Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Jack Thompson Weighs in on Oblivion 505

Robotron23 writes "Jack Thompson has commenced his attack on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion by seeking appearances on several talk shows. A press release announcing his availability speaks of Take Two not having 'learned its lesson' over the Hot Coffee scandal, before continuing to detail the issues surrounding Oblivion's re-rating, in particular regarding nudity - concluding that the game content will spawn 'an even worse disaster' than occurred during Hot Coffee."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jack Thompson Weighs in on Oblivion

Comments Filter:
  • Overrated (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HugePedlar ( 900427 ) on Monday May 08, 2006 @12:05PM (#15285760) Homepage
    If I understand correctly, it was a 3rd party mod applied to Oblivion that caused the nudity fuss, not a 3rd party unlocking of existing content a la Hot Coffee.

    As people have said already, you might as well rate every single game ever made as Mature, since any game can be hacked independently to show nudity or sex or clones of Jack Thompson for that matter.
  • by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) <Satanicpuppy.gmail@com> on Monday May 08, 2006 @12:07PM (#15285777) Journal
    Can't be pissed off at Thompson for being a wanker...He was born that way, I doubt he could help it. I guess you could blame his parents for not slapping the stupid out of him...

    All that being said, W. T. F. was the ESRB thinking giving that game a goddamn Teen rating? DIABLO II got a goddamn M rating. Any moron would know that a first person game with fricking SWORDS is going to rate an M. Didn't Morrowind rate an M?

    Really, does it weight that heavily on the sales if it ends up rated M?
  • Racial implications? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ofcourseyouare ( 965770 ) on Monday May 08, 2006 @12:31PM (#15286000)
    I notice in the article it says, "In Thompson's engrossing memoir...Thompson explains the moral, legal, ethical, and racial implications of this battle" (i.e. the battle against Satan's own game industry) - but Racial implications? Don't suppose anyone's actually read the memoir and can explain what on earth he claims the racial implications might be?
  • by Gothic_Walrus ( 692125 ) on Monday May 08, 2006 @12:49PM (#15286166) Journal
    For someone that's (as I understand it) employed by the public and for the public, he sure must spend a shitload of time playing computer games. Is that really what he's hired to do - play computer games and dream up the most insane ideas on ways to waste taxpayers money on lawsuits?

    Nah. From what I can tell, he just jumps on the stories after they hit media sources. As soon as it's on GameSpot or Slashdot, it's fair game for him.

    Of course, I've only got recent memory to go off of since I was too young to follow these things in the nineties, but I'm almost positive that he has yet to create a scandal...he just jumps in and makes a bigger mess out of what's already there. He's reacting to this after the fact, and I recall him doing the same with Hot Coffee.

    I think the only genuine news he's created so far was his "modest proposal," and that was built off of the GTA story.

  • by Surt ( 22457 ) on Monday May 08, 2006 @01:08PM (#15286315) Homepage Journal
    I don't think you can really claim that your base model of a human couldn't have non removable underwear built into the model. Not that you should need to do this, but you could. And given how innaccurate their models are to begin with, I'm not sure the need for accuracy argument holds much water.

    And a parallel might not require banning mannequins wholesale. What about banning mannequins with unnecessarily graphic details. For example, do mannequins require coloration of the nipple?
  • Re:I think... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ian_Bailey ( 469273 ) on Monday May 08, 2006 @01:32PM (#15286569) Homepage Journal
    They actually have a disclaimer designed for this:

    Online games that include user-generated content (e.g., chat, maps, skins) carry the notice "Game Experience May Change During Online Play" to warn consumers that content created by players of the game has not been rated by the ESRB.

    http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp [esrb.org]
  • by kormoc ( 122955 ) on Monday May 08, 2006 @02:11PM (#15286924)
    So I wonder, if I make a patch to a game that removes said nudity and violence, will it get rerated to G?

    It should work both ways, but I doubt it would...
  • by trimsyndicate ( 863819 ) on Monday May 08, 2006 @02:21PM (#15287030) Homepage
    There's a religious talk show called steve brown etc., and Jack was on there last week. A caller called in though and challenged him on whether video games cause violence when statistically violence is going down (at least in the us). Thompson said something about how the caller was wrong about violence going down and talked about some news study that showed it was going up. The caller then said something like "I can't believe you'd be calling a news story more accurate than crime statistics from the US govt." It was pretty funny...thompson basically conceded and then made some lame statement that violence would be down even more if there weren't violent video games, which is obviously bs. So anyway, why don't all of us arm ourselves with statistics like that guy and call into every show he's on?

    Oh and that show has an mp3, here's the link for it: http://media.gospelcom.net/kln/sbetc/050606sbe.mp3 [gospelcom.net]
  • Re:Overrated (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Malakusen ( 961638 ) on Monday May 08, 2006 @05:34PM (#15288554) Journal
    Actually, it's because until you as a fetus hit 14 weeks, you're androgynous. At 14 weeks after fertilization, the hormones turn on that turn you into a boy or girl. However, at that point, the nipples have already developed. The scientific evolutionary reason for this is because it makes it slightly easier for a female to develop then a male, since female is the default setting, and more women is better for racial proliferation then more men, since 1 male can impregnate several female and not be hampered by carrying the infant to term.

    Male nipples are also great proof that there is no Intelligent Design. If every fetus is formed in the womb and known by God there, then you'd think he'd eliminate the useless nipples, making men less susceptible to breast cancer when we don't need nipples anyway.

    http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/nipples.ht ml [indiana.edu]

Recent investments will yield a slight profit.