Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Defending Sony Against the Church Of England

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the somebody-has-to dept.

Sony 78

Ian Bogost writes at Gamasutra about the (now quiet) controversy between Sony and the Church of England. You may recall the religious organization's objection to the use of the Manchester cathedral in Insomniac's alternate history WWII shooter Resistance. The result of this objection was a weak-kneed apology from Sony, and an attempt to push the whole thing under a rug. Bogost notes that never once did the company try to defend itself on artistic merit, simply capitulating to the objections of the church. That, he has decided, leaves the job up to him: "For my part, I think the cathedral creates one of the only significant experiences in the whole game, one steeped in reverence for the cathedral and the church, rather than desecration. Resistance is not a game richly imbued with wisdom. It's a first-person shooter, and it is a pretty good one. It's beautifully rendered, taking apparent advantage of the advanced graphical capabilities of the PlayStation 3. The game is very linear, both in its plot and the paths through each level, but that linearity allows it to focus the player on a smaller, more tightly crafted environment. Resistance takes up a common theme in science fiction: an ultimate test of humankind against the Other."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Uh, right. (2, Insightful)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 7 years ago | (#20541569)

From TFA:

Absent the creators' own ability, interest, or resolve to defend the artistic merits of their creation, that task is now left to the critic.
Sony did something stupid - include a landmark owned by a church in a videogame of theirs without getting prior permission. If this church was to be included in a movie, you know that the studio would have to get permission, etc. So, Sony apologized for their stupidity, and moved on. This blogger has the "Al Sharpton" syndrome - take up a cause that very few people care about and act like it's the most important thing in the world. Good job.

Re:Uh, right. (3, Insightful)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 7 years ago | (#20541631)

Why do they have to get permission? For a movie where it's done on location, that's understandable. But if it's done completely through CGI?

Re:Uh, right. (1)

mikael (484) | more than 7 years ago | (#20542345)

Sony could have at least designed a 'generic church' by mixing and matching bits of different churches. There are a good many books on Gothic, medieval, renaissance, architecture that have floor plans and sketchings of many different churches.

To me, it would seem like the art producer looked through one of these books, stuck a post-it note on the page of one church in particular and told the CGI modeller
to use that one photograph as a reference.

Re:Uh, right. (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 7 years ago | (#20543681)

Considering that they wanted that exact church because the game is based in an alternate version of human history, I'd say you don't know what you're talking about.

Design goals vs Storytelling (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 7 years ago | (#20544367)

So, you're building a video game about Something Real (or alternate-reality-real). Do you model the building in a way that is Correct, or in a way which is Incorrect, but no one can tell?

For example... I recall playing Rainbow Six: Eagle Watch. At one point, there was a hostage rescue scenario in some offices of the Capitol building. These may have been actual floor layouts, or not -- I really (as a player) have no idea. I relish the idea that they made it seem real enough, but don't really care much whether it's 100% accurate.

In the case of Resistance (which I haven't played), you say they wanted a specific cathedral, for alternate-historical reasons. If you're already going the alternate history route, why not:
- alter the outside so it looks very similar to the real thing
- alter the inside so it's different but believable
?

Your gamer audience will often NOT have been inside the Real Thing, and if they have ... well, you have the fallback excuse of it being an alternate reality version. Perhaps the floor plan of that church, or the design of the Oval Office, or the number of seats in the Space Shuttle are all different there -- it really doesn't have any effect on gameplay, unless being able to reference Real World information would actually help you. (In which case, you're less in a video game, and more in the research-at-the-library game.)

I like authenticity in games ... but only really want it as far as is necessary to be a believable scenario. I want the bathrooms and stairs to be placed in realistic places, rather than tactical choke points (usually), rooms with furniture in them that would be reasonable obstacles, etc. The games that try to be "realistic" tend to do a good job of this (hello, Rainbow Six!), but I appreciate that they aren't so wedded to being an actual mock-up as to cripple themselves as a game. I think Sony made a mistake here, if they really did use the actual building design (or something too-close thereto) when they could have done something else.

Re:Uh, right. (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#20551057)

That would be okay for non-public places; I don't particularly want my living room to be featured in a shooter. But the game plays where it plays, which is a real place, and the church is open to the public, so why the hell should the church in the game not look like the real church?

Re:Uh, right. (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 7 years ago | (#20542453)

Same reason they had to pay for using the image of the empire state building in spiderman for 2 seconds.

Re:Uh, right. (1)

alcmaeon (684971) | more than 7 years ago | (#20542509)

Same reason they had to pay for using the image of the empire state building in spiderman for 2 seconds.

Which is...?

Re:Uh, right. (4, Funny)

theRiallatar (584902) | more than 7 years ago | (#20542783)

Idiocy.

Re:Uh, right. (1)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 7 years ago | (#20545875)

Manchester is far, far older than the Empire State building. Just assume these buildings are "copyrighted". Even using the recent reconstruction of the 1800's (instead of the 1400's of when it was started), you're well out of copyright.

Re:Uh, right. (1)

donaldm (919619) | more than 7 years ago | (#20550221)

Why would Sony have to get permission? It wasn't their game although it does play on their PS3.

Re:Uh, right. (1)

FinchWorld (845331) | more than 7 years ago | (#20541655)

Sony did something stupid - include a landmark owned by a church in a videogame of theirs without getting prior permission.

As far as I am aware its a landmark, but it is a public landmark, for which you don't need permission to take pictures of etc, and likely the reason the COE hasn't done anything legally about it on the grounds it would get them no where. In anycase all you do is fight aliens in it, and is by far the most exciting thing ever likely to happen in a church.

Re:Uh, right. (3, Interesting)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 7 years ago | (#20542183)

I love how the argument is always made that 'If I can photograph it, they should be able to create a three dimensional replica for use in a for-profit video game that the church may or may not like'. The two aren't the same at all*. Now then, the law may or may not have supported Sony, that depends on a huge number of factors and, in the end, a single judge's decision. Either way the nice thing to do is ask for permission, Sony didn't do that.

Here's my POV. It is entirely possible to trademark a building's appearance, at least in the US, I don't know where the argument that that's not possible came from. Now then, in this case, the Church was probably not trademarked (unless the view is taken that any distinctive looking building is trademarked, which is a possible view). The inside of the Church, however, is private property. Unless I'm mistaken (having never played the game, I'm not a big horror person) Sony did model the inside of the Church. That is questionably legal without permission. In the US you're allowed to model (photograph, actually, but I'm extending it to modeling for this example) any non-trademarked buildings that can be seen from public property. Since the inside of the church can't be seen from public property...*cue drum roll*...that means that Sony was using private property in their for-profit game without permission. Whether or not that is legal, since the Church probably lets anyone in, is unknown but it's wrong to just say 'Yeah, that's legal' when it may or may not be.

If I'm wrong on anything please point it out to me. Personally I think Sony should be able to do what they did, they should have asked for permission but it should be legal. Whether or not it is legal is something I believe to be unknown.

Re:Uh, right. (1)

evilbessie (873633) | more than 7 years ago | (#20542559)

I agree with you, however if Sony had asked for permission to use the inside of the church then the church would probably have said no. This way they get to keep it in the game I think (I didn't rtfa so don't know if anything changed in the game).

Re:Uh, right. (2, Informative)

Derekloffin (741455) | more than 7 years ago | (#20543347)

Trademarks have to be registered, are very limited in what you can register, and beyond that they don't protect you from having it used, only from having it misrepresented to a different competing product. Also, trademarks have to be very simple, you can't trademark a book for example, nor a painting, only a symbol or other simple graphical premise or set of words. Trademarking the whole church, no.

As for modeling, you have no IP right over a look other than copyright, or patent. Any copyright or patent on the design or structure of the church has LOOOOONG past. It is now a landmark, and has lost all IP protections. In fact it is so old it didn't even have them to begin with. You could be an identical church right now and use it for porn movies and there is 0 they could legally do about it.

Really, the only legal recourse had to be taken at the time any sampling was done and since this is a landmark, it is very likely no person from the developer even set foot in the church, they very well may have just used publicly available photos of the interior. Even assuming they did actually set foot on the premises, if the church officials did not object at that moment and charge the people with trespassing they are now without legal recourse.

Re:Uh, right. (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#20543471)

You're right until you say: that means that Sony was using private property.

Since when is making a drawing of something "using" it? Can I picture it in my mind? How much money do I owe for that? Can I describe it to others? Can I write a story where I describe it to people and then sell the story?

What law are you talking about anyway?

Re:Uh, right. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#20544429)

Since when is making a drawing of something "using" it?
Since 1790 [wikipedia.org] , or since 1978 [wikipedia.org] at the latest.

Can I picture it in my mind?
No, because under the law, neural patterns are not a "tangible medium" in which a work can be "fixed".

What law are you talking about anyway?
Copyright law (Title 17, United States Code, and foreign counterparts).

Re:Uh, right. (1)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 7 years ago | (#20544697)

Looks to me as if architectural works were only added in 1990.

Re:Uh, right. (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#20546675)

Since 1790, or since 1978 at the latest.

Really. Well construction on that church started in 1215 [wikipedia.org] . Since copyrights only last 50 years, it's safe to say that any copyright that may have existed is expired.

Re:Uh, right. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#20547037)

Well construction on that church started in 1215. Since copyrights only last 50 years
Exclusive rights to land last a billion years or longer. The Church could assert that photographs taken within Church buildings shall be assigned to the Church. This would not be without precedent: the 1611 English translation of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer are under perpetual copyright-like exclusive rights.

Re:Uh, right. (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#20547827)

I think you've just proven that any legal case, no matter how absurd, can be argued on either side. It's good to illustrate how extremely useless such legalistic thinking is in understanding and solving problems justly. You have done everyone a service.

Re:Uh, right. (1)

bentcd (690786) | more than 7 years ago | (#20550449)

Exclusive rights to land last a billion years or longer.
The land is not being used in the game. As an example, I can play the game while sitting immobile in my apartment in Norway and yet the land is in England.

The Church could assert that photographs taken within Church buildings shall be assigned to the Church.
The church could assert that pigs fly, but I'm not sure how far that would take them.

This would not be without precedent: the 1611 English translation of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer are under perpetual copyright-like exclusive rights.
Presumably, this depends on jurisidiction. So far as there is no case law that specifically states that this particular piece of property is under perpetual copyright, then it quite clearly isn't (yet).

Re:Uh, right. (1)

antek9 (305362) | more than 7 years ago | (#20546355)

Trademarked? A church? For what kind of trade exactly would someone have cared to trademark it?

And don't you think Jesus would have objected if that were the case?

I think the only argument they have is a moral one. Which can be (should be?) rather strong. Compare: Let's have a downloadable map for a game like Resistance, Warhawk, UT3 or CS/S that's modeled around Mecca, to have a shootout in some mosques and around the Kaaba, and now try to imagine what the game designers would have summoned upon themselves.

Luckily enough for Insomniac, the Church of England has never supported sending out suicide bombers to take care of things that have not been taken care of by legislation.

Re:Uh, right. (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 7 years ago | (#20556243)

So, what Sony should do, is take $200,000,000 in small unmarked bills, throw it up in the air. All the money that God keeps would be payment for using His images, all the money that falls back to earth should be given back to Sony.

Re:Uh, right. (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 7 years ago | (#20543171)

In anycase all you do is fight aliens in it, and is by far the most exciting thing ever likely to happen in a church.

Well, I've done some 'exciting' things in church. I guess it's subjective. It was exciting for the two of us. Ahh catholic school girls....

IANAP (I am not a priest)

Re:Uh, right. (1, Interesting)

njfuzzy (734116) | more than 7 years ago | (#20542015)

I couldn't disagree more. A cathedral is a publicly available place, a historic monument, and as you put it "a landmark". Perhaps the use of the actual facility, such as required to shoot a movie, is up to the owner (the Church), but use of its image can't possibly be.


What can they claim? Copyright infringement? I dare say a centuries-old Cathedral's image would be public domain now. Trademark? On a public place?


Sony was within their rights, and it was a sign of weakness ("make everyone happy" PC nambypambying) that they apologized. Does the Church have to ask the permission of Rome or Jerusalem to tell stories that happened there?

Re:Uh, right. (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 7 years ago | (#20542301)

It may be owned by the church in this world, but the summary clearly states that the game takes place in an alternate reality.

Not A Blog (1)

SteevR (612047) | more than 7 years ago | (#20542575)

Gamastura [gamasutra.com] is the web front of the CMP Game Group [cmpgame.com] , which is in turn part of CMP Media at large. Amongst other things, this company organizes major industry events (such GDC [gdconf.com] ), and publishes Game Developer Magazine [gdmag.com] . Gamasutra is mainly a web clearinghouse (and advertisement) for Game Developer Magazine content. Thusly, there are folks with editorial control over the content published on Gamasutra; this is not a blog, where a writer says whatever they want with nobody to edit their content for public consumption.

Ian Bogost [gamasutra.com] is much more than a "blogger". Judging by the derisive fashion with which you wield the term, I'm guessing you take that to mean "person who writes about stuff because they are too untalented/lazy to actually be involved with any of the stuff they write about". No offense; that is the same way I bandy the word about. Check out his website [persuasivegames.com] , and take a look around. Yes, it links to a lot of articles he has written, and mentions in the mass media (including an appearance on The Colbert Report [comedycentral.com] ), but if you take a look at these [persuasivegames.com] , you'll find that in addition to doing real business with corporate advertisers hawking products, he is actually in involved in trying use games for conveying something beyond a fun experience or a product placement.

No, I don't work for him, and I'm not his #1 fanboy. I simply knew that the "publisher" and the author of the content you called a "blog" were so much more than that.

Re:Uh, right. (3, Interesting)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 7 years ago | (#20543217)

The building is over 700 years old, and its interior is well documented. What law, exactly, requires them to get permission before they model it in a videogame?

Kids these days... sheesh. They have no disrespect for whiny, illegitimate authority.

Re:Uh, right. (2, Insightful)

sesshomaru (173381) | more than 7 years ago | (#20543733)

Ok, a lot of what I'm reading here is in terms of this being a legal defense. Well, it's not supposed to be a legal defense because Sony doesn't need a legal defense. They don't have to recall their game or give a percentage of the profits to the Church of England, and they won't have to. They "won" basically (Church of England didn't have a leg to stand on, so their was never any chance of them losing), but said they won't do it again for public releations reasons.

The article is an artistic defense of the game. How to explain. Okay, years ago, some German Expressionists decided to make a film version of Dracula called Nosferatu [wikipedia.org] . This film is considered to be one of the high points of Expressionist film making, a work of art.

However, the film makers made it without permission or compensation to Bram Stoker's widow, and she was within her legal rights to have every copy of the film destroyed. Which she tried to do. It is only because she was unsuccessful that copies survive to this day.

A defense of the film as a work of art might have been made not to the courts, but to Mrs. Stoker. An uninterested party could have made a critical judgement of the work and said, "I understand you were ripped off, but don't destroy the film. It is a powerful work of art. It would be a shame to rob the world of this."

Sony didn't make an artist defence of Resistance because they don't care about it as a work of art, only as a product in their catalog.

Re:Uh, right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20545925)

Sony did something stupid - include a landmark owned by a church in a videogame of theirs without getting prior permission.

If something is truly a landmark then no permission should be needed. "Landmark" implies it is no mere building but an iconic part of the city itself. So much so that its absence would be noticed if they didn't include it (like a game set in Paris would feel "wrong" if the Eiffel Tower wasn't seen.)

As the church is over 1200 years old and has immense historical signifigance, as well as being one of if not the most recognizable sights of the Manchester skyline, its use is essential (and inherent) to the setting. This is much different than Sony using the location of a private business without permission. If they included a sign from a specific curry shop that would be one thing but this is akin to using the Statue of Liberty.

It is also a Grade I Listed Building, which means it is officially a building "outstanding or national architectural or historic interest." Which means the church may own the structure and the land, but the likeness really belongs to all of England. It also means Sony would probably have a good leg to stand on if the church were to sue.

Of course no one wants to be sued by a church, so they probably did the smart thing by just trying to make this go away as quickly as possible.

Get the bug out of your ass (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#20541577)

Seriously.

How did that gospel go?

The Kingdom of God is inside you and all about you, not in mansions of wood and stone. Split a piece of wood and I am there; lift a stone and you will find me.

Don't you mean? (3, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 7 years ago | (#20541731)

20Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within[b] you."

That's from the Gospel of Luke, one of the canonical Gospels. What you cite is from the Gospel of Thomas, which is considered to be a gnostic gospel. Seeing as how the CoE uses the canonical gospels only, Luke is more appropriate than Thomas here.

Re:Get the bug out of your ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20541757)

And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold, saying to them, "It is written, `My house shall be a house of prayer'; but you have made it a den of robbers."

Re:Get the bug out of your ass (1)

alcmaeon (684971) | more than 7 years ago | (#20542663)

How did that gospel go? The Kingdom of God is inside you and all about you, not in mansions of wood and stone. Split a piece of wood and I am there; lift a stone and you will find me.
Um, you reallize that was from a Gnostic gospel, right? And that that Church of England, just like the Catholic Church, don't cotton to no damn Gnostics? In fact, during the Albigensian Crusade, the Catholic Church said to "kill them all [believers and heretics]. God will know his own."

They don't call it the "authorised version" for 0 (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#20544603)

How did that gospel go?

The Kingdom of God is inside you and all about you
Um, you reallize that was from a Gnostic gospel, right?
In case you're watching only replies, MikeRT hinted [slashdot.org] that Luke 17:20-21 [biblegateway.com] is not considered "gnostic".

Re:They don't call it the "authorised version" for (1)

alcmaeon (684971) | more than 7 years ago | (#20590499)

In case you're watching only replies, MikeRT hinted that Luke 17:20-21 is not considered "gnostic".

Luke isn't considered gnostic in the sense of heretical, since it is a canonical gospel, but it is certainly more gnostic in the lose sense than is Mark, for instance, but less gnostic than John.

At any rate, the quote at issue wasn't from Luke, it was from the Gospel of Thomas and the quotes aren't the same.

Re:Get the bug out of your ass (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 7 years ago | (#20543325)

Split a piece of wood and I am there; lift a stone and you will find me.

All very well, but it's hard to convert people to your religion with broken twigs and cracked rocks. Stained glass and gold ornaments on the other hands really wow the average pleb. And hey, when you're going about saving people souls, who's to say you should look the part! It's all for a good cause right?

Re:Get the bug out of your ass (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 7 years ago | (#20548239)

All very well, but it's hard to convert people to your religion with broken twigs and cracked rocks. Stained glass and gold ornaments on the other hands really wow the average pleb. And hey, when you're going about saving people souls, who's to say you should look the part! It's all for a good cause right?

Except the Christian church grew incredibly fast before all of those things, and the reward for conversion was likely persecution or death.

Re:Get the bug out of your ass - Off Topic (1)

hazah (807503) | more than 7 years ago | (#20544203)

"Not all drugs are good. Some ... are great.... You just have to know your way around them."

Re:Get the bug out of your ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20544881)

Split a piece of wood and I am there; lift a stone and you will find me

God is a bunch of maggots and centipedes?

This literal interpretation thing is harder than I thought.

mmmmm cake (0, Offtopic)

RorinRune (1116387) | more than 7 years ago | (#20541619)

CAKE OR DEATH??!?!?

Re:mmmmm cake (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20541819)

euuhhh...cake please!

Spin Translation: (0, Flamebait)

Brigade (974884) | more than 7 years ago | (#20541629)

"It's a first-person shooter, and it is a pretty good one. It's beautifully rendered, taking apparent advantage of the advanced graphical capabilities of the PlayStation 3. The game is very linear, both in its plot and the paths through each level, but that linearity allows it to focus the player on a smaller, more tightly crafted environment. Resistance takes up a common theme in science fiction: an ultimate test of humankind against the Other."
Read: It sucks, but it's pretty (Because it sucks). And we pay our PR guys well.

When are Sony's developers going to realize that open areas, and/or varied encounters through intelligent AI = successful FPS? Halo 2 wasn't THAT pretty, and it still sold through the nose.

Re:Spin Translation: (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#20541837)

I don't think that's what he was saying. Because the game was fun. It's almost unanimously considered fun. So it's unlikely he was saying "it sucks" when he said "it's a pretty good one".

Re:Spin Translation: (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 7 years ago | (#20541845)

Read: It sucks, but it's pretty (Because it sucks). And we pay our PR guys well.

When are Sony's developers going to realize that open areas, and/or varied encounters through intelligent AI = successful FPS? Halo 2 wasn't THAT pretty, and it still sold through the nose.


Umm ... Halo 2 (and 3) sold for one reason and one reason only: Multiplayer.

I think Sony's developers fully understand that since they just released Warhawk [playstation.com] which plays like Battlefield and supports up to 32 players in huge environments.

Re:Spin Translation: (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#20542483)

Ian Bogost isn't a PR guy..

He is a prof a Ga Tech and he helped found Persuasive Games. He is actually a rather interesting fellow.

http://www.bogost.com/ [bogost.com]

Re:Spin Translation: (1)

Gravatron (716477) | more than 7 years ago | (#20542651)

The game actualy does have some wide open parts, during the vehicle sections, as well as some huge rooms every now and again. The main fault was well, it screams for a sequal, as not everything was resolved, and it didn't really try anything new. Besides that, it looked great, the weapons were great (enough that halo ripped off it's grenades), and the design wasn't all that bad, for an fps. Coop was pretty fun as well. Heck, in true insomniac style, it even had achivement's in it, making it one of the few games besides warhawk to have that on the system.

May I be the first... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20541657)

to set fire to a pile of PS3s!

Re:May I be the first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20542481)

Your right, you would have to set them on fire.
But 360's self ignite so it's a lot less work.

Re:May I be the first... (1)

cpt.hugenstein (1025183) | more than 7 years ago | (#20542491)

They will take care that themselves. I'm sure there is a battery of some sorts in it.

Re:May I be the first... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#20566801)

I guess that means you get First Roast!

SOE vs COE, next on WWE Smackdown! (3, Insightful)

nobuddy (952985) | more than 7 years ago | (#20541699)

two heavyweights of their genre (fantasy, magic, talking animals vs video games) stand toe to toe, and Sony pussies out instead of bringing the fight.

Re:SOE vs COE, next on WWE Smackdown! (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 7 years ago | (#20542529)

Similar to my thoughts, but which side would be 'the good guys' here, are should this be an 'Asshat Deathmatch...In a Cage...of hungry lions, and...

Well, Sony may have more money to fight with, but as for asshattedness, CoE have been past masters for centuries before Sony was even started.

It would be an interesting match.

Manchester (4, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#20541769)

That was a good scene in Resistance. The cathedral and the hospital beds were a good counterpoint to the alien attackers. And the layout really worked to focus the action.

I'm not sure why anyone needs permission to copy something like that in a game or a movie. It's been there for a while now, so the design can't be copyrighted any more. The Church of England seemed to just want money.

Some people might have been "offended" by a shooting game in the church, but people who are "offended" need to be told their choice to take offense is theirs alone. If you start empowering people based on their choices to take offense or not, then they'll eventually have 100% total power over you.

Fantasy or Reality? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20541811)

Church fails to spot the difference between fact and fiction.

So what's new?

Re:Fantasy or Reality? (2, Funny)

TheMadcapZ (868196) | more than 7 years ago | (#20542517)

Your right, maybe they just wanted Sony to model the church more accurately, you know, have a priest fingering a boy in the corner or something.

Funny (4, Funny)

svendsen (1029716) | more than 7 years ago | (#20541815)

The church asking sony to apologize for doing something bad

I'm still waiting for the church's apology for everything bad thing it has done ;-)

Re:Funny (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 7 years ago | (#20542117)

Dude, this is the Church of England we're talking about here.

Cake or death?!

Re:Funny (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 7 years ago | (#20543181)

Ah, the, uh, Psychotic Bastard Religion.

Re:Funny (1)

miller701 (525024) | more than 7 years ago | (#20544419)

But then that Luther guy came around with these "principles"... Ah, yes much better.

Let's recap, in case you missed any of it. (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 7 years ago | (#20547107)

So yeah, and the Romans went Christian and then we had Christianity for about 1500 years. You know, Catholicism, we believed in the teachings of Cathol, and everything it stood for... Then Henry VIII came along. Henry VIII, a big, hairy king, and he said to the Pope, the head of the Catholic Church:

"Mr. Pope! I'm going to marry my first wife, and then I'm going to divorce her. Now, I know what you're going to say but stick with me, my story gets better. I'm going to marry my second wife and then I'm gong to kill her, cut her head off! Ah, not expecting that, are ya? Third wife, gonna shoot her. Fourth wife, put her into a bag. Fifth wife, into outer space. Sixth wife, on a Rotissimat. Seventh wife, made out of jam. Eighth wife..." ( makes sound similar to putting babies on spikes )

And the Pope's going,

( Italian accent ) "You crazy bugger! You can't do all this! What are you, a Mormon? You can't marry all these people! It's illegal! You can't do all this! I am the Pope, I am the head of the Church, I have to keep up... ciao! I have to keep up standards. What have you been reading, the gospel according to St. Bastard?"

So Henry VIII, who was Sean Connery for this film, said:

( imitating Sean Connery ) "Well then, I will set up a new religion in this country. I will set up the Psychotic Bastard religion."

And an advisor said,

"Why not call it Church of England, Sire?"

"Church of England, actually. Much better... Even though I'm Scottish myself."

So they did! That's the birth of Church of England, the birth of the Anglican Church! Disgusting, eh? That's no basis to start a religion on! Nothing to do with the Protestant church, I mean, Henry just shagged and killed a lot of women and then stole all the money off the monasteries. You know, rape and pillage, that is!

The Protestant faith was different. That started probably around a similar time, but that was about Martin Luther, this German guy who pinned a note on a church door saying, " 'ang on a minute!" But in German, so, "Ein Minuten, bitte. Ich habe einen kleinen Problemo avec diese Religione." He was from everywhere. So yeah and so the Protestant faith was sort of tacked on by Queen Elizabeth I a bit later. "Oh, principles! Thank God! We've got some principles." Nowadays, Church of England is much more, "Hello, how are you?" Much more a hobby-type... "Hello!" A lot of people in Church of England have no muscles in their arms. "Hello, yes... ( chuckles ) Yes, that's what I thought. ( chuckles ) Do come in, you're the only one today! Now the sermon today is taken from a magazine that I found in a hedge. Now lipstick colors this season are in the frosted pink area and nail colors to match... And this reminds me rather of our Lord Jesus! Because surely, when Jesus went into Nazareth on a donkey, he must have got tarted up a bit..."

(To learn more about the Church of England and the Protestant Reformation, why not consult The Gospel According To Eddie Izzard [eddieizzard.com] ?)

Re:Funny (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 7 years ago | (#20542455)

Aren't they supposed to be all about forgiveness? Or does that go out the window when there's money involved?

That was years ago! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20546985)

Okay, it was the RCC instead of the CoE, but Pope John Paul II went through a VERY long list of apologies some time in the not so distant past.

If there was anything left off of that list, it's either occurred since then, or there probably isn't anyone alive who was actually affected by it.

How hard is to make an alternate cathedral? (2, Interesting)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 7 years ago | (#20541829)

Konami did it right with the House of Sacred Remains in "Castlevania: Lament of Innocence". And with gregorian-styled chants in the background.

One of my favorite areas of the game.

Re:How hard is to make an alternate cathedral? (2, Insightful)

PJ1216 (1063738) | more than 7 years ago | (#20542007)

It's supposed to be alternate history, therefore it's supposed to take place in places that people will recognize. If you start making up things, it no longer is alternate history fiction, it's just plain fiction.

Imagine the Spider-man game based off the movie. If the Empire State building was something else, it wouldn't be New York. If Ellis Island was re-named and remodeled, it wouldn't be the same. It'd basically be Grand Theft Auto: Spider-man.

The reason the author is making a big deal about this is that Sony didn't set a great precedent. They didn't back down, but they didn't really stand up and fight and say, "Hey, we're right," when they were actually right. I think it's fine that the church was included and I think they had every right to include it.

Re:How hard is to make an alternate cathedral? (1)

nickyj (142376) | more than 7 years ago | (#20544251)

Hate to burst your bubble, but the NYC scenes in Spiderman were all inaccurate, most of the famous buildings are all wrong (inside and out) and this usually happens in all movies filmed in NYC. They use a couple of skyline shots and maybe a few scenes in the street, but most inside building shots are all done in a studio with backdrops.

I'm almost sure that the church in the game is probably wrong if someone who knows the church well enough looked at it. It's not like they used blue prints to make an exact replica in game.

i think it would of been better (1)

loafula (1080631) | more than 7 years ago | (#20541861)

if the aliens were al effigies of jeebus. imagine mowing through a throng of bouncing crucified saviors with a minigun? that sounds like a good time to me!

Unless the level was called "Mass Murder" (1)

xC0000005 (715810) | more than 7 years ago | (#20541901)

I don't see the problem. Heck, I think the church should have taken advantage of it. Give you a "Hail Mary" button that forgives your wounds, put all the save points in the confessional booth. "I got saved and took out the alien leader from my sniper point here, father. How many hail marys is that? Wow."

Re:Unless the level was called "Mass Murder" (2, Funny)

nobuddy (952985) | more than 7 years ago | (#20541937)

This gives a whole new meaning to a save point.

Note: Church of England = No Hail Mary (1)

subStance (618153) | more than 7 years ago | (#20548505)

Hail Mary = Catholic
Mary was just his mum = Protestant (includes Church of England)

Here endeth the lesson.

Re:Note: Church of England = No Hail Mary (1)

dylan_- (1661) | more than 7 years ago | (#20552427)

Hail Mary = Catholic
Mary was just his mum = Protestant (includes Church of England)
Not so. See http://stpaulsparish.org/Hail%20Mary.html [stpaulsparish.org] The English Reformation was really more political than theological (at least to start with).

Supporting unpopular companies against censorship (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20542507)

Since we're supposed to be all concerned for Sony (of recent rootkit fame) and defending them against criticism and wouldbe censorship by the Church of England how about we take a stand for another company we dislike as well? They need to be defended from criticism and censorship by Islam. Any takers?

Remember this from back in August? Capcom Removes Islamic Phrase From Wii Game [gamasutra.com]

If you read the linked article you might also notice that Kakuto Chojin back in 2003 got Microsoft in some hot water.

Here's a couple of links making reference to that:

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/kakutochojin/news.html?sid=6105587 [gamespot.com]
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/39309975/m/8700918055 [arstechnica.com]

Sticking up for companies we don't generally like when people try to censor them is a good thing, but lets remember to stick up for them in cases besides those where it is Christians trying to censor them.

Re:Supporting unpopular companies against censorsh (1)

Dunavant (1078123) | more than 7 years ago | (#20557919)

It's a lot safer to criticize Christians.

Re:Supporting unpopular companies against censorsh (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#20566857)

It's a lot safer to criticize Christians.

Not really. They're just more patient.

OMG (1)

tcolberg (998885) | more than 7 years ago | (#20543429)

This may be the first time that I and organized religion agree: both of us want to punish Sony for almost irrelevant issues!

Is it the image or the location? (1)

sssssss27 (1117705) | more than 7 years ago | (#20545333)

This sparks an interesting question in my mind. Would the Church of England be as upset if Resistance was a book and assuming it was just as popular?

Do unto others... (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#20546795)

You might begin by asking whether a western developer would have used the interior of the Al-Al-Asqua Mosque [wikipedia.org] or Kyotto's Yasaka Shrine as the setting for a first-person shooter.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?