industry, i.e., not a legal or governmental organization).

Having only seen screenshots and read discussions of it, I can't say I've actually tried it, but I do have a decent idea of the details of this portion of the game. Basically you can enter a girlfriend's house to have some 'hot coffee' (hence the name of the controversy) which is really a codeword for wild monkey sex. It actually includes a little mini-game where you set the rhythm and pace of the activity and your girlfriend's pleasure meter rises or falls. There is only limited nudity in the graphics, but the positions are pretty explicit. Oh, and there is apparently some fun oral sex involved, too.

Now, given this game could be bought by a 16 year old (at least, from vendors that pay attention to ESRB ratings, which is totally optional, but generally enforced), there is some right for parents to be slightly concerned. But they neglect to take into account one thing -- none of the code, graphics, sound, or art are accessible in the game you buy. That's right, all that San Andreas hot monkey lovin' is totally disabled in the game as it ships. The central controversy here stems from the fact some sharp hacker found a way to re-enable it by flipping a bit in a config file. He published this and suddenly the world is on fire with righteous indignation.

The result has been a sudden and intense examination of video games by the government, seemingly spearheaded by Hillary Clinton. Normally I'm a fan of the Clintons, but I find it odd that a woman who knowingly lets her husband have little flings on the side is up in arms about a game that has crude representation of video game intercourse. It's the same odd feeling when I think about her being a Senator from New York even though she's from Arkansas. You know, that "political ambitions fuel every decision I make" funny feeling.

Anyway, the world is up in arms and parents are screaming and politicians are screaming and the gaming industry is shivering at the thought of enforced regulation (again, the ESRB is a self-regulating group formed from the video game industry that, among other things, defines a rating system; pretty much every reseller and game developer takes part in the ESRB's system). Best Buy, Circuit City, Wal-mart, and various other game sellers have ripped GTA:SA from store shelves. No doubt there is real and substantial monetary impact from this decision.

I look at this mess and find the reactions generally overblown. I can see cause for some alarm, but the code is totally inaccessible -- you have to go onto the Internet and download a game modification to access it at all. Basically it is opt-in. I suppose parents are worried their kids will opt-in without the parents knowing... but come on, folks, if your kids are slumming around on the internet, believe me, you should worry more about the other sites they're visiting.

I wish the government and the ESRB had been more moderated in their reactions and approached it more calmly, but I guess that doesn't grab headlines. What bothers me most is we have politicians complaining about virtual sex in a game where you, quite literally, kill thousands of people to complete it. You pop gangsters with a glock, tear into cops with a chainsaw, use a katana to shish kebob civilians, and generally find as many creative and interesting ways to kill people as you can, often with rather realistic sounds and graphics to accompany it. I guess parents are fine with their children playing a game that lets them simulate mass murder, stealing cars, buying drugs, and a number of other crimes, but not with having legal, consensual sex with your simulated girlfriend.

It all seems pretty messed up to me. I highly support the right for game makers to make whatever game they want, and I find the ESRB to be a good solution to the problem. Adding punitive fines to retailers who sell the games to underage kids (which is Clinton's proposal) seems to strike at the wrong area anyway... but I guess politicians need to grab their headlines (I hope that's all this is, as it will mean their interest will wane over the next few weeks; if they legitimately about the issue, then unfortunately they probably will actually end up doing something about it, rather than just grandstanding).

Stupid move, Rockstar; next time, just remove the code. I wish I knew what was going on inside that company, though, and who knew what and when they knew it. I can just see some middle manager saying 'cut this from the game' and some code jockey going 'okey dokey' and adding a config flag instead of actually removing it. Hell, that's probably how I'd do it :) But look at the mess it caused.