大象传媒

The Church of England is right. But that doesn't mean we should support their complaint; the answer is to avoid all censorship, if this were set in a mosque OR a cathedral. Don't like it? Don't buy the damned game.

The church leaders are being very foolish if they believe that a video game has such a large effect on people. The fact that there is gun crime in manchester is completely irrelevent, i very much doubt that there are gangs of youths going around shooting each other with laser rifles because it was in a game. The chhurch should be honoured that their cathedral was featured in a level although about 90% of the people who play the game neither care about the cathedral or recognise it. I believe that this is just a feeble attempt by the church to get publicity and if they are lucky funding, because they are beginning to realise that very few people care about christianity or believe in God.

I wonder if killing alien beasties in a virtual cathedral is as bad as they are saying? This isn't the first time that a C of E cathedral has been the backdrop for a computer game- Gloucester Cathedral (https://www.gloucestercathedral.org.uk/)
was the set for Hogwarts in the Harry Potter movies. Surely it forms the basis for the scenes in the accompanying games? There's a fair bit of killing and witchcraft in these!
Could this be about money?

Re 1

John - While I agree with you in principle would it have not been more appropriate for Sony to use another building other than one associated with a religious organization?

It begs the question of why Sony chose this particular building. Does it have any particular relevance to the game?

You say that I shouldn't buy the game. It's obvious that 'I' will not but that call will not be heard by those who do buy such games.

So we must move beyond a theoretical discussion of this topic and move to a discussion of the game's effect as presently marketed on impressionable inner city youth.

What is Sony's moral responsibility to them in how this game is presented for their entertainment given that Sony has numerous options in its design that do not affect its marketing options?

Regards,
Michael

Michael #4- How are you?

"What is Sony's moral responsibility to [impressionable inner city youth]...?"

They don't have any. That may sound facetious, but I honestly don't believe they have an iota of responsibility to anyone on this. Responsibility for inner city youth, impressionable or not, is the parents' or guardians', not anyone else's, and certainly not a video game manufacturer! There is a comprehensive ratings system on video games by which an independent ratings board issues guidance for parents on which games are generally suitable for certain ages. That system is as much as 'society' should intervene. It seems a tad absurd to say that if it ain't suitable for youth of a certain age then it shouldn't be made at all. Cathedral, mosque, school, courthouse, public library: wherever the scene is set you could probably find some people who'd rather the game was based elsewhere. I genuinely don't understand the argument that censorship is a legitimate means of dealing with their concerns and I don't think content providers have a shred of responsibility to pander to them.

Re #5 John Wright wrote:

Michael #4- How are you?

Fine, thank you. Getting ready to leave for Ireland at end of June and then off to Normandy to walk the D-day beaches for 5 days.

"What is Sony's moral responsibility to [impressionable inner city youth]...?" They don't have any. Cathedral, mosque, school, courthouse, public library: wherever the scene is set you could probably find some people who'd rather the game was based elsewhere

Well as I said I agree with you on principle but why not make a game to have as positive an influence as one could? Why not, for example, make the buildings completely non descript. Why do they have to be identifiable with a mosque, school, courthouse etc?

What is lost to the principle by taking this approach?

Regards,
Michael

Sony鈥檚 responsibility is to grab as much 鈥溌� & $鈥� as possible regardless of any moral consequence, they don鈥檛 care who buys their product, their responsibility is to their greedy share holders, they ultimately don鈥檛 care what impression their product has on the youth culture of our society regardless of the damage that it may cause and the influence it has to produce a violent youth culture so long as the profits keep rolling in. Sony is void and detached from the end effect that their product may generate in the minds of the unsuspecting youth that they brain wash with their pointless games. Such are the ways of everyone who is greedy for gain; it takes away the life of its possessors.

I'd also avoid seeing William's views, where they are discernible, as representative of the 大象传媒. What's wrong with a presenter who voices an opinion with the understanding that people are free to disagree? The entire American talk radio spectrum is successfully based upon that model and works very well.

Michael- Probably they're just spicing it up with real-life spaces rather than the bland computer-generated ones which have dominated gaming. I personally don't see a whole lot of harm in it and think people are too sensitive. But Michael, the beauty of the free market is that if there is demand for games more appropriate for certain demographics then they'll be manufactured... and they are, abudantly! Parents should buy only games suitable for their kids and avoid ones that aren't. That isn't a difficult thing to accomplish in my view.

Enjoy your trip to Europe!

#8 was posted to the wrong thread. :-S

Re 9

Parents should buy only games suitable for their kids and avoid ones that aren't. That isn't a difficult thing to accomplish in my view.

John: The problem as I see it is that parents don't have this type of control. These games are being played in places that teenagers frequent where parents are not present. So while I can again agree with you that there is a primary responsibility with the parents and also with the purchasers of the games, why can we not allow for a secondary responsibility for Sony to manufacture the game in the way that I am suggesting? And the employees of Sony also have children within our society who might be benefitted!

Regards,
Michael

ps I am having a lot of trouble posting to this blog because of the following server message and it is becoming somewhat of a waste of time to keep trying to get a post through

Comment Submission Error
Your comment submission failed for the following reasons: You are not allowed to post comments.

Wow, where to start.

Using real buildings in a game can make a game more involved, can give a game more imapact. Games used to have non-descript environments, less a design choice more a hardware consideration. To play a game that is set somewhere you recognise give the game more impact (in the same way that 28 Days Later having 'rage' victims running about an empty London made it that bit scarier, Ahh, I know that place). Better hardware today gives games designers more potential to make their games more involved and to push their art form (yes, games ARE an art form) forward.

Having beasties run amok in a church also shows the impact of the alien invasion thus making the game again more immersive. The city of London didn't seem to complain about The Getaway (detailed reconstruction of London).

Its good that the powers who want to control the nation are keeping up with current trends in technology though. Games have only been around for 40 years, I know it seems all so new to all you prayer junkies out there. The fact that the bish of Manchester noticed his cathedral in a video game (mental image of the Bish playing Resistance: Fall Of Man on his new PS3) is testiment to the fact that games have now successfully reached the mainstream.

Could Michael please tell me where the kids are playing games where there are no parents? You need a telly a console and some electricty.

The whole story is also another example of the misconception that games are for kids. They are not. Some are for grown ups. Deal with it.

Also perhaps Michael would like to pre-vet ALL games, that would be very democratic. I look forward to his version of Manhunt 2. (You tap your victim on the shoulder and give him a little cake as a sign of friendship.) The best message in a game such as Resistance should probably promote peace talks and discussion with the invaders about how we can all get along with each other and tolerate each other's lifestyles etc... (Halo 3: Masterchief and the covernant do lunch). I probably won't be playing that game.

Michael- I second your complaint over content submission error messages. I also get one that simply says: You are not allowed to post comments. I frequently try ten or more times to get a single comment through.... and I wonder how many others have given up before that?

It looks like the upshot of what you're saying is that certain games just shouldn't be made (like ones featuring cathedral shoot-outs). Certain content is just inappropriate, period, because you never know who might get to see it. Is that what your position is? Because if there is a secondary responsibility on content makers such as you advocate I can't see how we can justify the existence of anything that isn't appropriate for the whole family. Content is audience-specific, surely, and as such it falls not to the providers of that content but to its consumers to ensure that it's suitable for the audiences. I agree that sometimes responsible people aren't in control, but I don't see a decent way to fix that except to emphasise individual authority and prudence - certainly I don't blame manufacturers since I don't believe responsibility can be shifted over to someone else when the one doesn't do his job.

Won't kids always find a Playboy lying around? And if so, does it mean we should advocate that the magazine shouldn't be published, or that Playboy bears some responsibility for someone else's lack of exercising it appropriately?

It looks like the upshot of what you're saying is that certain games just shouldn't be made (like ones featuring cathedral shoot-outs). Certain content is just inappropriate, period, because you never know who might get to see it. Is that what your position is?

Not at all 鈥� I have said that I agree in principle with all of this.

Won't kids always find a Playboy lying around? And if so, does it mean we should advocate that the magazine shouldn't be published, or that Playboy bears some responsibility for someone else's lack of exercising it appropriately?

Here is another example of my thinking on this matter. Would it be OK for the operator of my local deli into which young teenagers come and who is selling the magazine 鈥淗ustler鈥� not to display theis on the shelf in the back where the teenagers are purchasing coke for their little league baseball game and instead display it in the section where beer is being sold (purchaseable only by adults)?
Would that not be an example of taking a 鈥榮econdary responsibility鈥�.

Regards,
Michael

PS This post was rejected with this message: Your comment submission failed for the following reasons: In an effort to curb malicious comment posting by abusive users, I've enabled a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait a short amount of time before being able to post again. Please try to post your comment again in a short while. Thanks for your patience.

Ant:

Could Michael please tell me where the kids are playing games where there are no parents? You need a telly a console and some electricty.

Since I live 鈥榟ere鈥� and you live 鈥榯here鈥� I can鈥檛 see how this information might help you. Be assured, however, that I am familiar with the need for a source of electrical power.

The whole story is also another example of the misconception that games are for kids. They are not. Some are for grown ups. Deal with it.

Trying to!

Also perhaps Michael would like to pre-vet ALL games, that would be very democratic.

If you let me! I would start pre-vetting football (or soccer for the U.S. readers). I would like to make the goal posts wider and the cross bar a little higher. More goals might be scored 鈥� the game would be more interesting 鈥� we might be able to forget the penalty kick endings.

Or put the penalty shoot out at the beginning of the game and then each team would know the outcome if they insisted on playing to a draw at the end of 90 minutes.

Rest in peace, Stanley Matthews!

Regards,
Michael

Interesting...

Regards,
Michael

well, i think the cathadral was a little bit overreacted. i am a student from hong kong study in england and i think most of the people won't know that there is a cathadral in manchester especially if people who don't live in england, i also think the main reason of why that cathadral complains about it is because they are not quite famous and wants people goes to that cathadral, it is only a way to attract tourist to visit them

There is clearly a number of different issues here that are being clouded at the hands of the bish and co. A question...

Are 'the church' upset because a building they believe they own has been recreated without their permission or are 'the church' upset because a building they believe they own has been recreated without their permission within a game they believe to be detrimental to the kids who are playing it?

They do not have the right to tell an artist (talented or not) what they can create. And the artists have 'created' the cathedral, they haven't filmed without permission. Do we need the Queen's permission to draw Buckingham Palace?

This is yet another feeble attempt to gain some more support for the 'movement against any kind of adult entertainment for any aduts'. Bish and co. believe the Games Designer's actions to be insensitive as they believe games harm people, a basic and very outdated way of understanding an audience's complex relationship to any kind of media product. The fact that they are blaming Sony not Insomniac Games (the developers) shows how ignorant they are about games.

Manchester has been in the news a lot recently regarding a rise in gun related crime. Video games have nothing to do with this so in what way are Sony being insensitive? I don't see the link.

The chursh people feel it is OK to suggest that using the cathedral as a location is insensitive as they have already had the debate on whether games are detrimental to players and have all decided (secretly at the pope's flat) that it is indeed the case and so have moved the debate to far more important matters such as the belief that they have the right not to be offended (but are of course at libety to offend whomever they please when ever they please).

Yeah, and Sony are going to take one of their flagship games, for their underperforming next-gen console, off the shelves because bish don't like it.

Honestly, Michael, it looks like a great game.

I feel bad about charging you with inconsistency, but at the very least you're being inconclusive. You're saying that Sony bears 'secondary responsibility', but you don't want content providers like them to have to change the way they manufacture the games... so what exactly is the correct way to handle their 'secondary responsibility'? How does that responsibility manifest itself, since you don't wish them to quit making the games? Maybe;

1) Sony should create two versions, one without a cathedral for more mature audiences? (But will people still not be offended? And in this case it doesn't resolve the issue of it falling into kids' hands.)

2) They should avoid marketing of any kind in the hope that the game will be unpopular and nobody will be playing it.

3) They should make the cathedral a public library instead, in the hope that librarians are less neurotic than bishops and therefore would tend to object less?

4) They should pray about it every day as a way of insuring against harm caused to any under-supervised kids, thus meeting their 'secondary responsibility' in the manner of a carbon trading program?

I'm being sportive of course, but I still think you're holding an erratic position. ;-)

I'm being sportive of course, but I still think you're holding an erratic position. ;-)

Ah, but you sport with good jest, my friend!

Still tell me what you feel about the deli question. Would you move Hustler away from the coke and over to the beer section?

Regards,
Michael

Michael-

"Still tell me what you feel about the deli question. Would you move Hustler away from the coke and over to the beer section?"

Umm... okay, I think it's certainly good practice, but I'm not sure I'd classify it as a responsibility. It's certainly a responsibility of the deli to ensure that there aren't pornographic images in plain view of kids; that would constitute child abuse of a kind. Moving the Hustlers with the beers seems like a good practice and a great business decision (get them drunk and sell them porn; I like it!).

In 21 John Wright wrote:

Michael- Umm... okay, I think it's certainly good practice .... It's certainly a responsibility of the deli to ensure that there aren't pornographic images in plain view of kids...... Moving the Hustlers with the beers seems like a good practice and a great business decision

JOhn: That's all I'm suggesting to Sony.

Regards,
Michael

But Resistance is not in plain view of kids. It has an adult rating. Perhaps they shouldn't watch the news either, lots of adult stuff happening there too. And don't let them in your bedroom as you may have once had sex (adult stuff again) there. In fact let's lock all our children in our cellers and only let them out when they are 18. What a lovely educated society we will have then...

Also comparing top shelf porn with a video games shows how ignorant you truly are. You know you could always talk to your kids. Sony can't do that for you. Please say you're not a father (Dad not priest) Michael.

Michael-

"JOhn: That's all I'm suggesting to Sony."

Move the cathedral shoot-out to the adult section?

Perhaps they shouldn't watch the news either, lots of adult stuff happening there too.

Agree up to a certain age TV news should be carefully monitored especially for children under the age of five

And don't let them in your bedroom as you may have once had sex (adult stuff again) there.

Nothing wrong with sex - I experienced lots of it on the farm - all perfectly natural and the younger it is understood the better

In fact let's lock all our children in our cellers and only let them out when they are 18. What a lovely educated society we will have then...

Oh, don't go overboard!

Also comparing top shelf porn with a video games shows how ignorant you truly are. You know you could always talk to your kids. Sony can't do that for you. Please say you're not a father (Dad not priest) Michael.

Thank you for the compliment. I agree to being ignorant and that's what fills my life with an interest to learn. I can tell you that I am a father - three children who attended the equivalent of Oxford/Cambridge here in the USA. I also took over 600 teenagers over a period of 10 years through a Summer Theatre experience that many of them still speak of as the most rewarding time of their lives.

I look forward now to hearing what you have done.

Regards,
Michael

I have not had as much experience helping kids as you but being a cracking bloke is not relevant to your comments about video games being detrimental to players and most importantly, kids. A high proportion of gamers are not kids but adults. Also what I do is not relevant to comments on discussions that should be based around evidence not the 'concerned panic' that seems to errupt from church leaders mouths just because they discovered a church was in a game.

INFO

Here is a good place to start in regards to the games industry. The ELSPA site (games association)

Another link with quotes about games habits, although a bit old now.

EDGE magazine (UK) also has intelligent criticism of games if you wanted to find out more about them.

Re #26

Ant says: I have not had as much experience helping kids as you but being a cracking bloke is not relevant to your comments

Hey, Buddy, you brought the subject up with Please say you're not a father (Dad not priest).

Michael

This game is not available to children. It is rated by the 18 by the BBFC and therefore providing it to children is illegal. I agree this game should not be given to children but then I don';t think children should be subject to any violent content. However I would also liketo point out the following.
This game is set in a (fictional) the 1940's, during an alien invasion.
The idea that this game would encourage violence on the basis that it contains a eal life locale, frankly laughable. Do you remember all those young kids shooting each other in New York when the game of the godfather came out? No. What about all the masked stabbings and acts of terroris that occurred as the result of the movie V for Vendetta? No, me neither.

The fact is that video games are an emerging art form and are therefore an easy target for frankly ill thought out arguments such as this. If Manchester has a gun problem I suggest it's MP should take the time to look at the poverty and lack of prospects that cause crime.

As for the game itselfI own it. I've played it for hours on end. I have yet to feel the desire to shoot anyone.

I would also like to say that if the complaint had been about a mosque then the claim would have recieved more press but would have been just as ridiculous.

Hi Matthew Winn and Ant

You seem very quick to pass the buck to politicians for not contorling poverty and other causes of gun crime. Is it not posible that the extreme levels of viloence that many people witness (albit fictional) could be having a damaging effect. So mabey people arent running into the streets to kill, but our sociey is becoming more violent.

I read an article in the new scientist magazine a while ago that said something like that the average ten year old in america has witnessed over 4000 murders and many more acts of extreme violence.

But im not just talking about young people. Is it really the case that playing violent games or watching viloent movies has no effect on the adult mind? do you guys think seriously about this question, or is it not an issue? i would be interesting to hear your veiws.

Good for Sony!

Regards,
Michael

Michael- from your link it would appear that Sony agrees with me and that British Prime Minister Tony Blair agrees with you.

Sony apologised "if" they have caused any offense, saying that wasn't their intention. They didn't offer to retract the work or to remove the offending portion - how much of their product would be left if everyone who found something offensive somehow managed to gain censorship from their complaints? This statement from Sony seems to imply their agreement with my sentiments above; anyone can get offended about all sorts of things. The expression of regret for the fact that they've been offended is appropriate, but certainly no more than that.

Blair, on the other hand, is a firm believer in leftist ideals of 'socety': 鈥淚t is important that any of the companies who are engaged in promoting this type of goods have some sense of responsibility and also some sensitivity to the feelings of others. There is a wider social responsibility as well as simply responsibility for profit." I find this line of reasoning bizarre and highly debatable at best, unfounded and highly dangerous at worst.

31 John Wright wrote:

Michael- from your link it would appear that Sony agrees with me and that British Prime Minister Tony Blair agrees with you.

Have we found something on which we disagree - after all of this time ;-)

Regards,
Michael

ps. I bet Sony will go further!

Michael- I think we disagree! *shock horror* As regards Sony going further, it's possible. Companies frequently do such things from a public relations standpoint though, rather than an ethically-driven one.

AM

Yes I have thought about the issues you have raised for many years. Clearly you have not. You use the word 'effects' purely in a negative context. What exactly do you understand the word effects to mean and how exactly do these imagined processes happen? EXACTLY.

I was under the impression that people had the right to make up their own minds about how to behave. I have killed millions of video sprits and have never had any desire to physically hurt anyone, except perhaps certain MPs and various BBFC personel, and then I might perhaps remember that Oh yeah, it's WRONG to hurt people so maybe i'll just write a comment on 大象传媒 blog instead.

If ask ask you to pop down to Tesco and shoot up a few mothers with babies, will you? Will you blame me if you do? Games, by the way, do not promote violent behaviour just because they include violent behaviour. And people who say they do must think we are all idiots. Children aren't idiots either by the way. And please don't reply saying that you gets more points for more killing in many video games because you do not get points in real life.

I think this is all over board.people who think games turn people to murder are wrong.people kill people for other reasons they are already going to do it an when they do they blame computer games.well my own opinion is id still buy them............