[Videogamer555]

I have heard about it on a number of TV news broadcasts where the reporters have said people were "up in arms" over the existence of this, and they covered the story about how this whole thing happened, and Rockstar's response, etc. However just how each broadcast has described it is different from each other. Here are summaries of the 6 versions of this news story that I have heard.

Some of the news reports have said it's a mod to the game where hackers added the scene from scratch (basically the whole scene was nothing more than a "game mod").

Some have said it was an official Rockstar-made scene, and you use a cheat code to access it.

Some have said it was a scene Rockstar left in as a "bonus", and you have to know where to look in the game to find it because it's hidden.

Some have said it was code that was left in the game's code but never implemented "in game", and hackers found out how to implement it themselves.

Some have said it was available in normal gameplay in the "original" GTA:SA but since then has been removed to comply with the demands of the general public who were angry that it was in a game that had an M rating instead of AO.

Some have said it was available in normal gameplay in the "original" game, and Rockstar did respond by removing it, but in fact they didn't remove it, just disabled it, and hackers have found a way to reactivate that part of the code

I've heard these 6 different accounts of the incident in the news, and each one is slightly different. So I want to know what the REAL TRUTH is. Someone PLEASE explain it to me. Thanks.

This post has been edited by Videogamer555 on Sunday, May 27 2012, 05:09

[M.A.K]

The real truth is that, Rockstar made a stupid mistake leaving the code disabled in the game, Modders found it and did what they do, some politicians found a way to criticize the game, Rockstar stated it was a mod, Modders said they found it in the game code, Rockstar accepted that they had left it in, SA was taken out of stores, a new version was made and that's that.

No need to discuss this any further.

[huevos_benedicto_180]

QUOTE

Some have said it was code that was left in the game's code but never implemented "in game", and hackers found out how to implement it themselves.

This one, I believe. It was a feature that they thought about adding, but soon decided that it didn't fit in with the game so didn't take it any further and it wasn't put in the game. The code, however, remained.

If you're curious about how it looked there are videos of it on youtube.

[Nukey Shay]

That is correct. Relationship progress with "girlfriends" was originally going to include a sex minigame to increase or decrease this progress after being invited into their houses for "coffee". The minigame was disabled before the release of the game and said progress was changed to be an automatic increase (i.e. there is no way to lose relationship points after accepting an invitation for coffee). The minigame content remained in the game's data, but the "flag" to enable this minigame no longer changes when being invited in (a flag is a single "bit" of computer memory...either a zero or a one...ot instruct the game engine whether or not to run a given routine).

I don't know which was discovered first...the unchanging "flag" or the content itself...but I do know that the girlfriend interior bedrooms were known about prior to the discovery of the minigame (due to exploration of the "interior heavens").

Contrary to R*'s original statement that the content was not made by them, all that was required to re-enable the minigame is just to change the state of that single "bit" of computer memory. Unfortunately, this makes the game engine refuse to return control to the player once the minigame has finished (since the minigame "flag" is still enabled)...because the routine which would have returned normal control was unfinished in the game data. This problem is corrected by adding an additional subroutine call when exiting the interior, to disable the "bit" once again.

The aspect that got R* in the most trouble was not that the disabled minigame was present in the game's data...but that they lied about it. The minigame is actually no more explicit than an "adult" computer game made for consoles 3 decades ago (see the interior sequence of Gigolo or X-Man, for example). Possibly even less-explicit, since no "genitalia" is actually seen in the minigame (i.e. think "Ken mounting Barbie", and you get the picture).