So recently EA has been buying out development companies like they were Wii's before the 2006 holiday season, and pretty much a lot of gamers are not happy about this at all. In my latest issue of GameInformer, I counted 9 articles directly related to EA. They're everywhere! EA has a lot of great franchises under their belt now. But very few of them can they actually take credit for themselves. EA is buying out game developers that are making already successful games in order to cash in and milk the series. To me it seems like the majority of EAs "successful" games were successful before EA acquired them. A great example of this is The Sims.
The latest antics that those money mongering fools over at EA have been up to is that they reportedly are going to be charging real life money for weapons in their new Battlefield: Bad Company game. This comes from a Kotaku article released based on the beta. I have not played the Bad Company beta but there is absolutely nothing you can do to justify doing this. Sites like Sarcastic Gamer are suggesting boycoting the game because it it so rediculous. I'm leaning towards their decision if things don't change before the game comes out.
When EA heard the uproar being made over this article, they actually contacted Kotaku to try to clear up their name. While this statement directly from EA states that it will not give an advantage to players who do buy the extra guns nor affect the balance of the gameplay, it doesn't specify the point. Unless the new guns are the same guns with new aesthetics, I guarantee that gamers will find a way to manipulate and take advantage of something with these weapons within the first few weeks. Then EA is going to have to patch the game, but it will be too late and nobody will want to play the game. Plain and simple. EA is just screwing over gamers, and screwing over themselves because they think that since they're "top dog" in the industry, what they say goes.
Now to add in my personal gripe about EA's attempted monopoly over the gaming industry. EA bought out my favorite development studios, BioWare. They made my favorite game of all time, Knights of the Old Republic, and another one of my top 10 games of all time, Mass Effect. While KOTOR may not have another installment, 2 more Mass Effect games are already planned and I'm pretty sure at least one is already underway. If EA messes up the franchise by cutting budget to port to multiple systems or anything else, I will never forgive them.
But in the end, in relevance to the purchasing weapons thing, we just have to hope that there aren't people out there stupid enough to give into EA doing this and throwing their money at them. If anyone buys these weapons, they are feeding the gremlin after midnight.
3/28/08
3/16/08
Does SSB Brawl Earn a "T"
A recent article on Joystiq refers to another blog asking the question, "Does Super Smash Bros. Brawl earn the "T for Teen" rating it received?" I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents to this discussion here on my blog.
I think that over the past few years, ever since the last generation of consoles, ESRB has gotten tougher on ratings. I was slightly surprised with Halo: CE's rating being "M" and as well as Super Smash Bros. Melee being "T". Some accredit this crackdown on ratings to improved graphics, but I doubt that has much to do with it if anything at all. I think ESRB stepped up their ratings when the government started paying more attention to games. Of course the whole scandal over the goriness of Doom was more than 5 years before the last generation of games, but maybe it just took them until 2001 for ESRB to come up with the idea of, "Ok, people are complaining that kids are playing these games, we'll just make the ratings tougher so more parents won't let kids play them." I think it's a good solution, annoying for kids (I was in that position for a while,) but regardless, to get people in Washington and certain Floridian attorneys to shut up, it's worth it.
But if you think into it deeper, some games out there do deserve the M rating and shouldn't be played by most kids, in fact most of them do. But there are a some that could've gotten a T. Like wise with T games that could've gotten an E. When parents realize that this rating was a little strict, they might generalize that with all other games with that rating and end up getting their kids a game they shouldn't.
In the end, (assuming my prediction is right,) I think ESRB should give their honest opinions and ratings on games and not let politics get involved and influence their decision.
I think that over the past few years, ever since the last generation of consoles, ESRB has gotten tougher on ratings. I was slightly surprised with Halo: CE's rating being "M" and as well as Super Smash Bros. Melee being "T". Some accredit this crackdown on ratings to improved graphics, but I doubt that has much to do with it if anything at all. I think ESRB stepped up their ratings when the government started paying more attention to games. Of course the whole scandal over the goriness of Doom was more than 5 years before the last generation of games, but maybe it just took them until 2001 for ESRB to come up with the idea of, "Ok, people are complaining that kids are playing these games, we'll just make the ratings tougher so more parents won't let kids play them." I think it's a good solution, annoying for kids (I was in that position for a while,) but regardless, to get people in Washington and certain Floridian attorneys to shut up, it's worth it.
But if you think into it deeper, some games out there do deserve the M rating and shouldn't be played by most kids, in fact most of them do. But there are a some that could've gotten a T. Like wise with T games that could've gotten an E. When parents realize that this rating was a little strict, they might generalize that with all other games with that rating and end up getting their kids a game they shouldn't.
In the end, (assuming my prediction is right,) I think ESRB should give their honest opinions and ratings on games and not let politics get involved and influence their decision.
3/6/08
Microsoft in talks with Sony to end 360 owner's Blu-Ray Blues
Recently there have been reports of Microsoft being in contact with Sony about providing an external Blu-Ray drive for the Xbox 360. This is great news for Xbox 360 owners, especially with big names like Blockbuster, Wal-Mart, Warner Bros. and Disney all being Blu-Ray exclusive. But when I first saw this it made me wonder why Sony would give away one of the major advantages the PS3 has over the 360. Blu-Ray has dug the grave for HDDVD and is chiseling out the headstone. Since Sony is the owner of Blu-Ray it makes you want to wonder why they would share their all-star with their rival. Microsoft has long stated that if Blu-Ray beat out HDDVD and the consumer demanded it, they would provide Blu-Ray support. But obtaining the rights to Blu-Ray from Sony I would assume would not be easy. Also there have been rumors flying around for the past few weeks that an Xbox 360 external Blu-Ray player was already fully developed and could be available as early as May. I never believed these rumors though because it just didn't make sense why PS3 would forfeit that upper hand they have.
But when I thought about it more, it might not make sense, but it might make cents. PS3s at launch were ending up costing Sony about $300 each AFTER retail. The cost to produce the PS3 was higher than the price they were retailing them at. Now they are at least breaking even on production costs and making up to $100 per console with the reduction in production costs. But Sony still racked up over a 1 billion dollar loss as a result of their over the top console. Could selling the Blu-Ray rights to the ever so rich Microsoft be Sony's attempt to compensate for their losses? Or maybe Sony just wants to be friends and hold hands with Microsoft and bake cakes.
My guess is the first one, the cake is a lie.
But when I thought about it more, it might not make sense, but it might make cents. PS3s at launch were ending up costing Sony about $300 each AFTER retail. The cost to produce the PS3 was higher than the price they were retailing them at. Now they are at least breaking even on production costs and making up to $100 per console with the reduction in production costs. But Sony still racked up over a 1 billion dollar loss as a result of their over the top console. Could selling the Blu-Ray rights to the ever so rich Microsoft be Sony's attempt to compensate for their losses? Or maybe Sony just wants to be friends and hold hands with Microsoft and bake cakes.
My guess is the first one, the cake is a lie.
3/5/08
Fable 2 DOES have online co-op!
In my Fable 2 cover story, the only resource I was going by was X3F's interview in which they were unclear about whether or not co-op was online. Since I posted that article I have found the GDC 08 Fable 2 presentation video. This was clear to say that you can take the character you have worked on on your personal Xbox and connect to someone else's and play co-op that way. Pretty flipping sweet, huh? Also this video reminded me of another feature I had forgotten about, guns. And the graphics look great. So anyways here's the video courtesy of GameVideos.com
3/4/08
My Top 10 Games of All Time
Here is a list of my personal top 10 games of all time.
10. Call of Duty 4- Xbox 360
This is only on here because Infinity Ward really nailed the online multiplayer.
9. Guitar Hero II- Xbox 360
Awesome game, great songs. Never played the first one and the 3rd one was very disappointing. This probably would've been replaced with Rock Band if I had played it but I haven't, because, you know, it's 160 bucks.
8. Fable- Xbox
It didn't live up to the hype but it was still a great game. I cannot wait for the sequel.
7. Bioshock- Xbox 360
Loved the plasmids, loved the Big Daddys and Little Sisters. One of the best stories ever.
6. Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time- N64
Classic with great story, great combat, and long lasting fun.
5. Halo (the whole trilogy)- Xbox & Xbox 360
Great story, great campaign, great multiplayer, and Bungie is just awesome. The books were great too.
4. Roller Coaster Tycoon- PC
Awesome game, really goes to show you don't need violence to make a good game. Only game I've spent more time playing than this is my number 2 pick. RCT 2 and 3 were disappointing.
3. Mass Effect- Xbox 360
Great story, amazing graphics, great combat and weapon system, and great voice acting and dialog. I'm really looking forward to the next 2. I want to read the prequel book.
2. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion- Xbox 360
So awesome, so addictive. I have over 500 hours of logged play time on this game. Best downloadable content add ons for any game ever.
1. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic- Xbox
The best game of all time and if anyone disagrees go castrate yourself. But seriously, the storyline was the best storyline out of any video game, movie, book, comic book, legend, and just the best ever. The design and depth of all of the characters was out of this world and still to this day no game character has been able to come close to matching the greatness of Carth, Jolee, Canderous, and even the droid HK-47. The combat system was the best one ever, the voice acting and dialog was amazing. The game was just the best there ever was.
10. Call of Duty 4- Xbox 360
This is only on here because Infinity Ward really nailed the online multiplayer.
9. Guitar Hero II- Xbox 360
Awesome game, great songs. Never played the first one and the 3rd one was very disappointing. This probably would've been replaced with Rock Band if I had played it but I haven't, because, you know, it's 160 bucks.
8. Fable- Xbox
It didn't live up to the hype but it was still a great game. I cannot wait for the sequel.
7. Bioshock- Xbox 360
Loved the plasmids, loved the Big Daddys and Little Sisters. One of the best stories ever.
6. Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time- N64
Classic with great story, great combat, and long lasting fun.
5. Halo (the whole trilogy)- Xbox & Xbox 360
Great story, great campaign, great multiplayer, and Bungie is just awesome. The books were great too.
4. Roller Coaster Tycoon- PC
Awesome game, really goes to show you don't need violence to make a good game. Only game I've spent more time playing than this is my number 2 pick. RCT 2 and 3 were disappointing.
3. Mass Effect- Xbox 360
Great story, amazing graphics, great combat and weapon system, and great voice acting and dialog. I'm really looking forward to the next 2. I want to read the prequel book.
2. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion- Xbox 360
So awesome, so addictive. I have over 500 hours of logged play time on this game. Best downloadable content add ons for any game ever.
1. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic- Xbox
The best game of all time and if anyone disagrees go castrate yourself. But seriously, the storyline was the best storyline out of any video game, movie, book, comic book, legend, and just the best ever. The design and depth of all of the characters was out of this world and still to this day no game character has been able to come close to matching the greatness of Carth, Jolee, Canderous, and even the droid HK-47. The combat system was the best one ever, the voice acting and dialog was amazing. The game was just the best there ever was.
3/3/08
Ladies and Gentlemen.... Peter Molyneux!
Recently Xbox360 Fanboy did an interview with the man, the myth, the legend, Peter Molyneux. For those of you who don't know, Mr. Molyneux is not only a veteran of the gaming industry, but was born to be in the gaming industry and has had successful games for like 20 years now. He was behind games like Populous, Black &W hite, and the one everyone knows, Fable.
E3 '06 had the announcement trailer for Fable 2. Despite the original Fable failing to live up to the unbelievably high hype that was set before it, it was still a great game and people were pretty freaking excited about Fable 2. So naturally, doing an interview with Peter Molyneux, you're going to ask a lot about Fable 2.
Xbox360 Fanboy started off with questions about some of the new features they've announced, the ability for female characters to become pregnant and have kids, and the pet dog feature. What I get from these features is, what the heck? We already have the Sims to have and raise kids and that stupid Nintendogs game to raise dogs, why do we need to integrate these two games into the awesomeness that is Fable. Unless you can do something like train the kid to fight with you as your sidekick I don't see any point to this feature. The same goes for the dog, but this is Fable, not Michael Vick's Extreme Dog Fighter. But anyways, I was relieved when Mr.Molyneux responded to those questions with answers that came across as saying that they aren't major features and we'll see what they are and they certainly aren't going to be what I was at first fearing they would be.
Another major feature that is different in the sequel is money making. Before you got gold for doing quest, drops from enemies, and mercantile. The mercantile system has been expanded more, but quests and enemy drops don't give you gold. In order to make money you have to actually work. Plus there's also that Xbox Live Arcade game, Keystone, that lets you earn money for the game and you can do that before the game even comes out.
Another point of discussion in the interview was the whole hype thing. Fable 1 was over hyped and didn't live up to all it had hyped up to be, and you can't blame the hype entirely on Mr.Molyneux and Lionhead Studios. Most of the blame falls on sites that report and speculate based off on indirect sources... kinda like this site... but anyways, Mr.Moylneux talked about how they're trying to prevent that from happening by not mentioning too much about the game and the features to the press/public. As much as I'm aching for more, I agree with him there and really finding out about the features when playing the game is a lot better than finding out that they aren't there when I'm playing the game.
But the biggest topic of discussion throughout the interview is the co-op feature. It was unclear in the interview as well as in other Joystiq articles whether or not it would be online co-op, but all signs point to at least being seriously considered. I was so excited to hear this because me and all my friends are huge fans of Fable and for us to be able to play it together would be so awesome. One of the co-op features mentioned was "henchman" where one player is able to "hire" another to help him out and the player "hiring" pays the henchman gold.
Other features discussed in the interview were expanded property features where there are not only houses but stores and castles and stuff like that. On top of that there will be side quests to go along with many of the properties.
You can read and/or listen to Xbox 360 Fanboy's interview of Peter Molyneux here.
E3 '06 had the announcement trailer for Fable 2. Despite the original Fable failing to live up to the unbelievably high hype that was set before it, it was still a great game and people were pretty freaking excited about Fable 2. So naturally, doing an interview with Peter Molyneux, you're going to ask a lot about Fable 2.
Xbox360 Fanboy started off with questions about some of the new features they've announced, the ability for female characters to become pregnant and have kids, and the pet dog feature. What I get from these features is, what the heck? We already have the Sims to have and raise kids and that stupid Nintendogs game to raise dogs, why do we need to integrate these two games into the awesomeness that is Fable. Unless you can do something like train the kid to fight with you as your sidekick I don't see any point to this feature. The same goes for the dog, but this is Fable, not Michael Vick's Extreme Dog Fighter. But anyways, I was relieved when Mr.Molyneux responded to those questions with answers that came across as saying that they aren't major features and we'll see what they are and they certainly aren't going to be what I was at first fearing they would be.
Another major feature that is different in the sequel is money making. Before you got gold for doing quest, drops from enemies, and mercantile. The mercantile system has been expanded more, but quests and enemy drops don't give you gold. In order to make money you have to actually work. Plus there's also that Xbox Live Arcade game, Keystone, that lets you earn money for the game and you can do that before the game even comes out.
Another point of discussion in the interview was the whole hype thing. Fable 1 was over hyped and didn't live up to all it had hyped up to be, and you can't blame the hype entirely on Mr.Molyneux and Lionhead Studios. Most of the blame falls on sites that report and speculate based off on indirect sources... kinda like this site... but anyways, Mr.Moylneux talked about how they're trying to prevent that from happening by not mentioning too much about the game and the features to the press/public. As much as I'm aching for more, I agree with him there and really finding out about the features when playing the game is a lot better than finding out that they aren't there when I'm playing the game.
But the biggest topic of discussion throughout the interview is the co-op feature. It was unclear in the interview as well as in other Joystiq articles whether or not it would be online co-op, but all signs point to at least being seriously considered. I was so excited to hear this because me and all my friends are huge fans of Fable and for us to be able to play it together would be so awesome. One of the co-op features mentioned was "henchman" where one player is able to "hire" another to help him out and the player "hiring" pays the henchman gold.
Other features discussed in the interview were expanded property features where there are not only houses but stores and castles and stuff like that. On top of that there will be side quests to go along with many of the properties.
You can read and/or listen to Xbox 360 Fanboy's interview of Peter Molyneux here.
Could the "PS" in PS3 be fore "Price Smart"?
I'm not a fan of Playstation, but I've got to give Sony credit. Lots of people had thought that the PS3 was down for the count in this console war with the lack of games (let alone good ones) and the Donald Trump style price tag. On top of that, even with the high price tag Sony was losing money on selling the consoles because the production cost was higher than the wholesale price. They had to rely entirely on licensing rights to make games on the console for all their money. And yet even more they failed to match up to the awesomeness that is Xbox Live, to which I actually heard a Sony employee say in an interview that they "knew we were ****ed." But Sony hung in there, and now it's been almost a year and a half and the past few months the PS3 has been starting to come around. Some would even argue (not me) that PS3 has passed the Wii in the console war.
So get this, a few days ago Joystiq said that sometime after/around the release of Metal Gear Solid 4, there will be a PS3 bundle for $499. The bundle includes the 80GB console, MGS4, and the new Dual Shock 3 controller that is coming out next month. Let's do the math here:
Current gen gaming console- approx. $350
80GB hard drive- approx. $120
Blu-Ray player- approx. $600
Metal Gear Solid 4- $60
Dual Shock 3 controller- $55
Total value of package- approx. $1185
The value of this bundle is unbelievable. It's $100 more than the current 40 gig PS3, so you're doubling the system memory, then you're adding in the (in my opinion) better controller along with one of the most anticipated PS3 games of 2008. This price is actually $100 less than the launch price of the PS3, that's what's really astonishing about it. I would love to know how much Sony is going to be losing per console (I'll be sure to post if I find out.) Sony is either extremely desperate to sell their consoles or has found a cheaper way to produce the consoles. I have a feeling it's both. This might spur developers to make more games for the console. Before, not enough people had the console for them to port their games to the system (let alone port them decently.) If I were a publisher I would be extremely hesitant to do a PS3 exclusive. But now with this price drop, the PS3 is going to get into more homes and get PS3 games selling. And once a lot more PS3 games get selling, a lot more PS3 games will start being made. I think this is a smart move for Sony. They've managed to fight their way back to keep themselves in the war and now this is really going to make them a real threat once again.
So get this, a few days ago Joystiq said that sometime after/around the release of Metal Gear Solid 4, there will be a PS3 bundle for $499. The bundle includes the 80GB console, MGS4, and the new Dual Shock 3 controller that is coming out next month. Let's do the math here:
Current gen gaming console- approx. $350
80GB hard drive- approx. $120
Blu-Ray player- approx. $600
Metal Gear Solid 4- $60
Dual Shock 3 controller- $55
Total value of package- approx. $1185
The value of this bundle is unbelievable. It's $100 more than the current 40 gig PS3, so you're doubling the system memory, then you're adding in the (in my opinion) better controller along with one of the most anticipated PS3 games of 2008. This price is actually $100 less than the launch price of the PS3, that's what's really astonishing about it. I would love to know how much Sony is going to be losing per console (I'll be sure to post if I find out.) Sony is either extremely desperate to sell their consoles or has found a cheaper way to produce the consoles. I have a feeling it's both. This might spur developers to make more games for the console. Before, not enough people had the console for them to port their games to the system (let alone port them decently.) If I were a publisher I would be extremely hesitant to do a PS3 exclusive. But now with this price drop, the PS3 is going to get into more homes and get PS3 games selling. And once a lot more PS3 games get selling, a lot more PS3 games will start being made. I think this is a smart move for Sony. They've managed to fight their way back to keep themselves in the war and now this is really going to make them a real threat once again.
3/1/08
Mr. Thompson, You Don't Know Jack!
Mr. Thompson, You Don’t Know Jack!
“Murder simulators are not constitutionally protected speech. They’re not even speech. They’re dangerous physical appliances that teach a kid how to kill efficiently and to love it.”- Jack Thompson
The things wrong with this quote are…. Well pretty much all of it is wrong. First of all to categorize all video games as murder simulators is extremely naïve. There are very few games I would consider murder simulators, although in his defense most of the games he is attacking/attempting to sue are the ones I would see as that. But regardless of that he is stereotyping games. According to the ESRB ratings system, out of the 14,786 games they have rated 7,575 have some form of violence in them. That is ~51.2% of games, barely over half. If you don’t include the mild, cartoon, or fantasy violence the amount of games with violence decreases to 3309 games, ~22.38% of all games. The amount of games with intense violence, games that most of which I would understand calling “murder simulators,” is only 233, less than 1.6% of all games. To call all games “murder simulators” is a horrible stereotype.
So if you replace “murder simulators” with video games, he is claiming video games are not “constitutionally protected speech.” Well that is arguable. If movies are “constitutionally protected speech” then video games are also. It’s not uncommon also to find a game with a plot line with some sort of lesson in it (Assassin’s Creed anyone?)
Continuing along this quote to say that video games are “dangerous physical appliances that teach a kid how to kill efficiently and to love it” is just ridiculous. I don’t need to state again the percentages of games with violence, but that’s certainly a fair argument to this claim. But I think the biggest fact that disproves this is that video games do not teach kids how or where to obtain weapons, legally or illegally, and everyone knows how to fire a gun, and removing video games from the world will not change that. Movies and TV promote that just as much if not more than video games do.
The last part of this outrageous quote says that video games teach kids to love to kill. I’m astonished that anyone would make this claim. I’m seriously sitting here thinking how to respond to that it is such a horrible claim. The only thing I come up with at first is “….What!?” Mr. Thompson also accuses the DualShock system in the PlayStation controllers “gives you a pleasurable buzz back into your hands with each kill.” That is not at all the purpose of rumble features in video games nor what they accomplish. The rumble feature is meant to immerse gamers further into a realistic setting where they can feel the action or motion around them. I do not know of a single game that makes the controller rumble when you get a kill.
But going back to the main topic of this part of the blog, video games most certainly do not teach kids to love to kill. Mr. Thompson says “In every school shooting, we find that kids who pull the trigger are video gamers.” Time for more statistics! Out of all kids in America between the age of 7-18, 79% play video games on a regular basis, with the average American child playing 8 hours a week. So that means that roughly 4 out of 5 kids are going to be gamers, that means 4 out of 5 school shooters are going to be gamers as well. Now when you take gender into effect, 90% of boys play video games. I haven’t heard of any school shootings where it was a girl, but it may have happened. Regardless, it makes sense that it would be a boy who does a school shooting because male nature makes us aggressive while female nature makes them more nurturing. So if males commit almost all school shootings, that means 9 out of 10 school shooters are going to be gamers.
Going further into this topic of forming a love for killing, Mr. Thompson says that video games are psychological conditioning to teach how to kill without realizing the consequences and reality of ending a life. This is not true at all. I think everyone can distinguish the difference between ending a fictional, animated, and virtual life and actually killing someone. It’s not like a gamer is going to kill someone and think “oh they’ll just respawn in 3 seconds, no problem.” And if they do think that, gaming isn’t their problem, mental stability is. Really when it boils down to the root of it that’s the cause of these school shooting scenarios, mental stability. And as far as I know there is no video game that can degrade mental stability.
Now going beyond this quote and looking at other things that are having much more of an effect on youth than Mr. Thompson claims video games are having, drugs. In the year 2006, 2.7% of 12 graders had used steroids. Does this mean we should get rid of organized sports? Likewise, the percentage of gamers who commit violent crimes is far below than that, and there is not even solid proof that they are what cause the kids to do this.
So now that I’ve taken an entire page and a half to put to shame Jack Thompson, I think it’s only fair that I point out both sides of the story and point out things he does right… this is going to be hard. Mr. Thompson’s intentions are good; I don’t see how what he’s doing could have a negative or self-centered motive. Also I personally do not approve of Ao games, or any of the GTA games. I think that the GTA games are trash. Seriously, is it necessary for there to be a game where we can chop up a hooker with a chainsaw? No, not at all. But Rockstar has a right to make that game and if people want they also have a right to buy and enjoy that game as long as they are mature enough for it. I also agree (to somewhat of an extent) that young minds are impressionable and can easily have their morals watered down, and video games might be a source for this, but that’s why we have the ESRB ratings. It’s not the developer’s fault for a kid playing these games, it’s the parents who bought the game for the kid or the idiot retailer who sold it to them.
In the end Jack Thompson needs to shut up and stop treating gamers and game developers like they are brain dead demons and start putting his time to better and more effective uses.
Here are some great links:
8 myths about gaming debunked
Teen steroid use statistics
Jack Thompson’s wikipedia page.
Also, Jack Thompson has lots of ridiculous quotes and I’ll make short blogs now and then with these quotes. Here’s an example of one;
“I serve the Lord Jesus Christ, and you hate me because the world first hated Him. I follow the Creator of the Universe."-Jack Thompson
We don’t hate you because you’re religious. We hate you because you are more ignorant than you accuse us gamers of being.
“Murder simulators are not constitutionally protected speech. They’re not even speech. They’re dangerous physical appliances that teach a kid how to kill efficiently and to love it.”- Jack Thompson
The things wrong with this quote are…. Well pretty much all of it is wrong. First of all to categorize all video games as murder simulators is extremely naïve. There are very few games I would consider murder simulators, although in his defense most of the games he is attacking/attempting to sue are the ones I would see as that. But regardless of that he is stereotyping games. According to the ESRB ratings system, out of the 14,786 games they have rated 7,575 have some form of violence in them. That is ~51.2% of games, barely over half. If you don’t include the mild, cartoon, or fantasy violence the amount of games with violence decreases to 3309 games, ~22.38% of all games. The amount of games with intense violence, games that most of which I would understand calling “murder simulators,” is only 233, less than 1.6% of all games. To call all games “murder simulators” is a horrible stereotype.
So if you replace “murder simulators” with video games, he is claiming video games are not “constitutionally protected speech.” Well that is arguable. If movies are “constitutionally protected speech” then video games are also. It’s not uncommon also to find a game with a plot line with some sort of lesson in it (Assassin’s Creed anyone?)
Continuing along this quote to say that video games are “dangerous physical appliances that teach a kid how to kill efficiently and to love it” is just ridiculous. I don’t need to state again the percentages of games with violence, but that’s certainly a fair argument to this claim. But I think the biggest fact that disproves this is that video games do not teach kids how or where to obtain weapons, legally or illegally, and everyone knows how to fire a gun, and removing video games from the world will not change that. Movies and TV promote that just as much if not more than video games do.
The last part of this outrageous quote says that video games teach kids to love to kill. I’m astonished that anyone would make this claim. I’m seriously sitting here thinking how to respond to that it is such a horrible claim. The only thing I come up with at first is “….What!?” Mr. Thompson also accuses the DualShock system in the PlayStation controllers “gives you a pleasurable buzz back into your hands with each kill.” That is not at all the purpose of rumble features in video games nor what they accomplish. The rumble feature is meant to immerse gamers further into a realistic setting where they can feel the action or motion around them. I do not know of a single game that makes the controller rumble when you get a kill.
But going back to the main topic of this part of the blog, video games most certainly do not teach kids to love to kill. Mr. Thompson says “In every school shooting, we find that kids who pull the trigger are video gamers.” Time for more statistics! Out of all kids in America between the age of 7-18, 79% play video games on a regular basis, with the average American child playing 8 hours a week. So that means that roughly 4 out of 5 kids are going to be gamers, that means 4 out of 5 school shooters are going to be gamers as well. Now when you take gender into effect, 90% of boys play video games. I haven’t heard of any school shootings where it was a girl, but it may have happened. Regardless, it makes sense that it would be a boy who does a school shooting because male nature makes us aggressive while female nature makes them more nurturing. So if males commit almost all school shootings, that means 9 out of 10 school shooters are going to be gamers.
Going further into this topic of forming a love for killing, Mr. Thompson says that video games are psychological conditioning to teach how to kill without realizing the consequences and reality of ending a life. This is not true at all. I think everyone can distinguish the difference between ending a fictional, animated, and virtual life and actually killing someone. It’s not like a gamer is going to kill someone and think “oh they’ll just respawn in 3 seconds, no problem.” And if they do think that, gaming isn’t their problem, mental stability is. Really when it boils down to the root of it that’s the cause of these school shooting scenarios, mental stability. And as far as I know there is no video game that can degrade mental stability.
Now going beyond this quote and looking at other things that are having much more of an effect on youth than Mr. Thompson claims video games are having, drugs. In the year 2006, 2.7% of 12 graders had used steroids. Does this mean we should get rid of organized sports? Likewise, the percentage of gamers who commit violent crimes is far below than that, and there is not even solid proof that they are what cause the kids to do this.
So now that I’ve taken an entire page and a half to put to shame Jack Thompson, I think it’s only fair that I point out both sides of the story and point out things he does right… this is going to be hard. Mr. Thompson’s intentions are good; I don’t see how what he’s doing could have a negative or self-centered motive. Also I personally do not approve of Ao games, or any of the GTA games. I think that the GTA games are trash. Seriously, is it necessary for there to be a game where we can chop up a hooker with a chainsaw? No, not at all. But Rockstar has a right to make that game and if people want they also have a right to buy and enjoy that game as long as they are mature enough for it. I also agree (to somewhat of an extent) that young minds are impressionable and can easily have their morals watered down, and video games might be a source for this, but that’s why we have the ESRB ratings. It’s not the developer’s fault for a kid playing these games, it’s the parents who bought the game for the kid or the idiot retailer who sold it to them.
In the end Jack Thompson needs to shut up and stop treating gamers and game developers like they are brain dead demons and start putting his time to better and more effective uses.
Here are some great links:
8 myths about gaming debunked
Teen steroid use statistics
Jack Thompson’s wikipedia page.
Also, Jack Thompson has lots of ridiculous quotes and I’ll make short blogs now and then with these quotes. Here’s an example of one;
“I serve the Lord Jesus Christ, and you hate me because the world first hated Him. I follow the Creator of the Universe."-Jack Thompson
We don’t hate you because you’re religious. We hate you because you are more ignorant than you accuse us gamers of being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)