More from USgamer
The Day That Even Grand Theft Auto Conceded Its Limits
Ten years ago, we learned where gaming's baddest, most daring franchise draws the line: At sex.
Retrospective
by
Jeremy Parish,
07/20/2015.
Rockstar Games comes by its name honestly; with one of the most successful game franchises ever made under the company's belt, the studio certainly has the clout and substance to justify its rebellious, bad-boy corporate persona. But even Rockstar has to draw the line somewhere, and 10 years ago today we learned exactly where that line is drawn.
The Grand Theft Auto series has always seemed eager to court controversy. From the very beginning, it was a series about bad behavior, breaking the law, and generally being a poor citizen. GTA III became a breakout hit in large part because of its massive, immersive, open-world rendition of New York City made for an extraordinary playground for gamers to fool around in, and in part because of all the sensationalism around emergent gameplay having to do with prostitutes. But when modders restored a hidden, abandoned sex minigame in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Rockstar finally conceded the limits it was willing to push.
Despite its inaccessibility to users without deliberate hacking, the "hot coffee" content in San Andreas ignited a firestorm of controversy and forced the ESRB to re-rate the game as an adults-only title. Rockstar quickly reissued an edited version of the game that removed "hot coffee" once and for all, restoring its original hard M rating.
Critics of the series (and the studio) were quick to declare this a victory, suggesting that their fiery op-eds had worn down Rockstar and that the company had neither the spine nor stomach to deal with media scrutiny. In reality, Rockstar was probably motivated by sheer pragmatism; the AO rating would have made San Andreas ineligible for sale at major retailers like Walmart, Target, and Costco. Bumping it back down to an M rating undoubtedly ensured continued sales of the game — sales that were definitely bolstered by the interest inspired by all that "bad" publicity. Did Rockstar flinch? Maybe... but they raked in hundreds of millions of dollars in doing so. Would that we could all flinch so profitably.
This article may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and buy the product we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
By 
By 
Comments 17
Comments on this article are now closed. Thanks for taking part!
The media has an important role in this. It's still much too common to read sex negative viewpoints in game reviews, *especially* for any sexuality aimed at straight men. We need to stop looking at pornography and titillation in video games in a negative light, regardless of whether it's aimed at men or women. We need to be more open and welcoming to sexuality in media.
I don't feel ashamed about sex. I also don't feel that anyone who ever calls any depiction of nudity or sexually suggestive acts is automatically being "sex negative".
There are those instances, as I've already stated, where a sub par product, be it a game, movie, or book, seems to have an excess of "sex" or violence added to it in an effort to mask a sub par product. But, I guess that's just my opinion. I suppose the counter argument would be that those products existed simply as vehicles for the aforementioned "sex" and violence. I'm not opposed to those who seek that out. It's just not my bag. So, I would want a reviewer to point it out.
Quick example: "Showgirls" A great movie if you ever wanted to see that girl from Saved By the Bell pretending to fuck that one guy from Sex and the City (was it Sex in the City? I'll have to check that and edit later) Not so great if you want to see a cohesive plot and good acting.
Unless, I suppose, you are looking primarily for sex, and you just find the sex to be of low quality. In that case it makes perfect sense to tie sex and quality together in your review!
The inverse would be something like this. "Hey, so this new fighting game we're making, Dead or Alive, kinda sucks. The mechanics are all broken, and I'm pretty sure there's a glitch that makes your Playstation catch fire." "Meh, make their titties bounce and ship it.".
Now, I'm not suggesting that DoA sucks, but HAD it sucked, the boob bouncing could be an example of trying to disguise a flawed product with by slapping a sexy coat of paint on it.
And yes, pretty graphics disguising poor gameplay is equally uncool. And I would hope that a thorough review would mention that, too.
Slightly off-topic, but I am really enjoying the intellectual conversation surrounding this topic. Thanks again, USGamer.