What happens when two of the biggest egos in games media sit back and discuss arguably the biggest release in videogame history? We'll let you be the judge of that, as we welcome controversial defense attorney Jack Thompson to The Podcastle to discuss Grand Theft Auto with yours truly.
This week, we have a very short first half as the usual crew of Jim Sterling, Wardrox and Atheistium chat about Grand Theft Auto IV, and announce a special contest -- simply use our Community Blogs and find an inventive way to mix the worlds of Jack Thompson and Grand Theft Auto together. Be it a short story, image, video, song or -- my favorite -- interpretive dance, the best four entries will receive redemption codes from Atheistium, allowing them to download Xbox Live GTA IV picture packs -- for nothing!
Then we introduce the main event, as Jim Sterling speaks to Jack Thompson for the very first time. In this historic event, Jack Thompson actually makes good on his promise to appear on a videogames podcast. How do I manage to keep the volatile attorney on the phone for almost fifty minutes? How do I manage to get even a single word in edgewise? Did Jack Thompson confess that his son plays GTA? All these questions are for you to decide the answers for, but here are the highlights:
Jack Thompson thanked by a gamer? Jacko tells us why.
Jim isn't interested in Jack's testicles.
What is a "murder simulator?" Also, Jack's expert is better than Jim's expert, apparently.
Tom & Jerry needs to be less fun!
What was in Ted Bundy's Xbox?
Jim tries to explain why Take-Two threatening Walmart is a ridiculous idea.
Jack tries to explain why Grand Theft Auto IV is illegal pornography.
Jack asks Jim to file an American lawsuit, even though he's British.
Thompson is a gangsta rap expert.
At least Jim & Jack agree that IGN getting an exclusive review was rubbish.
Jack pushes for the final solution.
"Have I had my Wii Fix?"
Thompson's terrifying vision of the future.
I really hope you enjoy the show, and that I did videogamers and Destructoid proud. I would also like to thank Jack Thompson for his time, despite the nature of his exit, and tip my hat at someone who, I must confess, was a pretty challenging arguer. As always, check out our Podcastle page to listen or download. Alternatively, we can be found on iTunes.
Enjoy.
Contest:
5:31 PM on 05.01.2008
| 
SPOILERS
I don't see how that's possible.
And cant believe more that Jim was so fucking CALM (compartively)
1. To have Jacko
OR
2. Have Rambo ride a flaming motorcycle through the Gates of Hell while fighting an army of Robo-Hitlers with "Princes of the Universe" by Queen playing in the background.
I know we want the latter but sometimes you gotta take the lesser.
So awesome.
I'd have loved to see more parental responsibility talked about, as well as the responsibility of the killers themselves, but the end of the cast explains WHY more words couldn't have been gotten in edgewise - he hopes to win his arguments by dominating everyone else and not letting them get a point in. "There's enough blame to go around" is a copout. Amongst the parents who let the guy play the game (IF he was even a juvenile when he started playing it) and the guy himself who felt it was okay to kill someone - he chooses to nitpick at an industry who has little, if any, blame. That's like suing McDonalds for the existence of fat kids, rather than expecting them to put down the burgers, or their parents to keep them out of their hands.
That said, Jack Thompson is a fucking tosser, and I think Jim handled the interview extremely well. He seems to only toss out his hysterical, overblown bullshit when there's no warm body to immediately call him on it (such as telling Jim to go rape children, that was a fun one). I'd have probably just called him a fucking cunt.
Win.
P.s. - Nice touch with the politeness, I would have just called him a cunt and hung up the phone the first time he repeated my name in an attempt to try and quell my rebutles.
Jack seemed like he was just all over the place. Keep on topic, he'll stick to it until he felt like going off topic. He entirely skipped around the idea that the world before the modern age as we know it was far more violent than it is today.
He's a fool to believe that todays world is more violent.
I also note. Why the hell was he talking to you as if you had a huge marketing pull with Take Two and every retailer across the US? Have I uncovered some insider information that George Bush goes by Jim Sterling on the internet and has a great ability to mimic the British accent?
But I do have to say. Him trying to get you to stop talking when he's talking was madness. He was practically cutting you off for every sentence you spoke. It's ridiculous.
And I think you made an excellent point with Take Two vs Wal Mart in terms of size and market range... Shortly after that he just became childish.
So for that, I congratulate you on a job well done Jim. You properly held your ground and he just made the same old commentary he always does - he did not even attempt to get off his high horse or even attempt to see things from your point of view as a gamer.
Yeah sure u cant control parents at home letting them play but it is sortof fair that if movies in cinemas are restricted then games must be too. Its an arguement that its harmful in excess but so is drink and drugs.
Jack as i said is too fuckign stupid to realise that just becuase it made someone kill another it doesn't mean thats the problem!
Look at his logic for fuck sake! Clearly that guy is fucked up already! Moron what a moron.
Jim realease an article of what youv'e had said i was almost interested, or next time give a 2 min limit between each persons speaking to stop interuption.
I waited for you to say "What a CUNT" at the end Jim you dissapointed me a little...
I have been playing games for longer than I can remember. I cannot say I am anywhere near as violent as the average high schooler that did not play games. As a matter of fact, I live my life very passively in terms of violence...
If what he was saying ended up as the truth, the world at large would be in total anarchy. Blocks in every street constantly burning. Mobs attacking federal buildings and police buildings. All of this brought on by the News, Movies and Video Games. But that just is not the case.
Yes games should be more restrictive of who they are sold to. But I think more important than that, parents need to become more aware of what their children are doing. Regardless of what Jack feels Wal-Mart or EB Games should do, the parents ALWAYS have the capability of restricting that access in their own home. And if the child is fleeing home to play it elsewhere because Timmy's mom doesn't know about the game. Then that's a failure on the part of the parents to be more active in their childs daily lives.
We cannot expect TV, Computers, Movies and Video Games to raise our children. Maybe if Jack focused his efforts less on bullying every company who makes a game he doesn't like. Maybe if he stopped threatening to sue police forces or grieving families for a list of computer documents and confiscated items. Maybe if he instead focused his efforts in attempting to educate the parents of this generation on how to restrict mature elements from their children IN GENERAL. Maybe he would have got something done.
He basically says that there are people out there, that if it weren't for games such as grand theft auto, then they wouldn't have killed.
How can he justify that?
I'm pretty sure when a person sets out to kill someone it's either A. Because they have a motive, or B. Are mentally unstable. - whether they played a game or not is irrelevant.
Also he says that games are training people to kill. But surely by this logic, a shooting gallery at the fair (which is aimed at kids) trains them to kill, as they are training with an air rifle to shoot targets. THEN THE KIDS ARE REWARDED WITH PRIZES FOR THE MORE TARGETS THEY HIT. IT'S SICK.
Perhaps if america stopped selling guns, and changed the law to make it illegal to sell games to minors, there would be less killings. But by the sound of it, Jack Thompson wants neither of these, considering he said the laws were fine.
gah, what an utter cunt.
A moderator would have been a good idea. I had to balance myself as a debater with myself as a host. It was a very difficult scenario to be in.
I think it was handled in the best way it could've been, for sure.
He sounded like a parent attempting to scold his child by just saying the childs name.
BUT... what Jack does bring up, and it's something I don't see from the gaming community, is marketing and the power of PR. This seems to be the soul of his crusade, and I frankly condone it.
*now: liberal "bs"*
We are not free. we are being controlled in every step of the way in out everyday life by our cultural and social situation. Everything in our mind is manipulated by what we see and what we can get a hold of.
Jack talks about behavioral psychology which I find very interesting, as it connects to perceptional psychology, which, in turn, is the primal focus here.
If you strip away all his ignorance about what videogames actually are, there are some psychological and sociological aspects of his arguments that are very, very interesting to look into. The gaming community badly, badly needs to look into these kinds of things before lashing out at Jack Thompson just because of the fact that he obviously haven't played a videogame nor understands the fundamental aspects of interactive media.
Even if you can't stand the guy, look at what he's actually saying. Don't focus on the videogame regulations he's talking about or how he's cutting off Jim all the time; focus on what he's saying about marketing and psychology, because you might find something of value there.
I know people are sick of hearing his shit, but if we get rid of him, somebody else will come up, and they might actually be smart enough to be a real problem.
I've brought this up before. Sterling apparently believes the people demand it so he's gonna keep doing it.
I don't think people want to hear anymore about this idiot with down syndrome. We know his positions, we know he's wrong. Let him go.
All you're doing is glorifying your own need to obsess over him.
Then you haven't read the comments here, or the unprecedented 100+ comments to our pre-show post.
There is no supply where there is not demand. I am merely giving my readers what they want.
And I'm 22 years old and I watch WWE all the time. I know lots of people my age and older who watch WWE. WWE's biggest demographic are 18 to 25 year old males.
I hate that frame of thought that just because someone does something that another person does not - it's suddenly a waste of time.
Breakdancing? Pfft, that's such a waste of time. Going to a bar? Pfft, that's such a waste of time. So on and so forth. It's a self chosen hobby/activity that can vary from playing video games to lending a hand without pay at the elderly home. And it certainly is not a freaking waste of time. It's extremely ignorant for anyone to make that comment.
Now with Dolphins (Jack-Dolphins not allowed!!!)