Does he ever give up? Guess not. (our man Jack)
- Thread starter Dogpatch
- Start date
I just find it funny. How many times can you shoot yourself in the foot? Your probably right about the publicity he is getting. Problem is, no matter how much you ignore him, he comes back. Just wish he would harp on something else besides games. Or at least get his facts straight.
i found it funny when he got reamed by that judge over bully, but like i said, i very seriously doubt even he buys into his own bullshit. he doesn't care about the facts, he just wants to be sensational and get his name in print. penny arcade had the right idea: if major game news sites would just ignore him, he'd go away.
captainfrizo
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
So he's essentially yelling at Microsoft and not saying anything (at this point at least) to Sony whose console will be getting the same game in question?
You'd think a dumb-ass on a crusade to eliminate all violent video games would have included the industry leader in his latest round of stupidity. For some reason I wonder if Sony offered him incentive to "forget" about them.
You'd think a dumb-ass on a crusade to eliminate all violent video games would have included the industry leader in his latest round of stupidity. For some reason I wonder if Sony offered him incentive to "forget" about them.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Apparently even he thinks the PS3 will be a bust. :lol:
While I do think Jack Thompson does things the wrong way 9 times out of 10, I do think he is right about kids playing games like Grand Theft Auto. Playing a violent videogame is the same as watching a violent movie, and I think that there should be much more strict age-restrictions in this industry.
People complain that videogames don't get the respect that movies/music do from the public, and I think this is one reason why. A lot of people still associate videogames as a toy for children, but don't realize the art and meaning that can be behind the controller.
I find it strange that an "R" Rating seems to work to educate parents about the content found in a movie, whereas a A-O or a M on a videogame are not as effective.
The videogame industry must do more to aware people that there are games for kids and there are games for adults in order for the market to expand and for the industry to break free of the "toy" connotation.
People complain that videogames don't get the respect that movies/music do from the public, and I think this is one reason why. A lot of people still associate videogames as a toy for children, but don't realize the art and meaning that can be behind the controller.
I find it strange that an "R" Rating seems to work to educate parents about the content found in a movie, whereas a A-O or a M on a videogame are not as effective.
The videogame industry must do more to aware people that there are games for kids and there are games for adults in order for the market to expand and for the industry to break free of the "toy" connotation.
FriskyTanuki
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='hufferstl']IMO more is needed. There are parents out there that would buy their kid a war game, but not let their kid watch Saving Private Ryan. Why do you think that is, other than the parent is uneducated about the ratings system?[/quote]
It's always simple the ignorant parents' fault. The ESRB is doing much more than it needs to to get the word out that games aren't just for kids anymore, but the parents just don't want to listen.
It's always simple the ignorant parents' fault. The ESRB is doing much more than it needs to to get the word out that games aren't just for kids anymore, but the parents just don't want to listen.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='hufferstl']IMO more is needed. There are parents out there that would buy their kid a war game, but not let their kid watch Saving Private Ryan. Why do you think that is, other than the parent is uneducated about the ratings system?[/QUOTE]
I don't know about that. I think there are two problems: (1) a generational gap between people who do play games and people who don't, and also (2) the lack of parallels between the MPAA ratings and ESRB ratings, combined with laziness on the consumer's part.
The first is simply that policy is being written and proposed by people who don't play games and never have, and they are being informed by people who have as much scientific evidence that video games are harmful as there is scientific evidence that heavy metal music leads to killing people, that reading comic books leads to homosexuality and communism, and that pornography causes rape.
As for movies and television, when someone says "I don't watch movies or TV," we call them a liar. It is fully expected that the general populace has first-hand experience with movies and TV; OTOH, if an older person (say, Joe Liberman) says they've never played a game, it may very well be true. It's a generational gap, to be sure: those people who first grew up with games in the 70's are now in their late 30's-early 40's, and trends show that as people since then enter adulthood, they aren't giving up gaming the way they would toys or playing war in the backyard.
In other words, we will be the first/second generation of people for whom gaming is a realistic and everpresent element of life. If a current politician says they never play a game, then we accept the plausibility of that answer. Imagine if someone your age says the same thing. You're immediately quite skeptical of them, right?
As we age and become politicians, scientists, and policymakers, things will change drastically. People making arguments like Jack Thompson won't go away, ever; but, as more aware and informed gamers become the norm, the "fear of the unknown" coupled with the assumption that it's "rotting peoples' brains" will fall to the wayside.
Unless, of course, evidence does show up that games do negatively impact people. Which, for the moment, does exist, though it's almost always really weak laboratory testing done by psychologists. Pretty much rudimentary stuff.
Second, stretching the "games as unfamiliar to adults" mentality a bit further, just like you'd be skeptical of someone who said they never watch movies, you would react similarly if they said they didn't understand the MPAA ratings system. You'd think they were full of shit.
Now, if a parent doesn't know ESRB ratings, that's unsurprising, regretfully. It ought to be their responsibility to learn the rules, and I think it is. Nevertheless, the lack of a parallel b/w ESRB and MPAA ratings makes it difficult for parents to grasp. That's partially their laziness, and its partially the ambiguity as to what defines an "E" title versus a "T" title. There's some work to be done, but I can't help but think that the ESRB is doing what it can, and it can't force willfully ignorant politicians and policymakers to take an agnostic stance on the matter despite their lack of knowledge, and they can't force parents to be informed.
I don't know about that. I think there are two problems: (1) a generational gap between people who do play games and people who don't, and also (2) the lack of parallels between the MPAA ratings and ESRB ratings, combined with laziness on the consumer's part.
The first is simply that policy is being written and proposed by people who don't play games and never have, and they are being informed by people who have as much scientific evidence that video games are harmful as there is scientific evidence that heavy metal music leads to killing people, that reading comic books leads to homosexuality and communism, and that pornography causes rape.
As for movies and television, when someone says "I don't watch movies or TV," we call them a liar. It is fully expected that the general populace has first-hand experience with movies and TV; OTOH, if an older person (say, Joe Liberman) says they've never played a game, it may very well be true. It's a generational gap, to be sure: those people who first grew up with games in the 70's are now in their late 30's-early 40's, and trends show that as people since then enter adulthood, they aren't giving up gaming the way they would toys or playing war in the backyard.
In other words, we will be the first/second generation of people for whom gaming is a realistic and everpresent element of life. If a current politician says they never play a game, then we accept the plausibility of that answer. Imagine if someone your age says the same thing. You're immediately quite skeptical of them, right?
As we age and become politicians, scientists, and policymakers, things will change drastically. People making arguments like Jack Thompson won't go away, ever; but, as more aware and informed gamers become the norm, the "fear of the unknown" coupled with the assumption that it's "rotting peoples' brains" will fall to the wayside.
Unless, of course, evidence does show up that games do negatively impact people. Which, for the moment, does exist, though it's almost always really weak laboratory testing done by psychologists. Pretty much rudimentary stuff.
Second, stretching the "games as unfamiliar to adults" mentality a bit further, just like you'd be skeptical of someone who said they never watch movies, you would react similarly if they said they didn't understand the MPAA ratings system. You'd think they were full of shit.
Now, if a parent doesn't know ESRB ratings, that's unsurprising, regretfully. It ought to be their responsibility to learn the rules, and I think it is. Nevertheless, the lack of a parallel b/w ESRB and MPAA ratings makes it difficult for parents to grasp. That's partially their laziness, and its partially the ambiguity as to what defines an "E" title versus a "T" title. There's some work to be done, but I can't help but think that the ESRB is doing what it can, and it can't force willfully ignorant politicians and policymakers to take an agnostic stance on the matter despite their lack of knowledge, and they can't force parents to be informed.
[quote name='hufferstl']While I do think Jack Thompson does things the wrong way 9 times out of 10, I do think he is right about kids playing games like Grand Theft Auto. Playing a violent videogame is the same as watching a violent movie, and I think that there should be much more strict age-restrictions in this industry.
People complain that videogames don't get the respect that movies/music do from the public, and I think this is one reason why. A lot of people still associate videogames as a toy for children, but don't realize the art and meaning that can be behind the controller.
I find it strange that an "R" Rating seems to work to educate parents about the content found in a movie, whereas a A-O or a M on a videogame are not as effective.
The videogame industry must do more to aware people that there are games for kids and there are games for adults in order for the market to expand and for the industry to break free of the "toy" connotation.[/QUOTE]
Games aren't the problem, and a kid can play whatever they want. Its up to the kids parents to teach him whats right and whats wrong. If you sit in isolation without the guidance of your parents playing "ultra-violent" video games then your going to think thats (killing) is the right thing to do. Unless someone's there to intervene to tell you whats right and wrong.
People complain that videogames don't get the respect that movies/music do from the public, and I think this is one reason why. A lot of people still associate videogames as a toy for children, but don't realize the art and meaning that can be behind the controller.
I find it strange that an "R" Rating seems to work to educate parents about the content found in a movie, whereas a A-O or a M on a videogame are not as effective.
The videogame industry must do more to aware people that there are games for kids and there are games for adults in order for the market to expand and for the industry to break free of the "toy" connotation.[/QUOTE]
Games aren't the problem, and a kid can play whatever they want. Its up to the kids parents to teach him whats right and whats wrong. If you sit in isolation without the guidance of your parents playing "ultra-violent" video games then your going to think thats (killing) is the right thing to do. Unless someone's there to intervene to tell you whats right and wrong.
I agree that games aren't the problem. But if you read the article posted, JT isn't against violent games, he is only against these games being played by young children. And I for one agree with him in that statement.
CITIZENB - You say that a kid can play whatever they want... Are you saying that a kid should be able to play ManHunt or Saint's Row even if his parents tell him that "killing people is bad?"
I understand that parents should be more aware and MYKEVERMIN brings up a lot of good points about why they aren't. I guess the generational gap is just too large to make older people aware of the revelance of Video Games as an art form.
CITIZENB - You say that a kid can play whatever they want... Are you saying that a kid should be able to play ManHunt or Saint's Row even if his parents tell him that "killing people is bad?"
I understand that parents should be more aware and MYKEVERMIN brings up a lot of good points about why they aren't. I guess the generational gap is just too large to make older people aware of the revelance of Video Games as an art form.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredric_Wertham
This psychologist is responsible for much of the hullabaloo over comic books half a century ago. It's worth revisiting what happened there, because much of the same themes seem to come about whenever Thompson's hand is involved.
This psychologist is responsible for much of the hullabaloo over comic books half a century ago. It's worth revisiting what happened there, because much of the same themes seem to come about whenever Thompson's hand is involved.
[quote name='hufferstl']IMO more is needed. There are parents out there that would buy their kid a war game, but not let their kid watch Saving Private Ryan. Why do you think that is, other than the parent is uneducated about the ratings system?[/quote]
I don't think more is really needed as far as the ratings go. Maybe some more advertisements? I really don't see how a parent could be so completely out of the loop not to see or think about the ratings. They're on the box, they're on the ads and commercials.
I know that thinking isn't everyone's strong point, especially when it comes to something they're not personally interested in, but the ratings seem pretty clear to me, Everyone means everyone, teen means teen, and mature means over 18 (that's probably the most ambiguous one though, but when something is for "mature" audiences, everyone thinks 17 or 18, maybe 15 or 16 at the youngest).
I personally don't see why they don't just go with a simple number system and have Ages 6+ or 13+ or 18+ just written as the damn rating, but even so I don't see how the current rating system is too confusing. The parents and/or retailers just aren't paying attention.
I don't think more is really needed as far as the ratings go. Maybe some more advertisements? I really don't see how a parent could be so completely out of the loop not to see or think about the ratings. They're on the box, they're on the ads and commercials.
I know that thinking isn't everyone's strong point, especially when it comes to something they're not personally interested in, but the ratings seem pretty clear to me, Everyone means everyone, teen means teen, and mature means over 18 (that's probably the most ambiguous one though, but when something is for "mature" audiences, everyone thinks 17 or 18, maybe 15 or 16 at the youngest).
I personally don't see why they don't just go with a simple number system and have Ages 6+ or 13+ or 18+ just written as the damn rating, but even so I don't see how the current rating system is too confusing. The parents and/or retailers just aren't paying attention.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='SpazX']I personally don't see why they don't just go with a simple number system and have Ages 6+ or 13+ or 18+ just written as the damn rating, but even so I don't see how the current rating system is too confusing. The parents and/or retailers just aren't paying attention.[/QUOTE]
The current European system uses that style of system. Personally, I don't think all people of all ages are alike, so while I can appreciate wanting to see a system like that, I think the current ESRB ratings are fine (especially now that there's a median between E and T, E10+).
Beyond the rating on the front, what the ESRB does that's great, and I think the MPAA also does, is list the contributing factors to the rating on the back - so, if you're a stickler for, say, drug use or language, but realistic blood and gore is fine by you, you can comparison shop within similarly-rated games. When you say people aren't paying attention, you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
The current European system uses that style of system. Personally, I don't think all people of all ages are alike, so while I can appreciate wanting to see a system like that, I think the current ESRB ratings are fine (especially now that there's a median between E and T, E10+).
Beyond the rating on the front, what the ESRB does that's great, and I think the MPAA also does, is list the contributing factors to the rating on the back - so, if you're a stickler for, say, drug use or language, but realistic blood and gore is fine by you, you can comparison shop within similarly-rated games. When you say people aren't paying attention, you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
FriskyTanuki
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='hufferstl']I agree that games aren't the problem. But if you read the article posted, JT isn't against violent games, he is only against these games being played by young children. And I for one agree with him in that statement.
CITIZENB - You say that a kid can play whatever they want... Are you saying that a kid should be able to play ManHunt or Saint's Row even if his parents tell him that "killing people is bad?"
I understand that parents should be more aware and MYKEVERMIN brings up a lot of good points about why they aren't. I guess the generational gap is just too large to make older people aware of the revelance of Video Games as an art form.[/quote]
We all agree with his ideas in principle, that kids shouldn't be playing M-rated games, but the means he suggests and performs (frivolous lawsuits, unconstitutional laws) are the problem that cause the intense hatred. In the end, it's all up to the parents to decide what their kids should and shouldn't be playing, regardless of their competency to actually perform their basic parental responsibilities. Everything's there to tell them to look at the ratings (pamphlets, posters, ads, commercials, and the large rating on the box and descriptors on the back) regardless of their ability to pay attention.
Myke, the ages are actually on some of the ESRB ratings, too. It seems to be in particular just the M and E10+ to I guess further elaborate what they represent.
In my opinion, Jack's not worth getting upset over because nothing he does ever works out in the end. He's just a harmless threat that becomes funnier more than it becomes annoying.
CITIZENB - You say that a kid can play whatever they want... Are you saying that a kid should be able to play ManHunt or Saint's Row even if his parents tell him that "killing people is bad?"
I understand that parents should be more aware and MYKEVERMIN brings up a lot of good points about why they aren't. I guess the generational gap is just too large to make older people aware of the revelance of Video Games as an art form.[/quote]
We all agree with his ideas in principle, that kids shouldn't be playing M-rated games, but the means he suggests and performs (frivolous lawsuits, unconstitutional laws) are the problem that cause the intense hatred. In the end, it's all up to the parents to decide what their kids should and shouldn't be playing, regardless of their competency to actually perform their basic parental responsibilities. Everything's there to tell them to look at the ratings (pamphlets, posters, ads, commercials, and the large rating on the box and descriptors on the back) regardless of their ability to pay attention.
Myke, the ages are actually on some of the ESRB ratings, too. It seems to be in particular just the M and E10+ to I guess further elaborate what they represent.
In my opinion, Jack's not worth getting upset over because nothing he does ever works out in the end. He's just a harmless threat that becomes funnier more than it becomes annoying.
bread's done