Remembering that loon
So, having learned the hard way that TV Tropes Will Ruin Your Life, I find an entire article there on the one and only Jack Thompson. It links back to Destructoid's tag for him, and there are a whole lot of articles there. I end up reading about all the last moments of his crusade against gaming, remembering the bits I heard from other news sources and my own forumites as it was happening.
He's only ensured one thing with his legal career: he will be remembered by the gaming community as a crazed Butt Monkey who not only didn't know his subject material but fervently attacked anyone (in authority or otherwise) who called him on it.
Initially, there were red flags in my mind. Yeah, it was pretty blatant after a few interviews and unedited letters that he was as far around the bend as you could get without making a full orbit - but crazy people sometimes attract audiences. Sometimes, a crazy person's notion will get instituted for at least a while before the society at large really looks at it in a logical light (generally leading to its removal from institution in question). It's not implausible, particularly if said crazy is smart enough to play less crazy for the people in charge.
He didn't do any of that and was officially disbarred for purely legal reasons.
And so he's discredited the side that finds possible connections in video games and any deviant behavior. No one wants association with him. From what I understand, they're maintaining their dignity and not stooping to grade school tactics like he did, and thus their own credibility.
It's funny, too, because most of the games he railed against I don't personally like. (I think it's a personal preference of wanting to be the good guy more than the bad guy; either way I understand it's usually living vicariously through the protagonists.) GTA? I'd always want to be a criminal with a heart of gold, only doing crimes because of having so little options. Doom? I was killing freaking demons to save the world. Diablo? I was venturing down into Hell to carve up every opposition to all that is Good and Light. God of War? I haven't played it yet, but suspect I won't like it terribly because of the over-the-top violence and sexuality - I tend to think they'd dwarf the story of the antihero's quest for vengeance. I like to play for story, and stories need conflict, bad guys, and bad things to happen to good people. All the same elements are in our books and our movies and in most of our songs, at least in America.
That said, that doesn't mean I can look down on the people who enjoy the types of games that let them kill civilians with impunity. It's vicarious living and in a particularly safe method; nothing you do in these games affects you in life. If they do, you're probably considered unstable to begin with. In the massively gory violent games, there's likely catharsis for a lot of people. (It's about as visceral as you can get without physical touch involved.) In the criminal games, you can experience to some degree the thrill in attempting murder/arson/theft/whatever without the consequences because as a functional human being, you know they're not worth the thrill. It's really directly related to the long-used gripe from roleplayers in RPGs about keeping out-of-character separate from in-character, and to the rule that OOC actions always lead to OOC repercussions.
I was introduced to my first games probably well before the age of twelve. I've been playing various types throughout most of my short life. I will probably continue playing them as time and responsibility allows. I love games. I'm part of a generation of gamers. And now my generation is raising kids.
And that comes back to the evolution of the industry itself - instead of catering to children and teenagers with bright colors and simple plots, we have complicated, dark, sometimes even disturbing games that adults can enjoy on different levels than kids can. (And it's an inherent flaw in Thompson's constant ridicule of gamers at large; either we're ignorant children, or we're depraved adults with full knowledge of our actions. We cannot be both.) We're a generation of gamers raising more gamers, meaning that like all other media there has to be variety but also a safety measure. Hence, the labeling - which while it isn't perfect, is better than nothing and at the very least should provide a guide to the parents.
No, it's probably not a good thing for an eight year old to play Silent Hill. But you just can't legislate a moral compass to that degree. It's entertainment, and only the parents should be able to make that decision until the children are able to make it themselves.
He's only ensured one thing with his legal career: he will be remembered by the gaming community as a crazed Butt Monkey who not only didn't know his subject material but fervently attacked anyone (in authority or otherwise) who called him on it.
Initially, there were red flags in my mind. Yeah, it was pretty blatant after a few interviews and unedited letters that he was as far around the bend as you could get without making a full orbit - but crazy people sometimes attract audiences. Sometimes, a crazy person's notion will get instituted for at least a while before the society at large really looks at it in a logical light (generally leading to its removal from institution in question). It's not implausible, particularly if said crazy is smart enough to play less crazy for the people in charge.
He didn't do any of that and was officially disbarred for purely legal reasons.
And so he's discredited the side that finds possible connections in video games and any deviant behavior. No one wants association with him. From what I understand, they're maintaining their dignity and not stooping to grade school tactics like he did, and thus their own credibility.
It's funny, too, because most of the games he railed against I don't personally like. (I think it's a personal preference of wanting to be the good guy more than the bad guy; either way I understand it's usually living vicariously through the protagonists.) GTA? I'd always want to be a criminal with a heart of gold, only doing crimes because of having so little options. Doom? I was killing freaking demons to save the world. Diablo? I was venturing down into Hell to carve up every opposition to all that is Good and Light. God of War? I haven't played it yet, but suspect I won't like it terribly because of the over-the-top violence and sexuality - I tend to think they'd dwarf the story of the antihero's quest for vengeance. I like to play for story, and stories need conflict, bad guys, and bad things to happen to good people. All the same elements are in our books and our movies and in most of our songs, at least in America.
That said, that doesn't mean I can look down on the people who enjoy the types of games that let them kill civilians with impunity. It's vicarious living and in a particularly safe method; nothing you do in these games affects you in life. If they do, you're probably considered unstable to begin with. In the massively gory violent games, there's likely catharsis for a lot of people. (It's about as visceral as you can get without physical touch involved.) In the criminal games, you can experience to some degree the thrill in attempting murder/arson/theft/whatever without the consequences because as a functional human being, you know they're not worth the thrill. It's really directly related to the long-used gripe from roleplayers in RPGs about keeping out-of-character separate from in-character, and to the rule that OOC actions always lead to OOC repercussions.
I was introduced to my first games probably well before the age of twelve. I've been playing various types throughout most of my short life. I will probably continue playing them as time and responsibility allows. I love games. I'm part of a generation of gamers. And now my generation is raising kids.
And that comes back to the evolution of the industry itself - instead of catering to children and teenagers with bright colors and simple plots, we have complicated, dark, sometimes even disturbing games that adults can enjoy on different levels than kids can. (And it's an inherent flaw in Thompson's constant ridicule of gamers at large; either we're ignorant children, or we're depraved adults with full knowledge of our actions. We cannot be both.) We're a generation of gamers raising more gamers, meaning that like all other media there has to be variety but also a safety measure. Hence, the labeling - which while it isn't perfect, is better than nothing and at the very least should provide a guide to the parents.
No, it's probably not a good thing for an eight year old to play Silent Hill. But you just can't legislate a moral compass to that degree. It's entertainment, and only the parents should be able to make that decision until the children are able to make it themselves.