Jack Thompson is in a hurry. He is a walking exemplification of an outsider trying to make a difference. His continuous efforts, whence the visceral and violent gaming became a standard vernacular in the gaming industry, had set upon ratifying motions of law in states like Illinois and California; his efforts are to make those in charge answer for their irresponsible distribution of violent games to minors. It is not that the respective legislations outlining the restriction of sales are perfect solutions, and that it would only serve to highlight so and so's careers in the bureaucracy. I cannot help but think these are steps in the right direction.

The gaming industry is developing itself to be acclimitized in people's collective mindset, and aspire to be one unequivocally distinct part of our culture. And in a way, it has succeeded to become a very important part of how we define our entertainment. With all the rich tapestry of this medium blooming with unprecedented rate, there also comes a very troubling and foreboding trend of how the interactive media differentiates from its counterparts in other mediums. The violent images and suggestive themes increasingly popular with developers have been ingranined into the enterprise that has become very aggressive in marketing them irrespective of the age groups that may be vulnerable to the contents within. It is surprisingly similar to how tobacco cartels advertise and promote their products. Because of the longstanding but erroneous view of the association made with games being something exclusive to children, these increasing sales of violent games to minors were justified due to apparent extraneous category and typecasting to which this particular media has been restricted and therefore escaping scrutiny. 

Perhaps, game industry was initially slighted by the eyes of haughty and conceited individuals at the helm of other media outlets and not considered promptly to analyze its potential effects, some of which may as well have postulated different types of psychological infleunce that it can potentially wield. Now the studies in Harvard, Indiana State University and other reputable institutions corroborate the fact that video games can infleunce impressionable children adversely, even to the point that they display some form of violent behaviour more readily after exposure to violent games.

Furthermore, the ratings board that has been regulating the contents of games have not mandated their ratings system to be addressed with any kind of active enforcement. It seems to have been a mere guidance or recommendation, and do not hold sway with other forms of game distribution, such as those made on the Internet. Who regulates the regulators and make the system ultimately responsible? At least in this sense Jack Thompson has made a difference. He made the industry buckle with self examinations of its business practices and with the help of likeminded and concerned individuals who heed his warnings, have established a safety net of sorts that would hamper dire consequences were the gaming industry still given control of considerable and unchecked clout in managing the exploitation and loopholes of the ratings system.

Jack Thompson's approach of taking headlong the forces reckoned with the who's who of the lobbyists in the capitol has garnered some national coverage. He is now an embattled lonely voice shunned by many but still holding the kernel of truth. The way he goes about expressing his opinions may appear to be acerbic and without decorum, such as the offer of 10,000 dollar donation he has made for anyone to make a game with contents that I will not mention here for suspicions of fallacy. However, I do not understand why the gamers are so desperate to get him. It is a meaningless exercise in vanity. It only makes him emboldened in his will, and has a danger of making him label gamers in general as mindless louts with zero capacity to understand the issues at hand. Do the game companies pay you to defend them and their games? Do sites like Penny Arcade encourage or foster some kind of 'brotherhood' or sense of belonging in attempting to harrass an individual? These deviants of fanboys, just for the sake of identifying themselves with hordes of other sheeps unable to think for themselves, are indirectly propagating the misconception of gamers as insufferable lame beings whose only volition in life is to protect what they hold dear, which in fact is nothing but stoking their own sense of wounded ego.

I must say I feel sorry for Mr. Thompson. Although I do not agree with all of his points he made on the game industry, and is worried that his stance toward the restriction of games may have acquired an unreasonable pretext for loathing almost everything related to games, I consider him as an astute individual with some guts. What Jack Thompson may accomplish in the end is creation of games that do not depend on senseless violent imageries for their selling points, but originality. It may foster a more stringent gaming regulation board that effectively bar children from harmful materials (and educate parents along the way). It may ironically be a boon for a new paradigm of game design and encourage people to think outside the convention. Jack Thompson does not hate all games. He only hates the ones specifically portraying the act of violence as meaningful and constructive gameplay. For once, his cause seems appropriate and could not be more relevant.