Rockstar "Spazzed Out Like Little Babies" Says Simpsons Game Writer
Rockstar "Spazzed Out Like Little Babies" Says Simpsons Game Writer
October 29, 2007
Is there a simmering feud in Game Developer Land?GamePolitics readers may recall the dust-up between EA and Rockstar at the recent Leipzig Game Convention. Rockstar objected to satirical GTA references in the upcoming The Simpsons game (see: Rockstar Bullies EA Over Parody).
Specifically, a poster for Grand Theft Scratchy, a GTA parody which appears in The Simpsons, drew Rockstar's ire.
A trio of writers on the game have fired back at Rockstar on Geoff Keighley's Game Head program. Matt Selman (left) explained the controversy:
The game begins with Bart wanting to play a game called Grand Theft Scratchy. Of course this is a parody of Grand Theft Auto. And Marge immediately takes it away from him. She tries to clean up the town and stop the game from being distributed in Springfield because Marge is against video game violence. She uses horrific violence to stop video game violence... in a video game.
Thats called irony... The people who make Grand Theft Auto, they spazzed out like little babies.
Writer Matt Warburton (right) chimed in:
They're supposed to be rockstars... That's not a big Rockstar move, to be afraid of The Simpsons making fun of their game.
Selman also dinged Rockstar a bit for the delayed release of GTA 4:
We couldn't get our game out in time, so we're afraid that the gamers -- who are not morons -- are going to get confused by an Itchy and Scratchy poster of Grand Theft Scratchy - they're going to think that's the same thing as Grand Theft Auto...
EA lawyers are afraid to use the name Grand Theft Scratchy in promoting the game... [Rockstar's] games are full of satire, lame attempts at parody... basically putting the words sixty-nine in wherever they can find it...
Selman eventually paid homage to GTA, but couldn't resist a parting shot:
Their games are amazing. Trust me, I'll be the first person in line to play Grand Theft Auto 4... in five years when it comes out.
Comments
/yaqn. Can't you come up with any new material? Honestly.
but its their IP and they can be bitchy about it if they want to.
Yeah, they can bitch about it, but I'm not to fond of all that legal action. Isn't parody protected?
The simpson show has been unfunny for years now.
but they can't end the fucking series. The sad fact that they need to rip something off Oh I mean parody A good franchise is sad.
fuck the simpsons. fuck you all to fucking hell.
It is true though that the Simpsons has sucked for years. Just let it die already.
i see your point, but satire comedy shows that have adverts including clips of their satire, would surely be guilty of the same?
using bits of a game to advertise it is (imo) hardly 'not right', and if the bits of the game include sattire, then so what?
the simpson's show does it all the time, with satire being in loads of their adverts.
You seem to have some deep rooted issues with The Simpsons. Did they abuse you when you were little? Point on the Krusty doll where The Simpsons touched you.
If you were ranting against Family guy I could understand, but geez! The movie that just came out wasn't bad. It really gave the series a shot in the arm so I think it has a few good years left.
I think this was a battle between lawyers, not so much between the developers themselves.
I'm not. A spastics a spastic and no amount of nannying is going to make call them anything but what they are: Spazzes.
Hooah!
Failing that, sic Madden on them.
It deos seem like Rockstar went a bit too far on this one, though.
So why this one?
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Purely because it is competing against it from a rival firm on the same media type. When it was a film/tv spoof it is fine. When it is a game that competes for money and sales, that's another thing.
As for Simpsons Hit and Run, they probably weren't bothered because it was a complete bag of s***e. This new game might actually be half decent?
If it is a genuine stance being held by the company at large...grow the hell up, guys. You've made your name on controversy and parody. First mission of GTAIV ring a bell?
Also, someone give pen gun a tranq. What the hell is up with that, dude?
If you ask me the EA guys are being worse than Rockstar in any event. Sure Rockstar's crying foul over something that seems trivial, but going on TV and calling them babies (who the hell still calls people babies? What are they 10?) and taking shots at the game series they want to parody? Yeah, that's a real good way to get them to see your side of things.
Yet EA have been around since 1982 and haven't made a single game worthy of sniffing R*'s shit. Maybe once EA decides to actually let their developers make a good game instead of rushing a shitty one out in a matter of months, then sticking a licence on it and hope no one will notice the game is not a faithful recreation of their favourite movie/TV show but is in fact dogshit, then maybe I'll give two shits about what EA have to say.
Film at eleven.
/Yeah, I went there.
Nah man groening wanted to end the simpsons a while back but he's legaly bound the let fox ride the shows corpse all the way down the murderhorn (woot simpsons reference). Its kinda sad that other shows from the simpsons staff stable like futurama and the critic die out in their prime, its like the simpsons is feeding on the life of the other shows like some prime-time vampire.
And as for family guy i quite like it though i find its jokes are VERY hit and miss and most of em are done better in robot chicken.
Who exactly on the R* team is bitching about this?
s/their/there/
It's probably derived from the medical condition where someone suffers spasms or seizures, which has led to many PC hounds trying to keep people from using the term "spaz".
Anyway. It was rather lame of Rockstar, BUT only EA would actually instantly kowtow to Rockstar's insistence, so there are two parts to this idiocy.
Scary movie. That's one.
Ah, R*, you keep the freefalling in people's esteem up, will you?
EA is only concerned with in-game advertising and gathering data off your computer to support more targetted advertising. They don't care about the games, just milking them for as much as they can. That's the nature of business, of course, but they've got to be one of the worst. How many other companies have class-action lawsuits filed against them by their own employees?
No, that was last year's EA. This year, they're actually pulling out some decent shit.
Did they over-react? Heck yeah, however they are under a lot of pressure right now, frankly.
You just mentioned the Arse! Turn in your Penis, 'cause your credibility has gone down One Million points.
Yo can have it back at the end of the day.
No, you're not "right again". This is opinion vs. opinion, so you're not right on this just because one person has the same opinion as yours.
And just when were you ever "right" before? This isn't about you, Jack. Be quiet and let those who are grown up speak.
1172 S. Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
October 29, 2007
Strauss Zelnick
Chairman
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
C/o Howard Camerik
Blank Rome
Boca Raton, Florida Via Fax and e-mail
Re: Manhunt 2
Dear Strauss:
You are now formally on notice that the above product is being sold to anyone of any age, with no age verification whatsoever, not only through Take-Two’s own web site but through other Internet sites as well.
Secondly, you are now formally on notice that Manhunt 2 has an ESRB “descriptor” that proclaims it contains “Strong Sexual Content.” You may not know that the 40+ state jurisdictions and the federal jurisdiction all have “sexual material harmful to minors” statutes which criminalize the sale of sexually indecent material to anyone under 18 years of age.
The “Mature” rating that the ESRB uses foolishly allows sales of sexual material to teens as young as 17. This one year hiatus, between 17 and 18, exposes Take-Two corporately and you personally to criminal prosecution.
Govern yourself accordingly, regarding this “fine art.”
Warm personal regards, Jack Thompson
Was it really Strauss Zelnick? Like...Strauss Zelnick of TAKE TWO? Or just Rockstar? I figure I should ask, Jack, because you'd be the one to know, right?
So you're willing to sell your company to whom you see as the enemy?
Oh, and you don't get to zing other people over "lame attempts at parody" when the best you can come up with is "Grand Theft Scratchy". GOD. Thank you, EA.
*Thank you, Rockstar.
Well, with his legal license taken away he'll need an alter form of income, discounting of mooching from his wife, of course.
1) The parody is being used on advertisements. Advertisements that are used to sell games. So EA is, in theory, making money off GTA's likeness.
2) The parody poster (at least the one linked in the story) is a very good parody. It has the look and feel of the usual GTA art down rather well. It's good enough, in fact, that someone not very well informed of the circumstances could conceive that it was an actual game and that if R* wasn't making it they were at least giving it the company's blessing. Parody, I thought, is supposed to be obvious enough that no one in the target audience could possibly confuse the parody with the real thing. I'd argue that that's not the case here - the poster could be construed by some as R* backing the Simpsons game somehow, and EA making money off it.
Note - and I think this is significant - that the article clearly states that the advertisement poster was the focus of R*'s ire. I imagine they'd have no problem with them being parodied - it's happened to them often enough, and they say parody is the highest form of flattery. But things become more complicated, perhaps, when the parody is no longer being done solely for entertainment purposes but is being used to sell something.
Rockstar flipping out over this doesn't make sense, considering their past with Reflections
Rockstar and Reflections have gone back and forth with parody and jabs at each other in games before. Rockstar started it in GTA3 and Reflections responded with Driv3r having Timmy Vermicellis with waterwings mocking the inability to swim in Vice City. Rockstar then responded again in a Madd Dogg mission in San Andreas.
So why would they flip out over The Simpsons game having a parody instead of just poking fun of the game in their next game. So I see it as one person overreacting.
Yeah, well said.
so if not many people play it than it's even less of a big deal.
Rockstar is just a little sensitive. Maybe they need "Johnson ans Johnson's no tears baby shampoo"
GTA is one of the greats though
What is he right about this time? or I should say wrong because he doesn't seem to know how to read.
Mate, i'm going to tell you a little secret. He can't read.
It's been like this for years.
@Everyone
Can we stop talking about Jackie over there?
Rockstars' management is just interested in avoiding any more attention than it already has (and will) generate. I don't think they should have bothered with this, but coming out of the already heated media hate they've had for manhunt 2, i can see why they just don't want fresh attention.
Let's see how many things you go against that you have become.
Vigilante, (illegal stings) distributor of adult material to minors, (gay porn) and a 'kiddy,' (your posts here).
I think the title of hypocrite belongs to you, Mr. Thompson.
I am sorry ok. I just hate how far the series fell. It died when maud died. I do like family guy. I own alot of the early simpsons collection and they used the marge idea in the last game anyway.
to jack.
fuck off.
@Jack
Fuck off and die.
jack you are a mingebag.
my steam name is sdbarbary if any one wants to play.
1) R* did in fact just lose its sense of humor at some point.
2) It isn't the stance of R* as a whole but just that of one overzealous lawyer or executive within the company.
3) This isn't parody because it's just a poster. A parody usually has enough content to establish itself as kind of like its source material, only with a few key, silly differences. This may not be parody but just EA whoring out R*'s intellectual property to advertise something.
4) It's not a parody because the use of R*'s IP isn't creative enough. If they advertise a Grand Theft Scratchy portion of the Simpsons game, advertise using the same box art and art style as GTA, and have that portion of the game be just like GTA... it becomes questionable whether what they're doing is parody, or if they're just taking someone else's IP, changing the names, and selling it as your own.
I'm not saying this is definitively not a parody, but I'm willing to argue that it's presumptive to claim that it definitively IS parody.
Remember when the developers of this game just made this out to be a giant misunderstanding with a gung-ho over zealous lawyer from R*. Yeah, funny how they[EA] nears the fall release(It comes out tomorrow for the US) of this title their gets more elaborate.
Itchy and Scratchy were nothing more than gratuitous violence on the show and the poster shown continues that trend. By comparing them to grand theft auto, maybe T2/R* believe that the poster would fuel the fire that is "gta=pointless violence"
We all know (except one) that GTA is not just about killing for the sake of killing, but Itchy & Scratchy were.
Do you see what I am getting at? If you don't just say so, I can try to be a bit clearer with my opinion
P.S. first post here, so sorry if I come off a little weird.
@ Jack
Maybe I will get to speak to/about you in the future...
To 'Mr.' Thompson, if he can be called as such:
I'm so sorry, but you seem to have mistaken the readers of this website for people who care. Go somewhere else and spout your vitriol. I think I speak for everyone when I say we've had enough.
As for the content of the article itself, they're basically saying what everyone who heard about this was thinking. Rockstar, we're not idiots. We know what games we're buying and playing. If we come across a parody of a game within another game, we're not going to assume that we're playing the game being parodied. We're going to think that we're playing a video game that contains a parody of another video game, because that is all that's happening. To suggest that any reasonable person would think otherwise is insulting.
If you can't take a joke, then you shouldn't make a joke!
this is an attempt to milk the public's sympathy so that even more people will buy the game
Time to break it down.
Dear Strauss:
You are now formally on notice that the above product is being sold to anyone of any age, with no age verification whatsoever, not only through Take-Two’s own web site but through other Internet sites as well.
No, it has verification. Credit card verification. If you don't agree with that, go after the federal government. Pursuing Take-Two or the other sites on your FRAUDULENT charge won't work and opens you up to countersuit. Plus, you can't sue -- agreement earlier this year, remember? Guess not.
Secondly, you are now formally on notice that Manhunt 2 has an ESRB “descriptor” that proclaims it contains “Strong Sexual Content.” You may not know that the 40+ state jurisdictions and the federal jurisdiction all have “sexual material harmful to minors” statutes which criminalize the sale of sexually indecent material to anyone under 18 years of age.
The “Mature” rating that the ESRB uses foolishly allows sales of sexual material to teens as young as 17. This one year hiatus, between 17 and 18, exposes Take-Two corporately and you personally to criminal prosecution.
Sorry, Jack, wrong again. Strong sexual content does not mean that it has sexually indecent material in it; only that it has "strong sexual content". If the material was sexually indecent, an AO would have been given. May I point out the strong sexual content in episodes of Family Guy, which are viewable every week on Fox, available even on televisions with an ANTENNA? Strong sexual content, yes. Indecent and lawbreaking? No. Same for Manhunt 2. Pursuing Take-Two on your FRAUDULENT charge won't work and opens you up to countersuit. Plus, you can't sue -- agreement earlier this year, remember? Guess not.
Govern yourself accordingly, regarding this “fine art.”
Misuse of quotation marks. Videogames are art. Ask the Library of Congress. Plus, they already are governing themselves accordingly; the game was rated AO, they edited it, it's now M. If you disagree with it... tough.
R* prove themselves to be a pack of idiots and you HAVE TO out-do them yet again !! Why are you vying for the crown of "Moron of the Year"?
Incidently, I have no idea why people place R* on such a high pedestal. Their games aren't THAT good, you know.
Basically, give him enough rope to hang himself with.
But onto the topic at hand. It dosnt surprise me that R* would be childish little simps about this. Those who enjoy taking jabs at others seem to be the ones that have the most problem when the tables are turned.
I would also humbly request a stronger policy of removing from a thread any posts that are completely off topic. I admit that this is largely because of JT - he has a habit of hijacking perfectly good discussions with his press releases which tend to be full of, at best, speculation, and at worst, outright lies, and then we spend the rest of the thread analyzing his statements rather than talking aboout the issue at hand. That, and other posts have in the past been deleted for failing to be on topic - I don't feel that we should bend that rule for JT just because he's been on TV.
The difference between GTA's parody/name spoofs is that they don't use them to sell the game, which is exactly what EA was doing with the Grand Theft Scratchy thing. Sure it's still stupid for Rockstar to get pissy about it, but I can understand it somewhat.
It is kinda like how when JT threatened TT about the first mission in GTA IV, they didn't even acknowledge him. It was a baseless threat, and they were not at risk of any action against them. EA must have realized that they were open to legal action, and therefor pulled it.
Besides, look at EA. They see the success of Gears, and make Army of Two. They are the biggest pieces of shit in the video game industry. They are scum.
Actually I've heard of Army of Two waaay before Gears. In fact when i first saw Gears i thought it was Ao2.
Though it could be like Pixar and Dreamworks. Where one makes a movie about bugs, and the other follows up with ants. One makes a movie about fish, the other follows up with more fish. I'm sure thier is more of that. (dunno if it was dreamworks though, i think it was.)
The only thing that really upsets me with EA was thier use of in game ads for BF2142.
Cause come on. If your going to use ads, make the game cheaper. Like Anarcy online makes it free if you play through the ads.
I have a game i'm plotting, (Looking for job) where there would be Ads in it. The Ads are actually used in missions and stuff (like simple stupid ones such as "Tug mah Sign") and are situatated around casino cities or other big cities. The ads would advertise in game products as well as 'modified' real world products as to not break the 'emersion'.
Well your mom is an informd educated contibuting member of the scocity!
(sorry. When i get tired like this i start thinking of yer mum jokes.)
But anyway back to the topic, EA is shit.