Slashdot Mirror
Thompson's (Mostly) Polite Interview
Pluvius writes "For the past few weeks, gaming website Netjak has corresponded with infamous anti-video-game lawyer Jack Thompson in reference to his well-publicized proposal to donate money to a charity if someone created a violent game in which a grieving father murdered members of the video-game industry. This has culminated in an interview in which the unusually cordial attorney gives surprisingly viable reasons for not following through on his donation after such a game was created. Unfortunately, Thompson doesn't quite make it to the end of the interview without taking at least one cheap shot towards gamers: '[P]ut down the controller and get a life. Video gaming is an escapist activity and you're being exploited by these companies. It's not healthy; I worry about someone who would play Grand Theft Auto for ten hours a day. It's a masturbatory activity, and it would be better if people put down the controller and went outside.'"
It's not healthy; I worry about someone who would play Grand Theft Auto for ten hours a day. It's a masturbatory activity, and it would be better if people put down the controller and went outside.'"
It's not healthy; I worry about someone who would beleive in a magic sky-deity. It's a masturbatory activity, and it would be better if people put down the bible and went outside.'"
Fixed
"Video gaming is an escapist activity "
Absolutely. Going out to the movies and reading books are also espacist activities. Life is work, and people need escapist activites to stay sane. No one wants to hear about the real world 24/7, because in reality the real world is harsh and cutthroat.
Video games let the user enter another world for a healthy stress relief. This is no different than watching Lord of the Rings or reading the latest Tom Clancy novel.
The question isn't if Video Games negatively affects the user in real life, but rather what would that person do in real life without video games? I'm guessing not everyone would be out gardening or street sweeping.
Yes, it's a cheap shot.
Yes, he's a loathsome person, and his tactics are sleazy.
Yes, he's almost always wrong.
However, he's closer to right with that last comment. Balance is an important thing in life. I wouldn't refer to gaming as 'masturbatory' perhaps, at least if goals are possible, but having a sense of perspective about leisure pursuits is valuable.
IMHO.
Of course, this comment could be just being made to rationalize why the wife won't let me play PGR3 for 5 hours a night.
stored on computers from birth to the grave
Fanatics in general are disturbing. I feel, like the RIAA, his efforts are futile. I don't believe legislation is the solution to social problems.
i don't care
Other than the last responce the rest of his interview was quite surprisingly well spoken and reasonable. One can only assume that recent disbarment hearings have had an effect on his brashness. I can definatly agree to him that Take-Two should not be marketing towards minors, but in all honestly I can't recall them doing so and would love to see examples of such.
I stated that the game had to come out in 2006. I specifically said 2006 because I wanted to see a real game made, not an amateur one.
And who decides what's "real" and what's "amateur"? If you can install and play it, it counts as real to me, but I think Jack Thompson is using his own private definition of "real" that doesn't coincide with the conventional definition.
So basically, no matter what anybody does, he's going to move the goalposts so that whatever he defines as "real" is not met. It's already happened once; he made the claim, somebody took him up on it, and now he's claiming it's not "real" (for some value of real). If somebody releases a better game this year, he'll say that it hasn't had enough marketing to be a "real" game. If somebody markets it, he'll say that it didn't sell as many copies as GTA, so it's not a "real" game. Because he controls what counts as "real", he can continue moving the goalposts so that no matter what anybody does, his criteria will never be fulfilled.
And what does the release date have to do with whether the game is "real" or not? It's a red herring designed to distract you from the main point.
I also explicitly stated that it must be a company producing the game. I mean, anyone in a garage can throw together something vaguely game-like easily.
A perfect example. If you can play it, it's a game. Not "something vaguely game-like" - an actual, real game.
That's not what I want
Tough, it's what you asked for. Now you're playing semantic games to try and make it sound like you asked for something else. It's not working.
I find it very telling that, when asked what he thought about the $10,000 donation to charity, he couldn't bring himself to admit that it was a good thing, and instead chose to complain that it wasn't really made in his name. So much for his "Christian obligations".
For example, his comment about a game needing to be written 'by a company'. He says that anyone can knock something up in a garage. Well, Darwinia was one of the best games to come out last year and was knocked up in a garage; Counterstrike started life as a purely amateur project. By his logic, neither of these are real games.
I think Thompson's fundamental issue is that when he looks at something, he sees what he expects to see, not what he actually looks at. From what little information I can find about Bully, it's the exact opposite of what he says it is --- it's all about standing up to the bullies and defeating them. But he wants it to be evil, so that's what he sees...
Actually, I suspect he should see a psychiatrist, not because there's anything wrong now, but because this might blow up into something more serious later. He may also have borderline paranoid tendencies. The way he's being harrassed by PA and Slashdot weenies probably isn't helping, either.
It's a masturbatory activity
I'm pretty much in favour of masturbation too, Jack. The only reason I don't do that for ten hours straight is...
Oh, he hung up.