Jack Thompson on Medal of Honor Limited Edition

[Pete]

Jack's back and, though disbarred (although he's hinting that might not be the case forever sadly) he's out to prevent the release of yet another controversial title - Medal of Honor Limited Edition: https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2368824,00.asp - this time by writing to the US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a man not widely known for his influence on the gaming industry.

 

I'll agree that the part of the game content in question is a little controversial in that you can play as the Taliban, but even if you're offended or upset by that part of it and don't think the game should ever see the light of day, you've still got to find this quote just a little bit strange:

 

...I personally urge you, as Secretary of Defense, to do what is necessary, proper, and legal to stop the release of Medal of Honor on October 12 on the basis that it poses a demonstrable danger to our troops by providing a training tool for those who wish to kill them.

 

Hands up if you're confused >:]

 

Jack - if you can prove it logically (the dictionary definition of the word demonstrable) without asking the CIA to torture a Taliban prisoner into saying they turned to war after playing this yet-to-be-released title then be my guest.

 

Article spotted via Blue's News

[FullAuto]

I would also strongly suggest that the Defense Department find out who these Special Ops people are who have acted so foolishly in this regard.

 

Because I'm sure the Department of Defense didn't okay it. And I'm sure the soldiers in question totally gave away all their uber-killer secrets.

 

If you want to learn to kill US troops, guess what, you don't have to play games, you can go and do it for real. I somehow doubt the storytelling in the MoH series has improved to the point that borderline cases are moved to go and join the Taliban by it.

 

Jack Thompson, still a mentalist.

 

My favourite bit of this comedy genius' performance so far is this:

 

In Thompson's self-described "modest proposal for the video-games industry," he said that he would donate $10,000 to the charity of Grand Theft Auto publisher Take Two Interactive CEO Paul Eibeler's choice if any company created a game based on Thompson's specifications.

 

The game he described involved a mass murder of video-game industry executives, including the fictional CEO of "Take That Interactive," "Paula Eibel." The game's hero would then go on a killing spree, mowing down industry execs (and half the nation's supply of nerds) at the Electronic Entertainment Expo.

 

Grand Theft Auto fans -- the same team who had modded the San Andreas game to unlock the "Hot Coffee" scene -- wasted no time in taking Thompson up on his offer. But Thompson replied that the open letter (and thus, the conditional offer of a $10,000 charitable donation) was meant to be "satire."

 

This was when Penny Arcade's creators Jerry Holkins and Michael Krahulik responded, offering to donate the $10,000, in Thompson's name, to the ESA's charitable foundation.

 

Penny Arcade runs a yearly charity drive called Child's Play, which over the past three years has raised nearly $1 million in toy donations and cash for children's hospitals.

 

A representative for the website presented the ESA with the check at a charity dinner on Oct. 18. Written in the memo field was "For Jack Thompson, Because Jack Thompson Won't."

 

In response, Thompson sent a letter to the Seattle chief of police alleging that through the articles on the site, Penny Arcade had "decided to commence and orchestrate criminal harassment of me by various means." Four days later, he contacted U.S. Attorney McKay.

[Matri]

The disconnect from reality he suffers is really pitiable.

 

Sadly enough, people like him are increasingly becoming the norm, ever since the last elections.

[Pete]

Not about Jack, or even because of Jack (although he may possibly think so), they've dropped the Taliban from the game: https://www.hookedgamers.com/blogs/markbarl...l_of_honor.html

 

So... it's okay to make games including factions in wars we don't like when an event is no longer in the news, or when most of the surviving soldiers are too old or too dead to care, but not if it's current?

 

I get it, but at the same time it makes no sense.

[FullAuto]

The Taliban are small-time compared to the Nazis, or even Stalin-era Russia (who you can play as the good guys in several titles). WWII-era Japan wasn't exactly a barrel of laughs, but it's okay to use them as opponents?

 

I think this is just a massive non-issue. If the Taliban are so offensive, how then can you have the brass neck to set it in Afghanistan? How can you then use real countries at all as combatants, or is it just okay to fight imaginary/generic enemies?

 

This could all be deliberately planned to generate attention, I suppose. But to me it seems like they're intentionally replicating a real (and currently contemporary) war, and then pulling back from that just in case anyone mistakes it as having anything to do with the real and contemporary war. Either do it, or set it in a fictional country with fictional combatants, don't dilly-dally.