I believe this man is a plague to the human race, but not for the same reason many do.
He campaigns against violence in videogames, using bible quotes and southern state logic in order to craft something resembling an arguement. He is mocked by the general media, especially the gaming press, with whom Mr Thompson has become synonomous.
I believe Mr. Thompson has a point, after I witnessed a kid no older than 12 pre-order a copy of GTA IV. Sadly I believe that violent video games such as Manhunt and GTA can cause children of an influencial age to become more violent. I'm not saying it does for everyone, but even if it affects drives even one child to violence then it is not woth it. This level of influence can also be found in films and music, but these forms of media do not have a laughing stock with which to divert attention.
In the film industry it is generally understood that violent movies are bad for children, they are encouraged to steer clear of violent movies by their (hopefully responsible) parents. The point I am trying to make here is that as long as Jack Thompson represents one wild end of the spectrum debating without any proof or substance to his arguement, then much of the influential gaming world will stand opposed to him.
Mr Thompson is, in my opinion, responsible for the existence of manhunt 2, by provoking rockstar he encouraged them to make what is an uneccessary game and pointless violence.
I am not opposed to violence in videogames, I just think that Jacky Boy is turning a legitimate point of view into incredulous bible bashing
these are my thoughts
also soon I will be posting a review of silent hill the arcade game, possibly the scariest game made from 5 polygons
Before I get started I am fully aware that split screen EXISTS in games, i just question its implementation.
Recently there seems to be a shift towards online play, I appreciate that, but it seems everyone has forgotten how much fun they had playing split screen multiplayer on the older consoles. Although it is still implemented it never gets talked about on the same level as online play, and it seems that many developers are missing what, in my opinion, makes multiplayer games fun.
I live in a house with 4 other guys, we share a TV and get a pretty shitty reception on it, so gaming is pretty much the only fun we can have in the living room. The ONLY game we play anymore is Halo 3, not because its the best FPS, not because its even that good of a game, but because it has split screen multiplayer ONLINE.
The most fun I have had playing a game is playing 4v4 against strangers in Halo and having the whole of my team sitting in the room with me. You can laugh, shout, have a beer and enjoy yourself. Sure playing local games is fun, but there is something about competing as a team that is really enjoyable.
I bought COD 4 not too long ago and played through the single player, only to realise there wasn't much value left in it for me. I can't play single player games very easily because of the shared TV. This isn't just happening now, I have had this problem since the SNES, I always had to play with my brother, I could never play on my own.
Judging from the amount of people I see as guests playing Halo 3 this happens all over the world, yet developers seem to ignore it. People ask questions on the internet as to whether a game supports split screen online, and in most cases they don't.
I understand that in cases like Call of duty the game is graphically intensive so 4 players online would be a struggle for the 360, but why not do what halo does, gimp up the graphics a little for split screen. You could reduce smoke animation, texture quality, and polygon count and no-one would really be bothered because there would be added value.
I will probably be posting more, being a poor PAL gamer I have lots to vent about, especially now the 360 RROD'd, the guy who had a PS3 got kicked out of uni and therfore the flat, and I have a fully operable wii with absolutely no games to play on it (thanks reggie)