Church of England 'to sue Sony' over ultra-violent game

I'm not sure what the fuss is about either. I can understand where someone with a narrow perspective on todays world would get all uppity - but the current situation with todays level of education and awareness would not instigate as much.

The ONLY way I could see the church being viably upset about the portrayal of their church in this videogame is if there were implications stating that the church is a hostile zone in reality.

By having gun fights at that location in resistance they are not implying that there is an issue with violence at that church (as the representative eluded to by saying something along the lines of "i know we have our issues with gun control..." in his statement). Nor are they claiming that aliens and some guy had a shoot out at said location. They are simply using a real church as a basis for a fictional encounter in a fictional game. Movies do it all the time and I don't see anyone going nuts about it.

The chruch has no grounds, neither morally or legally to complain. They can be upset through a narrow minded understanding of what resistance is - but that doesnt make them right.. only allows me to pitty them. $100 says that not a single person complainign on behalf of the church has played a modern videogame to base their understanding of the situation upon. My guess is they heard about it from someone and are forming the basis of their argument purely on conjecture, speculation and/or unstantiated outrage.

p.s. I just have to comment that DXR makes the worst argument I've seen since J.Thompson. Talk about taking things out of context. Where does the likeness or even complete visual representation of a location found in reality expressed in a virtual world compare to mutilating, raping in a virtual world or any of the other crazy examples you tried to point out? Thats like comparing an aggressive motorist to a homicidal maniac! Sure, aggressive motorists suck and push the line of socially acceptable but its a far cry between someone with road rage and someone who goes around killing people for pure entertainment.

 

I dont think Sony should pay for causes that the Church want to fund just because they cant raise enough money themselves.

If they said to a charity of Sony's choice, it might have been OK. But them naming where they want the money to go, is just not on.

Or there is another place where this money might end up. I saw a priest park his Ferrari behind a church once. Connect the dots.

Im still with Sony on this - all the way. I hope they dont bend over and let the church walk all over them.

 

and if it had been a movie the church would have to have given authorisation to film inside the church, by using a virtual copy of the church sony, the church claims, has tried to bypass this authorisation.

and i've met hundreds who drive second hand POS, and have been systematically screwed by the way the church classifies GOD as the employer and bypasses several employment laws leaving the vicars/revereneds/priests with minimal savings, pension and no property to fall back on when they are retired. so one priest parked a Ferrari, so? was it his? had he actually saved for 30 years to buy it, because he quite fancied a treat after dealing with prejudice and abuse for most of his life? or perhaps it was from his ill gotten gains from fixing the local bridge night.

 

For me, it's purely a 'religious' thing. For a religion *well* versed in violence, oppression and dis-information, it's quite funny for them to be upset that Sony uses one of their churches to depict scenes of violence. For them to point a finger and get upset that Sony didnt ask their permission to use their church's likeness in a violent context makes me laff, considering that the entire christian doctrine is based on exactly that!

 

This is a very misguided statement. The entire Christian doctrine is not based on violence. Over a couple thousand years of history, it's inevitable that some people will use religion as justification to commit violent acts. Throughout human history every culture, every government, every group of people has used its particular religion to justify its own human misdeeds. The Egyptians did it. The Romans did it. Christians have done it. Muslims have done it.

Sadly, too often people aren't willing to understand the inherent good in religion. It's much easier to believe in the bogey man.

-monkey

 

^^

Especially other peoples' religion.

 

So putting aside your misunderstanding of doctrine for history, am i right in that your saying that if there actually were/are legal ramifications of copyright of interior spaces, the church and other religious organistions should be exempt from claiming, because its "quite funny"? but other organistions such as hospitals should be alowed to claim?

 

^^^ yup.

Religion is made up. Games are made up. Neither are real, no matter how much the religious zealots wish both to be (religion as a crutch and games as something to blame all the problems on)

Yes, I don't like religion. Any of it. I see no value in it. If others do, fine, it's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But my point is that I object to an institution based on make-believe (religion) getting upset that Sony used a building of theirs in likeness in a violent setting of a video game, also make-believe.

Why isnt the church getting more upset at the movie industry and asking for an apology when various film studios use their churches/cathedrals/landmarks as the fighting point of good vs evil?

Because movies are more accepted as mainstream entertainment than games are. The game industry, nowadays, is a very easy target to get upset with and point a finger at saying, "You're the reason my little Johnny did x, y, and z..."

Besides, if you religious people believe in what you do so much, with such conviction and dedication, then why do you care if Sony takes a church and uses it in a video game? Does that change what the church means? What it stands for?

Pfft. Just a marketing ploy by the church to get money out of Sony....

 

Yes there is some inherent good in religion. But recently its been overshadowed by the bad parts.

Personally, I see no value in religion unless you like to think that you are insignificant, powerless, helpless, monitored 24/7 and do not have the ability to make your own decisions.

If God is all they claim to be, then priests are not required. They just sit in the middle collect the rewards. An omnipresent, omniscient, omni-everything else being does not need priests to "spread his message".

 

No, children and people themselves are far more important than religious beliefs.

 

So truthfully you and a few others here, are more prejudiced than the religions you're complaining about. You're so caught up in your belief, i.e. that religion is a fantasy, that you ignore anything they say and refuse dialogue that may challenge this belief.

as has been mention before in the thread, or possibly the one from the front page article, for a film crew to use a location i.e. Rossyln Chapel in the Da Vinci Code, they have to seek permission to film in the building, they don’t just turn up and film.

I've never yet said I am a Christian or even religious, I simply get fed up with people kicking the church without understanding it, dismissing it as fantasy and insisting others do the same, normally whilst complaining that the church is too forward in trying to preach its ideas. This could have been an interesting discussion on the legalities people have over private interior spaces, but instead has descended to a lets kick religion thread that’s all to prevalent on this forum

 

We've been through this on these forums ad nauseum. If you'd like some further reading as to why religion is a pretty fundamental part of human existence, I suggest searching the Serious Discussion sub-forum for some of the other threads about the topic. Whether or not religion is make believe is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the church has any rights to the use of its interior spaces.

The church has been complaining. Of course, any time a church makes a complaint, there are many people who laugh and chastise the "religious nut jobs." The Catholic church was very vocal when The DaVinci Code was so popular. The core plot aside, The church complained about several elements in the book and movie (such as the portrayal of the Opus Dei group). By and large, the ones complaining were dismissed as zealots.

No, it doesn't change what the church means. As I said above, that's not really the point. A church - one that apparently is active in the anti-gun world - was used as a location for a gun fight. The interior supposedly supposedly was used without permission. That is the issue.

-monkey

 

To be quite honest, this just made me laugh. Why? Why C of E, why....

How many times have we played games with church scenes? Too many. Only today, I was kicking my friends ass at Timesplitters 2, and it was in a church. There are probably thousands of games which have church scenes. Is this church an exact replica of any particular church? Are the people being shot real? Doubt it.

Why don't all the cities in the world sue Rockstar games for basing their games in cities, or why doesn't the plumbers union sue Shigueru Miyamoto for basing his 'violent' character on a plumber? Why hasn't the RSPCA sued Pokemon Corp. for encouraging claustrophobic conditions for rodent-like animals?

Because its a game. Get over it

 

And that is a bit racist, but had me laughing for a whole minute...

 

You seem to have missed the fact that its the Manchester Cathedral that is complaining because the church in the game is an exact copy of its church apparently, not because a church was used.

 

I judge from that post that you have the extraordinary ability to decide where you're going to go afterlife, and what's more, go there too.


H.B.

 

I fail to see the relationship. Unless you want intentionally misunderstand my post.

 

So the C of E was happy with just an apology in the end?
Or was there an undisclosed payout accepted to from Sony?

SHUT UP!
Really? Who would have thought?!

/sarcasm

EDIT: All this lack of common sense & suing going on these last few years is really annoying tbh - everyone involved in stupid law suits should just die, or at least go drink a nice cup of SHUT THE **** UP

 

That's the funniest thing I've read all day