April 24, 2007
In the wake of Jack Thompson's dubious claims that video games were behind last week's Virginia Tech massacre, yet another mainstream media outlet has cried foul.In today's San Francisco Chronicle, columnist Peter Hartlaub writes:
A few hours after the April 16 massacre... Jack Thompson was on Fox News... Once again, he said, violent video games were to blame. As the afternoon stretched on, Thompson's speculation became bolder... A week later, it's clear that Cho... wasn't playing video games at Virginia Tech...
How does this happen? Unfortunately, I have some insight. In a previous life as a news reporter covering courts, I remember the strong temptation to go to lawyer Gloria Allred for quotes. Sure, half of what she said sounded like blathering nonsense, but she was so easy to get on the phone before deadline.
But the Thompson situation is infinitely worse, because his misinformation mostly goes unquestioned by anchors who clearly know nothing about video games... All of this is a shame, because it sets back important debate. There are real video game issues that need to be discussed intelligently...
Using Thompson as a mouthpiece is like starting a marijuana discussion by screening "Reefer Madness." ...For gamers hoping for a sensible video game dialogue in the mainstream media, there are a few signs that Thompson's influence is on the wane.
Comments
http://www.brainsnap.com/national/518/jack_thompson_a_person_of_interest...
Statler: You know, I remember when the SF Chronicle was good.
Waldorf: Come now, that's the wrong attitude to have...
Statler: What do you mean?
Waldorf: The SF Chronicle was never good!
just wish i could find the boys lie track
I don't think the ESRB rating system is confusing at all. IF you have any questions about why it is rated that way, all it takes is a twist of the wrist. Still confused? Ask the sales clerk. I'd be willing to bet that s/he is a gamer or at least knows enough about games to help you. After all, they are working in a game-shop or electronics department.
As far as the other issue of minors interacting with adults on-line, shame on the parents. First, if your child is very young, like 5 or 6, why are you letting them play on-line at all, or at least unsupervised? Having played, and viewed friends playing, online games, I wouldn't want a child playing them, as much for the game content as what the other players will say/do. Second, if your child is older, like in their teens, why didn't you advise them about the dangers of talking to complete strangers online, and advise them what to do if one asks to meet them? Talking to your kids about this wouldn't take more that 10 minutes (it'll take longer for the to install and log-on to the game). How do you know the difference? That's your job! You should know your kids better than that!
And for the violence in games? That's why we have a rating system in the first place. Can you really point out any form of entertainment that doesn't include violence? Games/movies/books/ etc would be boring without some sort of confrontation! This has been around for centuries! Before anyone can counter, I would like to mention Mark Twain, Homer (of the Iliad), and Shakespeare.
@ Scoops
I think it has as much to do with content as any other "infractions". Metal Gear Solid has some complex story and somewhat darker themes. Do WWII shooters like Call of Duty have such a complex story? Whereas other games like GTA are just so heavy on "infractions" that they warrant a stricter rating just based on that. Remember, the people who review these games are seeing videos of content including screen shots, so the story they see has to have some impact.
Compare the two Kingdom Hearts games. Was KH2 really that much more violent to warrant a stricter rating? Sure it was just E10+ versus E, but I did notice the difference in rating. The only thing I could say was that KH2 had a darker theme. That's my theory anyway.
@ PeterHartlaub
You mention the lack of positive video game stories. Perhaps you could fix that. I doubt the readers of the San Francisco Chronicle frequent this site. Give them something good to talk about!
@ hilaryduffgta
So you listen to Hillary Duff, Ashley Tisdale, etc while playing GTA and Man Hunt? That is hilarious. Take THAT negative stereotype of gamers.
"Hmm M what could that stand for? Ooooh mature! my lil child is mature! Ooooh +17, my mistake sorry lil jimmy."
Honestly I can not look at the letter without seeing the word above. If they can, Kudos to them for reaching a new standard in human stupidity.
Like the MPAA's rating, it's usually not one thing that gives a movie/game its rating. It's a factor of having multiple uhh "infractions" that warrant a raised rating. Such as with a movie, just having some nudity (such as 18 Again or Epic Movie, just off the top of my head, both rated PG-13) or even a simple sex scene doesn't automaticially give a movie an "R" rating. Just as having some violence doesn't mean it'll get an "R" rating either. Same thing with swearing. But if the movie has enough of one, two or all three factors, it'll get raised but even a movie with all three doesn't automatically give it an "R" rating..
MGS3 has many more factors than Call of Duty when it comes to deciding its rating, along with the violence in MGS games allowing for many more ways to remove someone, MGS's violence might not be all that graphic but with the other factors, along with the larger variety of ways to dispose of someone, it'd probably be enough to justify the rating. If CoD's violence was more graphic, it'd be M rated also.
If anything the ESRB ratings are more strict in some cases than the MPAA's at least to a point.
*evil grin* wow i am morbid But hey Duffy rocks
As if "Grand Theft Auto" or "Manhunt" aren't indicators enough?
JB:
"wahhhhhhhhh stop saying bad things about me or I'll SUE wahhhhhhhh"
Also, doesn't the UK ratings system use color coding? Why didn't the ESRB do that? Because color costs extra?
Problem is, the ESRB has just spent a fortune promoting its rating system....
But, the majority of this article, aside from the universal rating system comment, was really a great read. I'm glad to see some people finally challenging Jack Thompson. We need more people out there doing so.
Gamers need to accept that it's going to take another decade before there are enough gamers or former gamers in the media and in positions of authority to promote a realistic view of the medium. Until that happens the mainstream press will continue to have an unrealistic, biased view of gaming.
They put Bill O'Reilly on TV, so I think the answer is a big yes.
Ooops, i happened to miss your post before i posted my previous one above. But i understand what you're saying know when it comes to using the words "confusing". Thanks for clearing that up.
I was actually thinking the same thing. The article is meant to bash Thompson as an extremist but it has to sort of stay in the middle of the issue by mentioning some of the things the anti-gaming crowd has problems with. With that said though, i still think the working "confusing" to explain the ESRB rating system was the wrong word to use in the article. Maybe "lack of education of the rating system" or "lack of knowledge of the rating system. But, the fact is if the ESRB is confusing then the MPAA rating system must be mind-boggling beyond human comprehention confusing. I know i'm nitpicking but it's beyond my comprehention why somebody would even consider the ESRB rating system confusing.
Thanks for the post. I am against a unified ratings system for the reasons I posted above.
I simply would like to point out that for a concerned parent, "M" for Mature is really enough to tell. If not, 15 minutes of research would be enough to make an informed decision. And this includes non-gamer parents, too. Who, as time goes on, will become a minority. What's 'ridiculous' is that you think a unified ratings board will suddenly make people understand, or give a crap. Such a system will still fail at a parent who doesn't care.
The ESRB has no current flaws that warrant it's replacement, especially when coupled with the fact that the majority of parents who actually use the ESRB either agree with it or find it too strict. (I can't find the link, I think you can probably find Mr. Reporter) The trouble is making parents use it as a guide, and not a baby-sitter. The 'confused' public you refer to are confused about what ratings are, not what letter means what. Most 'confused' parents want to be told what is right for their kid. The ESRB, MPAA, V-Chip, etc. are not intended to tell parents how to raise their kids, it's intended to tell them what general level of content is in them, thereby allowing them to make an informed choice. My experience in my 2-year tenure in video game retail tells me that their are two kinds of uniformed, or 'confused' parents: those who want to know what is in the game, and those who want to be told what to let their kids have. ANY ratings board isn't going to help the latter, and the ESRB helps the former as much as currently possible. There is always room for improvement, of course.
The issue is not one of 'confusion, it is one of familiarity.
Thanks for taking the time to come and clarify your remarks about the ratings statement. I don't know of too many reporters that would actually enter a discussion forum or blog to explain themselves.
Way to stand above the rest.
As for the comment on ratings, I understand your concern about non gamers being confused. Unfortunately, it is not a matter of people being confused by them, but them not taking the five minutes to read up on them. The information is readily available and easily accessable. So I see no reason why any one can be misinformed or confused unless they do not want to take the time.
Just to clarify, my "industry's confusing ratings system" comment refers to the confusion that non-gamers have.
While I understand the reasons are complicated, I think it's ridiculous that movies, TV, video games and music all have different ratings systems.
Most San Francisco Chronicle readers don't play games and I often find myself explaining the difference between an E, T, M, etc. If there were more constructive stories about video games and less demonizing ones, the public in general would be less confused, which was the point I was trying to make.
That being said, I probably shouldn't have dropped the reference without explaining myself more. I can see where the statement could be viewed as an attack on the ESRB and that wasn't my intention. Like I said, the reasons are complicated ...
I like that quote. It defines JT's position perfectly.
As for the ratings thing, I am appalled by that statement. If it were not for that the article would have been perfect.
First, by shooter I mean first or third-person people-shooting-people games, like the ones I mentioned. The discrepancy doesn't seem to happen in other genres. Heroes of the Pacific (an aircraft shooter) and Zone of the Enders (mecha shooter) are both rated T.
Second, I'm not saying that MGS3 should be rated lower. I think, if anything, MoH and CoD should be rated higher. If parents still want to let their kids play them, as away to learn about WWII or whatever, that's fine.
"While I admire what the Allied countries fought for, and have nothing but respect for our veterans, I don’t see how a game where the entire focus is the realistic killing of other people can have anything but an M rating."
well the un-PC answer to that is simply: if you're killing Germans (especially Nazis), it's perfectly ok for everyone to get in on some of that.
Again, not totally relevant to the discussion, but some food for thought. It also could point to what the BBFC study had to say about gamer reaction to violence in more "traditional" media.
A nice illustration of my confusion though. I just checked my games and ZOE is rated M after all. "Animated blood" and "Animated violence". What the hell? Heroes of the Pacific is T, with "Violence" and "Strong Language".
Now the kicker. The T mecha game I was thinking of in my collection is MS Gundam: Encounters in Space. Again, rated T with "Blood and gore", "Mild language" and "Violence". It has more and higher* descriptors than ZOE, but a lower rating.
*According to the ESRB, blood levels go: Animated blood, Blood, Blood and gore.
Those are valid points though. To reiterate what I said, I don't think MGS3 should be rated lower, I think the MoH and CoD games should be higher, and the fact that they are not is one of the confusing aspects of ESRB ratings. While I admire what the Allied countries fought for, and have nothing but respect for our veterans, I don't see how a game where the entire focus is the realistic killing of other people can have anything but an M rating.
Also, there are no flying body parts in MGS3. In fact, barely any blood. I can't even think of where the gore, as they describe it, comes from. And as I said, I don't see how the violence in it can be called intense when compared to a WWII game.
I could also point out that MGS2 has no sexual themes, only "Animated blood" and "Animated violence" and an M rating.
As correctly as I can remember it, Snake receives a pretty severe beating while in a torture room later in MGS3. He also loses an eye in some bloody fashion. Of course there's plenty of sexual undertone, straight or otherwise at moments in the game too.
Still, the ESRB is moving away from random groups of people and more toward permanent, professional boards, so I expect this to be less of a problem in the future.
However will Fox news be willing to put on their network a person who gets them rediculed in ever other media.
I think the article is correct in what it is saying, as people get older, as more and more people grow up around games, as more people are vocal in the diffence of game the more the news networks cant get away with looking for the lazy answers.
jack is a hack and hopefully the mainstream is starting to see that
That's always confused me. I know what the descriptors say, but I'm not sure that I buy them as valid. MGS3 gets "Blood and Gore", BR1 only has "Blood". MGS3 has "Intense Violence", BR1 has "Violence". The both have "Language". MGS3 has "Sexual Themes". BR1 doesn't have anything like that.
Leaving aside EVA's flirting in MGS3, I find it difficult to believe that MGS3 is, on the whole, a more violent game than BR1. Especially in light of the fact that it is possible, and encouraged via gameplay rewards, to not kill anyone in MGS3. Big Red One was just a randomly chosen title, by the way. Almost all, if not every single title, of the WWII-themed shooters are rated T (including, as far as I can see, every MoH and CoD game). Most non-WWII-themed shooters are rated M. Does the historic basis make for a lower rating? On the surface, it would appear so. On the other hand, Vietnam-themed shooters generally end up M rated, with a few T games thrown in. If you look at Hollywood, you'll see that Saving Private Ryan is rated R, and so are movies like Platoon and Doom, all for similar reasons.
So I ask again, why does nearly every WWII shooter end up with a lower rating than nearly every other shooter? This is one of the ways ESRB ratings confuse me.
"Using Thompson as a mouthpiece is like starting a marijuana discussion by screening “Reefer Madness.” …"
Actually, it's more like:
Thinking John Bruce is an Expert in ANYTHING is like asking Fred Phelps to give his Expert opinion on Homosexuality.
Yeah, I went there. And now that you've seen it, you can't unsee it. :)
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Wow, there is a word on there that corrisponds to the large letter printed on there. Is it possible that there is a case of "no habla engles" invovled here? I don't think so. If I am not mistaken, most of the crimes related to video game violence were commited by middle class white kids, which suggest that the parents should have some basic commands of the English language. No excuse, ESRB not to be blamed here.
You know what? I'll be my own activist. I'll suggest we ban things. The first thing on my list to ban is stupid people. Sure, that's going to wipe out a majority of people in the nation, but wouldn't be worthe it?
JT, professional self owner
"I think when the article talks about a confusing rating system, it’s mostly just referencing the fact that it’s a rating system many people aren’t familiar with. the ESRB could have, for instance, had an easier time had they just gone with G, PG-13, and R instead ... "
I think you are off-track here. First, he specifically chose to label the ESRB as 'confusing,' instead of 'unfamiliar,' or some other term that would lead people to the conclusion you propose he is making. No, he used the word confusing for a reason. Secondly, the ESRB couldn't make use of the same lettering system, being that the MPAA has them copyrighted. hence the reason for TV-M, etc for the TV ratings, as well as the ESRB's. Also, having one unified ratngs system might be a nice idea on paper, but really, the mediums involved have enough distinctiveness to warrant their own system of ratings.
It is a ridiculous statement, which makes it even more strange when compared to the rest of the article.
Oh, and to everyone else who keeps repeating that this is just one news source discrediting another: No. He specifically mentions every news source Thompson appeared in, and did nothing to single out one for any reason.
This article was aimed at discrediting Thompson, as well as appeasing the "video games are an issue" crowd. Also it was tinged with enough knowledge to keep the gamers happy, too. For that reason, I'm willing to ignore the one or two little flubs and accept this article as a hopeful begining to the end of Thompson's run in the MSM.
It's nice to see his credibility unraveling before our very eyes, though. As Hartlaub said, once he's out of the way, hopefully both sides will be able to sit down and have a serious discussion on the issue without him distracting us.
As long as the stone hits Jack Thompson on the back of his head leaving him brain dead, i dont care what happens to Fox
Although Jack Thompson is already brain dead to make the comments he does and make any sence, to him at least.
More like p0wnz0rz.
To be honest, I'm not so sure about that. The magnitude of the VT event gave Thompson just enough rope to hang himself with. The other events that he's been ranting about (barring Columbine), were things that, to be quite honest, not a lot of people outside the gaming community really gave a damn about.
This, however... This falls in the category of Epic Fail, and it will continue to bite his credibility in the ass.
Quote of the day! :D
i guess some people see the mature rating and thing they're buying cheese.
honestly thats a joke but people actually are that stupid.
Agree with you there. The ESRB rating system is very simple to understand. No harder if not easier to understand AND SEE then the MPAA rating system for Films. I'm pretty dumbfounded by that quote.