Thompson Vs. Jenkins On VG Violence 103
1up.com has a feature up including side-by-side interviews with Anti-Gaming Muckraker Jack Thompson and Prof. Henry Jenkins. The site manages to ask both proponents some tough questions, and they get some realistic answers in response. From the article's Jenkins interview: "Education is the key, not legislation. If you heavily regulate the industry it will narrow what games are in the market, and retailers will only carry content that is suitable for the youngest of players. Retailers won't carry a Mature-rated game if you move to an enforceable system. We saw this with the comic industry in the '50s. The other way to approach this problem is to put the burden on the consumer. We have to educate."
My experience... (Score:5, Insightful)
more crap from this guy's mouth (Score:5, Insightful)
Playing the Left/Right game? Give me a fuckin' break. This guy is probably just saying these things to try to make money, but in the process he is really trying my restraint. I suppose he might throw in extra insult by trying to say that such a feeling demonstrates his point.
I agree... (Score:3, Insightful)
hrm... educate or legislate (Score:2, Insightful)
I really hope that people get the right to choose rather than being told what they can and cannot do... that is not freedom, it is slavery!
Just from an outsiders PoV it seems that the american people are more and more putting the burden of things onto someone elses shoulders... eg - manufactures of drills warning not to put the drill in your mouth... etc etc
Columbine, my case in point. (Score:4, Insightful)
It should.
Thompsons statement regarding terrorist training through videogames such as Full-Spectrum Warrior is, I hope, hyperbolic prima facae to most of you. Much, much, more training and planning goes into acts of terrorism than Thompson seems to give them credit for (it's a little bit more than shoot the enemy when you see him pop up on the screen).
Saying that restricting the export of tactical videogames to foreign countries under say, the EAR or ITAR, would obviously not stem the tide of violence in Iraq and around the world just as restricting violence in videogames will not stop these children, who are under severe emotional strain or experiencing deep depression, or even beginining to show signs of a personality disorder, from acting out violently. Columbine was perpetrated by children who had severe social and emotional problems, and who were left alone to create pipe bombs and amass weapons in their basement. This was partly a failure of supervision by the parents and, OC partly beyond their control. Columbine had nothing to do with videogames.
Shame on Mr. Thompson for invoking terrorism as a reason for restricting videogame sales.
Don't cheapen their sacrifice, ambulance chaser.
what are you doing to solve this? (Score:5, Insightful)
that has got to be the biggest spin of all time...
look, jack even said education was part of the solution, and henry made a very good point... Unlike the previous generation, at least many young parents today have grown up playing games, so they will know that not all games are appropriate for young kids.
i know my mom was very interested in what games i was playing while i was growing up and even more interested in what i was watching on TV...
my father was in the coin op business since the 70's. ive grown up around video games, hunting, guns, and the military...if any one should be ready to snap and go on a personal black ops mission...its me. and frankly, i think i "normal".
i can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. and i dont take joy in seeing others suffer.
this burden lies with the parents. if they would take a proactive role in their childs life alot of stuff like teen violence and teen pregancy would be on the decline instead of the rise.
but now since both parents are typically working, who is doing the parenting...britney spears and tommy lee...tommy verciti and lara croft...Jenna Jameson and ron jeremy...
people need to look at what they are doing within their own family units to solve the problem. do your kids play violent video games...are the games you child plays approiate for his age...this just takes some good old fashioned parenting. thats it thats all.
Re:My experience... (Score:5, Insightful)
Abusive parents, negligant parents, abusive students at school, being teased, beat up, shoved into lockers, having problems ignored by teachers (basically making it a breeding ground for you to get beat up), competition for girls, attention, drinking, drugs, grades, religious ideaologies that teach you to hate anyone different than you, etc... clearly those things don't combine to make a poor little kid violent. And that's why you only see popular, beefy, successful, town-beloved jocks going on shooting sprees and never neglected outcasts from violent/dangerous/abusive homes.
i'm certainly not a fan of Jack-o. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it always the It's-not-our-fault's vs. the libertarians?
Re:what are you doing to solve this? (Score:3, Insightful)
The army's looked at the usefullness of video games as training simulations, we've seen it on slashdot time and again. Overall, however, they've found that they don't work. At least not games in the way we get them as consumers. They have more immersive simulations that involve functional firearms with projections of targets, which are basically an advanced shooting gallery where the targets move, hide, and even return fire.
There was a special show on Tech TV (it still shows up on G4 occasionally) about AA, FSW, and a couple other games that were developed in partership with the army, which even had interviews with the army consultants who worked on them. AA is purely a recruitment and public relations tool, not a "testing ground" or training system. "Playing a game, no matter how real we try to make it, isn't going to make you any better when we actually put a gun in your hands."
Game's teach the entirely wrong reflexes to make people better killers. Just about everybody who uses a computer is familiar with the "Undo" effect. You make a mistake, you immediately reach for the mouse to hit undo. After a while, that reflex can get to the point that you try to hit undo in programs that don't have it, and even when you're not at the computer (I once spilled a glass of water, and it hadn't even fallen over and I caught myself thinking, "Damnit, undo."). You're not going to be any better at shooting people when all of your gun reflexes are centered on the analog thumbsticks.
Re:My experience... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, man. It may be that in fact Mortal Kombat doesn't deaden your empathy, but if you want to prove it you need to bring out the big guns and switch to humane traps that don't kill the mice.
Personally, I'm pretty amazed at how many chances to make games that don't *require* killing to play are passed up. I just got a copy of Matrix Online because I heard there were some real opportunities for ethical play.
What did I learn? In order to even get into the Matrix to play, you have to first complete a training sequence where you kill defenseless "simulations." The only way to get in without completing this training simulation is to suicide - then you get thrust into the Matrix, where you can play until you're killed, and then you're back in the training sim again. Defensive fighting can injure and kill the attacker. What's up with that?
There really is something off here. I don't mean that playing Mortal Kombat turns you into a serial killer - it doesn't. But killing is all there is to most of the new games I've seen. What a waste of potential! And what a clever way to play into the hands of people who want to believe that it's video games that are making our society more dangerous (it's not more dangerous - violence just gets better coverage now than it did 50 years ago, because the press is less responsible).
The Basic Facts (Score:2, Insightful)
The notion that the console/game/rating system ect... are all in 'chaoots' seems to make me think that perhaps he working under a conspiracy theory. While I grant you that all the companies have a vested interest in selling more games, this whole 'dark shadowy underworld' of which he speaks is more a product of loose laws than the 'dark side of the force' infecting our youths.
I also love the way in which he casually assaults the ethics of the federal judges as a whole. While I realize this is most likely on purpose and an attempt for JT to show he isn't afraid, insulting the judges as a whole, becuase you don't like what they ruled, rather than reyling on hard evidence is not a wise move. Essentially the further I went down the interview I saw less and less quoting of facts and details, and more and more of evil plots filled with terrorism and brainwashing.
Re:My experience... (Score:5, Insightful)
Violent experiences are real. Violent images on a TV screen generated by the latest from Carmack is fake. I think most 10 year olds can tell the difference (even with the improvements in graphics).
The pro-gaming expert has nothing to do with my opinion. I was stating what the problem was as I saw it, not as he saw it.
You may not have said it explicitly, but you did so implicitly. By saying that the blame should be put on parents for buying those games, you are implicitly saying that buying those games for kids is wrong. That is to say, you agree that violent games cause violent tendencies. Unless you have something against Valve, I can't see why else you would think so.
Let's see. Smoking causes lung cancer. Exhaled pollutants from smokers includes part of those carcinogens. Anyone near a smoker could be taking that in those pollutants. What am I missing?
I don't see how parents buying their kids kegs on the weekends are doing anything wrong. If they believe that their kids can handle it and are old enough, why not? We're all not the same. People don't grow alcohol-resistant organs from 17yrs 364days to 18yrs 0days. It's a rule of thumb that's been extended too far. The good thing about parents who buy kegs for their kids is that they can control the intake. Better in their house than somewhere outside with no one who can assume responsibility.
I read the comments just fine thank you. Just because I disagree does not make me a karma-whoring slashbot. The word you're looking for is dissenter [reference.com].
Statistics are screwed too. (Score:4, Insightful)
"...a Gallop poll found 71 percent of all U.S teenage boys who played Vice City were twice as likely to have been engaged in an act of violence."
What? 71 percent were twice as likely? Is this some kind of maths problem?
And:
"Well, let's look at deaths in and around schools. In 2004, there were 48 in number. In 2003, there were 16. In 2002, there were 17. Yes, the death rate in which murderous actions have taken place has gone down, but there are other factors such as the shortening of ambulance response time, better medical techniques, and so forth."
I really don't think 3 years of statistics where the first two years are the same gives much of an idea of the trend. Look at say 20 years, so that we could at least compare the statistics for times before violent games were common. Violent games existed way before 2002.
Giles
Inaccurate simulators (Score:3, Insightful)
In the vast majority of cases of murder or maiming or other violent acts, the victim is usually known to be screaming out in pain, or anguish, or some other sort of emotion which is not portrayed in these types of games.
This stark contrast to reality is being ignored, and in the process we will see plenty of extra curbs to the choices that we make for ourselves.
In other jurisdictions, video games all fall under the corresponding censorship legislation, and as such is treated in just the same way as books, movies, magazines, etc. We have different classifications of movies, and we don't see the movie studios getting sued because of parents purchasing/hiring adult movies for their children. The same similar practise should be in place for video games.
I agree that there is some level of responsibility placed on the retailers to ensure compliance, but beyond that anyone can create/sell anything so long as it is legal. The burden of responsibility of consumption of the product still largely lies with the people making purchases.
Is this Irony? (Score:2, Insightful)
EGM: Does your 12-year-old son play videogames?
JT: Not anything above an E
So by his logic his own son is playing violent video games somewhere else.
Perhaps he'll turn into a homicidal maniac and kill his dad?
he's not all wrong... (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't think Jack Thompson is approaching the issue in the right way, and I don't think he'll be successful. But I do think enforcing ratings at stores is important, and that it is not done properly right now. Additionally, some inappropriate games are marketed to kids. This should stop. If it doesn't, people like Jack Thompson will succeed.
FWIW, I find it embarrassing as a game developer that one of the most innovative game designs in the past few years was wrapped in content matter that is frankly offensive to most people.
No 18+ rating for Australia (Score:2, Insightful)
It makes me so angry when govenments censor games.
At 35 I can marry, have weird sex (if I choose), have kids, get into debt, take mind altering alcohol, pay taxes, watch contact sport (if i choose), watch horror films, read books and look at all manner of art.
I can make decisions, and am held resposible for my actions, it is assumed I know right from wrong.
Yet, the Australian government thinks I need my computer games censored.
The classification guidelines are supposed to allow me to make an informed choice, not to remove choice.
The situation sucks, I just hope it gets better as gamers get older.
Some links to explore.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/06/06/1117910
http://www.oflc.gov.au/content.html?n=166&p=119 [oflc.gov.au]