For those of you who don't know, Jack Thompson is an attorney (or lawyer, don't know the difference between them) who has taken the liberty of viewing computer games as a potential threat to our society (basically).

In short: he's an a$$hole that blames EVERYTHING on computer games, even if it makes sense or not.

Now that that's outta the way....



So, what do you think of him? Is he right? Is he wrong? Or maybe even both? Let's not deny it: computer games CAN change your view on life. Maybe not enough to turn you into a serial killer, but maybe enough to change the way you think, or perhaps the way you dress. Heck, you might even abandon your life for a month or two (*cough* World of Warcraft *cough*).

Is he right then?
I'm not joking, I've seen some people change considerably ever since they got ahold of WoW, and even one of them started ignoring phone calls and school. It wasn't excactly permanent (until he got to level 60, that is ), so he came back after awhile.
Most of you however will problably say that: "games don't make people more violent, just look at me."
C'mon, everyone change a little when they start playing games, there's no need to try to hide it. Some change a little, some change less, and some change completely.

But isn't he wrong?
I mean, each and every one of us will agree that Jack is simply overdoing it, and seeing him trying to ban every single game on the market except Solitaire doesn't make any sense. He has even said that GTA is game series that teaches people how to kill cops and civilians, and how to handle guns.
WTF? Teaches people how to handle guns and use them at cops? Ever heard about a STORY? The story in GTA: San Andreas is not to kill people, but to save your friends/gang from corruption and drugs. Now where the f*ck do you see any kind of propaganda there?

Then isn't he both right and wrong at the same time?
That's what I believe. Games CAN change you, just as movies and books can, but at the same time, we have the control to see that what we are playing/reading/watching ISN'T REAL. Some have less control, I admit, and some have more. Some see games as just a way to relax, and others sees it as whole world, just waiting to be explored.

What do YOU think about this? Are games are meant to be used as a military simulator, to teach soldiers how to shoot, or are they just another way of entertainment?

As you say, it is a bit of both. But to suggest computer games are any worse than magazines or books or the web in general is nonsensical. If you are going to ban one you need to ban all.

There are certain dangers. My own opinion (not shared by many) is that computer games dehumanise an enemy in a real life situation, so killing 300 innocent civilians means nothing more than 300 space invaders on a computer. It is used by many military institutions in various simulations. When those trained come face to face with reality however it can be immensely traumatising.

If you are the kind of person that can be driven to taking a gun and shooting at a class of kids the trigger factor can be anything. I have not studied it, so am not qualified to say, but I seem to hear that these people are inclined to access violent websites more than play violent computer games.

I think it is beyond question that games could be developed that have a subliminal message and no doubt that is what causes the fears but, as I said at the start, television, the web, books etc. can be used in the same way and much more easily. The time to start worrying is when the government takes control over the design of games.

Sometimes I think it might be fun to kill a bunch of random innocent people, but I'm smart enough not to do it in real life; that would just be crazy. That's why I play video games. For me, at least, the video games lower my violent desires. Of course, they probably put them there in the first place , but the problem solves itself...sort of. I'm addicted to video games, but that's not so bad.

I think Thomson is going way too far. I agree with Malchik: other media sources are far more likely to traumatize someone. If you go and show a little kid GTA, he'll probably think it's fun, but if you go and show that same kid the movie 300, he'll most likely vomit. There is violence in GTA, but the extent of it is poor animations followed by a red circle under the "dead" npc. 300, however, has tons of blood and even decapitations. The graphics are also so realistic, that said little kid wouldn't be able to tell that it's not real. Also, Google image search will bring up things far worse than anyone can possibly imagine. Does that mean the government should ban the internet, violating not only national laws (First Amendment), but international ones, too (since the internet is "owned" by the entire world, and one country can't dictate what another country can/can't have)? The internet is the most free media source since no country can censor it. I won't lie; there are many sick freaks out there, and they spread their atrocities on the internet, thus letting kids get a hold on it. Between movies, TV, and, especially, the internet, video games are the least of our worries.
What it all comes down too, however, is the parenting. Parents are responsible for raising their kids; that's not the government's job. Just because some of the parents couldn't care less about their kids doesn't mean that it has to ruin it for the rest of us. If the government really wants to do something about these moron parents and their moron kids, they should make a law stating that anyone with an IQ less than 100 must get neutered. That way, we will have less moron parents to worry about. (It will also greatly reduce our population, but that's probably for the best. It will also raise the average intelligence to around 130-ish, thus raising the average standardized test scores, and making colleges much harder to get into...on the other hand, with over 2/3 of the population wiped out, colleges will be begging for students, thus making them much easier to get into...either way, if something like this actually does happen, I'll already be out of college, so what do I care?)

I summary, I think Jack Thomson should crawl up his own a** and die.

haha, went you discussing this in my poll?!?!

Sort of. I thought it deserved an own thread.



It's kinda funny to watch Jack try to blame Counterstrike. Just look here.
I mean: "Counterstrike is an online game where the goal is to kill the other players."?
Does he even know what the game is about?

It just keeps getting better and better.

yeah Fair enough.. Speaking of which, i don't think hes the only one out there either.. theres Dozens of *one man army's* out there blaming games for everything.. and don't get me started about Bible Bashers




oh my Vulking God.

Bible Bashers?

yes. Bible Bashers.. Those Christians that come and knock at your door? try and talk you into being one of "the lords holy matrons" ?

They just don't blame games.. They blame Everything on Everything!! There Tools!!

you could probably catch one saying

"FEMALES ARE THE DEVILS WORK!! THE CURSED BLOOD OF SATAN LEAKS OUT OF THERE BODY ON THE DAY OF JUDGMENT! BACK TO HELL I SAY!!"

..Or something in the ridiculous lines of that manner..


i am sorry if anyone on these Forums are Christian, but im just someone who has bad luck with em

If you bring religion into the debate it will be closed. Whilst your personal experiences with christians may give you a particular perspective, I can assure you the same will be true of all other beliefs. The debate is whether the reasons given for the banning of computer games is valid or not. It matters not what your belief is.

That...that's beyond words. "Videogames caused 9/11"!? WTF!? 9/11 was caused do to religious and cultural differences between the Middle-East and USA, not video games!

"Religious and cultural differences"? What the hell do they teach you kids at school these days?

That everyone but Christians, and Jews have valid beliefs which should be accepted and honored as part of their culture, no matter how we may misunderstand them... What else?

Coincendentally, They've also started using a new grading system in the lower grades around here. One star for passing, Two stars for effort. There is no failing grade. It's a system designed to protect the self-esteam of kids who can't read good, while still giving kids who show interest in their studies a bigger boost.

oooh snap your right, i went off topic!!

as a defense i DID say don't get me started.. but yes you are right. sorry

I agree. It's just... beyond words.

I.. I have NEVER... EVER... seen a person as stupd and ignorant as this guy.

Edit: "The documentary film's main subject is the gaming violence, featuring the facts that terrorists used flight simulators in training."

Wait... terrorists wear pants.... and I wear pants.... OH GOD! I'M TERRORIST!

yeah, what a stooge.. out of all the conspiracy's on how 9/11 went down... this is the most ridiculous one.

I play counter strike, does that make ME a terrorist?

Apperantly yes it does!

Yep, you are. Call 911 and ask them to detain you. You are, afterall, a danger to society.... right?

Anyone feel the same as Jack, or is everyone against him?

You know, I wouldn't be surprised if he's actually working for Al Qaeda, to divert the government's attention from the real terrorists... I wonder how long it'll be before he's found out?

Who me, or this Jack guy?

ooh man im confused.. again..

No, Jack... he's trying to make the government blame gamers, so they don't concentrate as much on hunting down the real terrorists.

Well, he's really wasting his time. The government sponsors violent games, and even uses them as a recruiting tool, and as a means of breaking down the stigma associated with one of the necessities of war, killing people. Videogames have also led to technologies which can be applied to more peaceful persuits, which wouldn't have been developed if there weren't violent games constantly pushing the limits. Forcefeedback was something designed for FPS, but is used within a teaching tool to allow a doctor to have the feeling of performing surgery without actually cutting open a patient.

An example, perhaps?

He gave an example:



You're asking this on a gaming forum...

Read your history, Wolfenstien 3d and Doom managed to create fast moving 3d graphics which pushed the capacity of computers at the time. Without these games, and the following they started, computers themselves wouldn't be nearly as powerful as they are now. It's really the gamers who have helped create a market for multi-core processors, high speed videocards, and large data storage. Just about anything that requires a new age processor owes its thanks to gamers creating a market where such a processor could be made and sold. Outside of gaming, there are few reasons why anyone would need a computer as fast as they have... Keep in mind, some of the stuff you considder every day (like 3d or even 2d graphics) wasn't really done on computers until it was applied to games. Computers would really be little more than what their name implies if it wasn't for games to pull it out of the labratory and into homes and bars. The point is that Atari, Apple, IBM, Microsoft wouldn't have been able to survive if there weren't people buying products just to play games. In doing so, these companies were able to constantly build bigger, better computers.

I'd say, he's blind to the facts: If you search for statistics of violence in America and (for example) Canada which countries are by average similar (in gaming, not to mention other media) then see the significance of the difference in the number of violence

I mean, sure, for some people, it can effect their way of thinking, but then again, it can't be blamed all to games. Playing games can make someone think even more of life, of becoming even morally better. Games also view scenes which can teach gamers of philosophies which are beyond other sources. Most of the time, rather than reading a book, I play my games, I would prefer to know an idea, a knowledge, etc from a game, rather than reading it from books. Rather than being fed the knowledge through reading, I'd prefer to be involved in the teaching process itself, in games, you participate, and in most RPGs, learn the consequence of your actions.

There are games such as "Neverwinter Nights" ever played Neverwinter Nights 2? it provides in depth character development, where you choose the response in every conversations, and each will have it's consequence. You can choose to do bad things, and also learn the consequence. There are games such as that one which for some gamers, can actually make them feel guilty to re-load an earlier save, and try to fix it.

Anyways, how is he going to attack "Games" itself? for one, I don't even think he can take on a multi-million (or billion, I forgot) company like xbox...

Just wait till he does something against Blizzard or EA....
.... I don't think his email is safe anymore, neither his computer, considering all the hackers playing WoW....

Jack Thomson says that Grand Theft Auto rewards people for killing. I don't know what game he's playing, because every time I go on a killing rampage in GTA, I end up dead. Who knows, though. Maybe Jack Thomson views death as a reward.

of course, well, in a few missions in GTA, perhaps it is rewarded for killing someone, but still, it doesn't actually REWARD the player. Though maybe you get money reward after completing a mission, it is most likely you will still be pursued by the police and will have to deal with it.

So this certainly goes against his claim, GTA for example, teaches real life consequences:

commit crime > wanted > either busted or wasted (or escape sometimes)

does it not teach players of reality? if you commit crime, you will be pursued by the authorities, then, you can try to resist and end up dead, and on a few occasions, you may even escape.

Just a little life skill, and I say nothing is wrong with that...

I don't get it. If 200 000 people says that the game doesn't reward the player for killing cops, why does he keep saying that? He said the same thing about Counter-Strike (oh god, I truly hate that game.... no offense, HL was godlike, but CS is just.... well, meh... ) He wants everyone to listen him, but he won't listen back. How can you be a politician with that attitude?

Except in reality, unless you're a celebrity, you don't escape. You commit a crime, they will lock you away. Simple as that. Your reality argument really isn't strong since in game there really isn't any down side to death or being arrested, you just respawn back in town, able to do whatever you want again. Loss of weapons/money isn't anything when you can get them back. No, to make it more like reality, you would have to set it so that the player has to spend several years+ in jail or haldcuffed to a hospital bed.

Sorry, my mistake, I didn't explain well enough. Well, yes, there are some (very important) differences from committing it in game and committing a crime in real life. Well, mostly criminals do get thrown to jail, or handcuffed to a hospital bed, but it is always arguable that there are also few that is able to get away with it. The ones who get away with crimes, well, as you said, are mostly, celebrity, however, there are few non-celebrity criminals who can actually escape. Anyways, before going elsewhere with this statement, let's go back to the topic.



He does not play the game, and yet he insist as if he knew everything.



he can, if gamers, game producers, and others who are related to gaming becomes the minority. Thing is, we know for sure that the chances of it are very thin.

Gamers are, and always will be, the majority. Even my grandparents play video games! Of course, they aren't hardcore gamers, but they do enjoy a game from time to time, mostly simple ones, though, like cards, or battleship.

Actually, he does say that he has played those games, I don't recall what amount of time he figured, but he did play enough. Sadly, you do get rewarded for killing cops, destroying cars, slaughering countless people in the form of a higher score. In this regard he is actually correct. People get the enjoyment of causing pure mayhem and the game makes notes of their accomplishments in those regards. Yes there is more to the game, but can you really stop yourself from going on a brief rampage, or just jacking one person for long... If you enjoy doing it, and want to continue doing it. There is already enough there to be concerned.

The bottom line is simple, retailers need to stop selling mature games to kids, parents need to stop buying those games for their kids. Parents need to learn how to RAISE their kids. And people need to just learn how to stop being so damn stupid. Since those things will obviously never happen at this rate, it's easier to just blame the media. The nation goes down the toilet and we're all too busy yelling at game makers.

And how long does he "play" the game?

A few hours can't be called playing, it's "playing around" with it, tell me of a SERIOUS GAME (not like tetris, space invaders, Solitaire) which you can master in a few hours, sure, you'll get hold of basic controls, basic rules and stuff, but never the depth things of the game itself. Unless he's really born a gamer, I doubt he could know GTA by playing a few hours in a few days, but if he is born a gamer, then he will not point accusations on games.

While playing GTA, he would've found a bunch of negative things in the game, because that's what he's looking for. For those who enjoy role-playing games, would play GTA, and see it through it's storyline, how Tommy Vercetti was sent there by Sonny Forelli, how he climbed through to power over vice city, how he struggled to defend it. If you're looking for the violence however, you'll see nothing than the player being allowed to slaughter an entire city without due consequence, he sees what he wants to see.

And of course, we're not supposed to question how parents raise their children, they are after all, parents.

You also said that people had to stop being stupid, now question is, how do you define: stupid?

I just found a very interesting interview with Gerard Jones, the guy who wrote 'Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, And Make-Believe Violence'... one of the key bits, at least for the purposes of this debate, is this:



I strongly recommend you read the rest of it, you can find the entire thing here.