Man, it's great being right all the time...

So Chris and I had an argument just yesterday about the now (in)famous "Hot Coffee mod" for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

For those who don't know what that is, a little backstory:

GTA: San Andreas originally featured a sex minigame in which you manipulated your character, CJ, while having simulated sex with any number of your "girlfriends" (read: hoes). Your girl of choice performs simulated fellatio first before you get to control the action and it's your job to keep a steady rhythm in order to please her. It should be noted that you never see any nudity or genetalia.

Rockstar Games, the publisher of the game, originally took the stance that the "mod" was created by hackers who reverse engineered and altered the PC version's code in order to create the minigame themselves.

Shortly thereafter, GameSpot did some research with commonly available tools such as an Action Replay Max (which can be found pretty much anywhere that sells video games) amd discovered that the code was ALSO in the PS2 version, which comes on an unmoddable DVD disc. This completely disproved Rockstar's claim that the code wasn't THEIRS, but the work of malicious hackers.

Now the argument we got into was whether or not Rockstar intentionally left the code in the game and leaked the means of accessing it themselves. While there is still no definitive proof it was Rockstar's doing, and the argument is irrelevant now, Chris argued that the code was left in because, perhaps, it didn't test well with alpha and beta testers. Rather than remove the code, which could potentially cause hundreds of other bugs and breaks in other portions of the game, they decided to simply leave it dormant.

I argued that Rockstar DID, in fact, leak the "mod" themselves as a means to release the game's questionable content while bypassing a potential Adults Only (AO) rating from the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB).

The ESRB voluntarily rates video games based on their content, similar in many ways to the way films are rated. An M (Mature) rating can include graphic violence, harsh language and sexual content or situations. The AO rating is, by the ESRB's own definition, nearly identical. The distinction seems to be how MUCH of the content appears in the game.

I argued that because of the nature of the graphic, semi-realistic violence in GTA (beating people with bats, regardless of how much blood you see, is quite graphic), including violence against police officers and innocent civilians, an steady stream of vulgarity, implied sexual acts, and the entire nature of the game itself that the original, more graphic sexual content would have put the game into the AO category. Though sex acts have been implied in previous GTA games, the player never controlled them and no simulated sexual acts were ever SHOWN. Regardless of whether there is nudity, I argued that the AMOUNT of graphic content would've put the game over the top, much the same way an NC-17 film can be cut down to an R-rating by removing mere SECONDS of violence and gore (Saw is a perfect example of a film that originally earned an NC-17 rating, but was trimmed down to an R by removing less than 5 minutes of footage). Chris argued that there's no way the content would have earned an AO rating because, according to him, the ESRB requirement stated there had to be "nudity" (of which there has been in games that have not gotten AO ratings, such as God Of War) and "graphic" sexual acts and/or violence.

The trick is what definition of "graphic" you use. Network television defines "graphic sexual acts" as "simulated copulation", which essentially means that simulating the ACT of having sex (humping, thrusting, etc.) is considered "graphic". This is exactly what you see/perform in San Adreas, regardless of how much or how little nudity there is. The fact that the GTA games take place in a realistic environment give the game a sense of more graphic realism than a game such as Mortal Kombat, where there is a heavy element of fantasy and the characters don't necessarily LOOK like other human beings.

Why does it matter if the game gets an AO rating? Most retailers refuse to carry games with AO ratings, including the two major gaming retailers, EB Games and GameStop, and the mega-corporation Wal-Mart.

So, rather than risk the AO rating, which would undoubtedly hurt sales as the game wouldn't be carried at most major retailers, Rockstar left the content out of the main game and leaked the means of accessing out at a later date. Whether that is true or not will probably never be proven, but the fact that the content DOES warrant an AO rating does seem to help the case. The fact that Rockstar continues to uphold their lie and claims still that it was hackers who ALTERED the code (which is IMPOSSIBLE to do on the PS2 version of the game) also hurts their credibility.

While it is true that removing even the slightest bit of code and break the rest of the game or cause a potential flood of bugs, the fact remains that Rockstar more than likely knew their content would secure the game an AO rating and they took a risk leaving it in the game. There's more than a slim chance that the code was left in intentionally to try and circumvent the rating and Rockstar could play dumb in the meantime.

Regardless, we'll never know for sure, but we DO know one thing: The "Hot Coffee" content in GTA: San Andreas puts the game into the AO category, just as I said it would.

Thank you and good night!