Why disbarred lawyer and activist Jack Thompson and his ilk are wrong about Medal of Honor, and why he must not be allowed to succeed.
Yet again, a video game has stirred up controversy, and yet again, a bevy of crusaders have come out to try to convince parents of the world that if you let your children play violent video games, you might as well move to the woods to minimize the damage that they will inevitably do when they snap and decide that a murdering spree is in order.
With the new Medal of Honor game due out in October, there are two distinct groups of protesters aligned against it, one is legitimate, the other is not. The first has an issue with the game’s multiplayer modes, which automatically assign one group of players as U.S. Special Forces, and the other as the Taliban. The protesters see it as disrespectful. The other group are essentially the hangers on. If the first group were a piece of legislation, the second group would be a rider. They are the Jack Thompson’s of the world that also think the Taliban’s inclusion is disrespectful, but they go way beyond that. Way, way beyond that. Thompson and his ilk are honestly claiming that this video game will make people want to join the Taliban. Medal of Honor might end up being a great game, but I doubt it will be good enough to make people join a group of religious zealots determined to kill people. If it is, I will definitely give it a 10 out of 10.
I want to make a clear distinction here — I am not arguing whether or not it is disrespectful to include playable Taliban characters in EA’s Medal of Honor. I understand the respect issue, and it is a problem with no solutions and several opinions. What I do take issue with is that Thompson (and he is not alone) is claiming that besides the asinine fact that in his mind the game will turn a generation of American children into religious fanatics hellbent on joining the jihad, he believes that regardless of whether or not you play as the Taliban or as the U.S., the game is actually bad for society in general, and he feels the same towards all first-person shooter-style games. “Murder simulators,” he calls them. Not only is Thompson wrong, he is a dangerous fool that has long since moved passed reason and has veered into something much darker.
There is also an upcoming Supreme Court case that should be heard in October. The case is to determine whether or not video games with a mature ranking should be held to the same standards as pornography, which would severely punish retailers for selling mature games to underage customers. The law originated in California, but has never been enacted due to legal challenges. The courts have so far found in favor of the video game industry, but expect several forces to align on both sides of this argument when the case is heard.
Ladies and gentlemen, Jack Thompson
It is nothing new. Something is happening that you don’t like, and you find someone to blame. It is human nature. Nothing brings this out more than a tragedy, and finding a scapegoat has become the “go to” option for many. When this happens, and this happens often, there is always the crusader in the wings, the person that sees the tragedy as being in line with his or her philosophy. Rather than feeling ghoulish for capitalizing on the event, they wrap themselves in a righteous blanket that defies and reflects any and all criticism as “insensitive.” Thompson is a perfect example of this.
A Florida lawyer, Thompson first came to fame in 1988 when he challenged incumbent Janet Reno for the Dade County State Attorney General seat. Thompson began his campaign by attempting to cast Reno as a lesbian. When the two met face to face, Reno put her hand on his shoulder and told him “I’m only interested in virile men. That’s why I am not attracted to you.” Thompson then filed a police report against Reno for battery for having touched him, thus beginning the first of many instances that are simply difficult to read and then still take the man seriously.
To discredit Thompson is easy. He makes it ok to hate, as long as it is in a “good cause,” and sees the world in black and white, which means that an actual dialog with the man is impossible. There is nothing more dangerous than a person who believes they are fighting for the fate of the future and is unwilling to see past their own prejudices.
If you need one example to define the character of Thompson, mere hours after the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings, before the killer was identified, Thompson predicted that the killer would have trained himself on the game Counter-Strike. Seung-Hui Cho was soon identified as the man responsible, and a search warrant discovered that Cho did not have any video games of any kind, and that while he had briefly played Counter-Strike in high school, it had been more than four years since he had played. In fact, Seung-Hui rarely played any video games, and according to an official Virginia state panel, none of the games he did play were violent.
Despite that, Thompson refused to give up the idea and stated “this is not rocket science. When a kid who has never killed anyone in his life goes on a rampage and looks like the Terminator, he’s a video gamer.”
He then sent a letter directly to Bill Gates, blaming him for the Virginia Tech massacre. “Mr. Gates, your company is potentially legally liable (for) the harm done at Virginia Tech. Your game, a killing simulator, according to the news that used to be in the Post, trained him to enjoy killing and how to kill.” Although Microsoft published the game on the Xbox, Gates’ company has no actual connection to Counter-Strike.
And that is just one of many examples of Thompson’s character. He is a reactionary that is quick to spout off, he is homophobic and has frequently attacked the notion of gay equality, and just to be a well-rounded despicable human being, he is a racist. He once described Sony’s rise in the video game world as “Pearl Harbor 2.”
He once claimed that “nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you’re a hit man or a video gamer.” These are not the words of a reasonable man. But while Thompson might be the most well known video game opponent, he is not the only one. He might be the most well known, but many of his arguments are shared by others.
Pre-order Medal of Honor now and get the controversy for free!
The game in question this time around is EA’s Medal of Honor, a reboot of the first-person shooter franchise that takes the series to current day Afghanistan, putting players in the role of U.S. Special Forces operatives. In preparation for the game, EA hired several U.S. military consultants to add a level of authenticity to the game, and many of the mission objectives and mission types will be realistic, to a degree.
On paper, Medal of Honor is no different from several other military-based video games, with two key points. As mentioned, the game was designed with input from actual military specialists consulting (although it is far from being the only game to do so), and the game allows people to play as the Taliban.
To be clear, when you are the Taliban, it is simply a name and a character skin. There is no story line, nor are there any special reactions to killing an online opponent who will be playing as an American. It might as well be red team versus blue team, but that would be contrary to the incredible depth of detail and research that the EA team invested into this game.
To further the controversy, some of the online maps featuring Taliban forces will take place in the southern Helmand province of Afghanistan. While the game only features American troops as the Taliban’s opposite numbers, the region is home to several coalition forces, including the British and the Danes. As a result, both governments have members in power that have made their displeasure known. The same is true for Canada, who’s Defense Minister criticized the game, as did the US Army and Air Force Exchange Service — both of which have blocked the sale of the game on military bases. All of these complaints are legitimate, and whether or not you agree with them, you cannot help but to see their point of view, but that is another argument.
Thompson and those like him see a deeper problem with the game. They essentially think the game will brainwash you, make you go on a murderous rampage, and possibly join the Taliban. Seriously.
Thompson’s issues (with the game):
Claiming to be representing an undisclosed number of anonymous families (despite the fact that he is no longer a lawyer), Thompson has sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, requesting action. He lists four specific issues with the game:
Jack Thompson
First, Thompson, of course, objected to playing as the Taliban. Second, he claims that EA is allowing anyone, of any age to preorder the game online. Third, the use of U.S. Special Operative soldiers consulted makes the game a “powerful and useful training tool to rehearse killing our soldiers”. And finally, Thompson believes that “military killing simulators” like Medal of Honor are direct causes for school massacres and other horrible things.
The first problem, using the Taliban, is a legitimate concern. Perhaps less so from Thompson than from the British Secretary of Defence, Liam Fox, who also registered his criticism, but it is an argument in itself that has more to do with the sensitivity of the war than a specific concern for video games in general. The second objection is a bit more obscure. Sure, it is legitimate that online sales do not require a person to check IDs, but that is an argument for any adult-rated material online, including R-rated movies, and is not specific to video games. Both are separate arguments.
Then we reach his third and fourth arguments. His third argument, that the game will reveal U.S. tactics, is staggeringly ignorant and uniformed. In fact, I would encourage the Taliban to play this game if they actually believe that the U.S. forces will send in one man to wipe out hundreds of enemies. I have difficulty imagining the use of a rocket launcher as primary weapon, but I do it all the time in video games. I even use a sword now and then — that should really freak out the insurgents, knowing that a U.S. soldier may come at them one day screaming with a blade drawn. It also seems like a long shot that after playing online, the Taliban would actually believe the U.S. Special Forces would call them a noob, insult their mothers, tea-bag their corpse after lobbing dozens of grenades, then charge a defended hill for fun. But if so, then maybe the Taliban would realize that they could never win a war against an army that can reload from a previous save point, and they might surrender. Even in the most authentic missions of the game, the action necessary to make a video game compelling will never be truly realistic, just as any movie made based on a real event will always make certain concessions. Why not go after the movie The Hurt Locker? Surely if a video game can betray the U.S. military’s tactics, then a gritty and realistic award-winning movie about a bomb squad in Iraq, also filmed with a great deal of military input to make it more realistic, would be more damaging.
Thompson’s argument might sound plausible, except to anyone that has ever played this style of video game, ever. It is a game, and it stands as such. If it were a true simulator, most gamers would likely not find much joy in eight hours of guard duty, days of waiting around and the sacrifices our soldiers make. Only fools and schizophrenics would believe that playing a video game could adequately prepare them for combat in any way.
In many ways, it is an insult to soldiers. No matter how fine tuned an enemy’s tactics might be, they can never fully simulate the heart and soul, the determination and courage that our soldiers show every minute of the day!
Do you see what I just did there? I took the argument and essentially said if you disagree with me, you are insulting the intelligence and courage of soldiers. How dare you! With a volunteer army made up of our friends, family, neighbors and fellow citizens, very few people would ever actually go out of their way to disrespect a soldier, but Thompson and others like him (and not just crusaders against video games, but crusaders against anything), regularly use this tactic to make it appear that their argument is not just sound, but also morally superior. It is hollow rhetoric. It is an insult to anyone with intelligence, and it cheapens what people in the military do by casting them as pawns to further a point of view. People need to stop doing this. Now. But I digress.
Why Jack Thompson doesn’t trust you
As for the final criticism, the argument is as simple as it is ridiculous. If you play violent video games, it will rot your brain, plus the people that commit violent and senseless crimes, did so because of video games, almost without fail. Basically, everyone that has ever played a video game is stupid and callow, and we need people like Thompson to guide us to righteousness. Or something like that. Basically he thinks we (gamers) are idiots.
In terms of scientific studies, there are dozens of well researched studies for and against the effects of video game violence. Some do say that violent video games effect developing minds and can desensitize people to violence. Others say that violent video games actually help already violent people curb their tendencies by offering them an outlet. No study is conclusive, and the arguments against video games are similar to the same arguments that were used against violence on TV, R-rated movies, rap, rock and roll, jazz, comic books and any other form of entertainment that has rubbed traditionalists wrong.
As for the idea that most violent crimes are committed by people who play video games, gaming is a billion-dollar industry. Millions upon millions of games have been sold, possibly billions. Saying that several violent criminals played video games, is not that far off from saying that sports are responsible for violent crime because many criminals watched sporting events as a kid. By law of averages, both are correct.
While a large portion of his personality is focused on being an opportunist, Jack Thompson truly believes that first-person shooter video games will make people kill. Somewhere, in his odd little head, he truly thinks that without video games, the world would be a safer and better place, and no matter how many studies you throw at him that claim video games can actually relieve stress, no matter how many millions of people own violent video games and have not murdered anyone, no matter how logical your arguments may be, if you play video games, you have a little maniac inside of you screaming to get out.
He is the type of person that will bemoan the way the world is and look for excuses on why inevitable change is occurring, while simultaneously glorifying the past through ever darkening rose tinted glasses. As Dennis Leary once said in defense of MTV, “Hitler never had cable TV.” The world can be violent, it always has been. Trying to reset things is a waste of time and energy that should be spent looking towards the future and the way things will be, not how you think they should have been. Pro tip: the “golden age” of America, generally said to be 1950s post-war America, was a great period for Americans. As long as you were middle class or better, white, and a man. For everyone else, it sucked.
Ironically, Thompson is very much like the bad guy in a video game or a movie. He is unrepentant, and unwilling to accept any other points of view that disagree with his. He should shave his head and buy a white cat to stroke. It has, and will continue to be his downfall as he pushes his ideology, and resorts to increasingly desperate and attention grabbing tactics. So Thompson is irrelevant. What is frightening is the ideas he represents.
Apparently, children used to be perfect little angels until the devil created video games
The video game industry is always going to push the boundaries of violence. There are only so many things you can do in a video game, and adding an element of combat is logical to the entertainment value. It creates interactivity and fast thrills. Of course the violent games are not the only side to the industry, but they are possibly the most visible. So it isn’t surprising that game developers are constantly finding new ways to amp up the action of games. It is just human nature.
Long before there were video games, there were toy figures. It was common to see kids playing with toy soldiers, and it still is. There may not be simulated blood splatter, but the concept is the same. It is in our nature to crave excitement and action. Even before toy soldiers became popular, people played cops and robbers, or cowboys and Indians. Keep going back, and you will see parallels throughout the modern age. Before that, sensibilities were so different that it isn’t worth mentioning. Sure, most kids would have been unlikely to go on a rampage in the 1910s — most were probably too busy with full time jobs. Things change, but desires remain.
Thompson and others would have you believe that the rise of violent video games has a direct correlation to the rise of violence in our society, especially among the young. William Golding wrote the Lord of the Flies in 1954, and while granted, that is just one fictional book, it clearly shows that a propensity for violence in youth has long been established. We have all heard the expression “children can be cruel,” usually after discovering someone has been bullied, or names have been called. There is a violent streak in all of us. Most bury it down, some find ways to direct it. Very few actually act on it.
We are children of the atom bomb, born in the shadow of global wars, political scandals and exposure to detailed accounts of everything horrible that has happened in world history. To try to pin all youthful violence on video games is ludicrous, and it seems to ignore the obvious trajectory of our world that began as far back as the dawn of the industrial age. Acts of shocking violence and murder are nothing new, they might just be easier to accomplish. When Charles Whitman climbed the University of Texas bell tower in 1966 and killed 14 people, the phrase “video game” was not even in the public lexicon. When Mark David Chapman shot John Lennon, Pac Man was still a novelty. Pol Pot never played Halo. Dr. Mengele was not into Counter-Strike.
Even if Thompson and the like had a point, and violence — including youth massacres — is on the rise, pinning it on video games is seeing the world with tunnel vision. Perhaps the game Doom influenced the Columbine shooters, or perhaps it was growing up in a society where information has become a given. The ills of the world have been laid before us, and only the most sheltered have failed to notice. Maybe playing Doom as a kid increases the propensity for violence, but doesn’t it seem more likely that the advent of television, and the realities of the world that the news brings us is a worse influence? And that is where Thompson’s argument becomes dangerous.
Violent games are simply a reflection of a violent world
Which would be worse for a child: to have them play Doom, a video game shooter that is violent, but obviously not realistic, or to have them watch CNN’s coverage of the war? And not just the current war, but any war. As a kid, I don’t have any particularly strong memories of playing Castle Wolfenstein, but I vividly remember seeing the CNN feeds of the first Gulf War when the cameras on the front of the missiles continued to transmit until the moment of impact. Perhaps Thompson and his ilk should focus their vitriol and bile on the media, who have had the gall to report the truth.
Entertainment is now, and always has been simply a reflection of the information we as a culture have available. Whether it is video games, rap music, or violent movies and television shows, none of that would exist if the world itself weren’t feeding off of those sources. Does anyone actually believe that the problems in our society that lead people into gangs would be solved by taking away rap music? Or that rap music actually lead to the formation of gangs? Some might argue that the music glamorizes and entices people into the lifestyle, but isn’t the real problem the fact that the lifestyle itself IS more appealing than many of the realities that people who listen to it are escaping from?
The real question is, has the video game industry grown up enough to brush off these criticisms, and are we finally moving past these silly rounds of blame that people profiting from tragedy are so entrenched in? The protestors of rap music seem to have lost their voice. Movies continue to push the boundaries of taste, and television is right there with film. In fact, if anything, the U.S., the world’s first choice in violent video game developers, is actually behind many countries when it comes to pushing the boundaries on TV. It is still unheard of to swear on a major network, and a single Janet Jackson nipple shook the entire television industry.
Why Thompson must be stopped
Thompson and those like him seem to believe that if you play a violent video game, you are partially doomed. You can never be a truly good person, because at your core, you are warped. The logical conclusion to this argument is that we should implement a series of restrictions and guidelines to prevent the exposure of kids to things of this kind. If that is true, it is only reasonable that to curb the violent influence in society, you must further restrict all things that offer a violent view on the world. If violent video games make kids murderers, then naturally, watching war coverage on TV must be out as well. You could always argue that it is the parents’ responsibility to choose only what to show kids, but that is no different than putting an R-rating on a movie, or an M-rating on a game. It helps, but it never really stops anything. So you would have to censor the news. Once you do that, society changes, and not for the better.
The only way to abide with Thompson’s request would be to restrict and curb the entire industry, and that is not something that we can allow to happen. For good or ill, we must continue to advance in the way we live. To try to go backwards would be impossible, and the results of attempting it would be disastrous. You cannot run backwards against a strong river current forever without eventually tiring and being swept away.
Arguing against video games is both futile and counterproductive. The industry has grown up, and it is no longer the easy target that it once was. Politicians (and disgraced former lawyers) looking to make a name for themselves would frequently throw verbal daggers at the industry to further their own career, but the once young industry has matured into a billion dollar field, with well-organized, vocal, and vigilant groups looking to fight back. Of every organization in the world, few are more prepared to launch grassroots, technological-based campaigns than the video game industry.
So to the Jack Thompsons of the world, it is time for you to move on. If we attempted to accept your views, it could ruin us as a society; at the very least stunt our growth as a culture. All you are doing is spreading violence and anger of your own by giving victims and grieving people — a specialty of Thompson — something to hate and blame. It is understandable that it is easier to blame a video game for a senseless and violent tragedy than to blame the perpetrator, but that doesn’t make it right.
Video games are at an important juncture. The medium has been around long enough that creative, talented and passionate people have taken over positions of authority, and the product is beginning to be elevated as a result. Sure, we will always have games with big explosions and loose plots, but the same is true for movies. And like movies, while much of the industry might be geared towards the largest common denominator, there will be a growing section of games that push the boundaries, that challenge our expectations. In short, games are on the verge of becoming art.
An argument can, and has, been made (see gamers versus Roger Ebert) that games are already there, at least a few of them are. Just looking at Team Ico’s Shadow of the Colossus. Right now, video games are right on the edge of greatness. Like comic books in the 80s, the industry is coming out of the shadow of its own childish heritage, and new voices are taking over. In the 80s it was Alan Moore, Frank Miller, Neil Gaiman, and many others who proved that the medium could be more than it had been. Video games are at the same point. They need the chance to mature and see how far they can go.
You put up an entertaining fight Thompson, but it is over now. Thanks for playing.
