http://gamingtrend.com
July 26, 2014, 09:12:09 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: sony sued over resistance  (Read 1279 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
metallicorphan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 16378



View Profile
« on: June 09, 2007, 02:48:44 PM »

this is quite funny actually,the church of england is suing sony for using manchester cathedral as a backdrop in resistance:fall of man

religion will get involved in anything nowadays.....i can just see the vicar balasting those aliens away

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=165667



heres what the link says.
Quote
The Church of England is to sue Sony over the use of Manchester Cathedral as the backdrop to Resistance, which the ITV labels, incidentally, "a violent computer game". It's about shooting make-believe aliens with make-believe guns, isn't it?

Anyway, religious leaders have apparently accused Sony of "desecrating" the cathedral. Again ITV jumps in to let us know that Resistance: Fall of Man is a PlayStation 3 game "in which hundreds are killed during a virtual shoot-out inside the building". Makes it sounds like a real-life WWII documentary, or something.

Back to the story and the Church says Sony didn't ask for permission to use the cathedral and has demanded an apology and the removal of the game from shop shelves - otherwise legal action will be considered. Now that's a big ask, especially as it's one of PS3's biggest sellers. Sony has not returned calls to officials from the Church, says ITV.


It doesn't end there though. Oh no. Sony has also been branded "irresponsible" for choosing Manchester, which ITV describes as "a city plagued by gun violence". Bishop of Manchester, the Rt Rev Nigel McCulloch, said: "It is well known that Manchester has a gun crime problem. For a global manufacturer to re-create one of our great Cathedrals with photo-realistic quality and then encourage people to have guns battles in the building is beyond belief and highly irresponsible."

ITV concluded by saying that during the game "players are asked to assume the role of an army sergeant and win a battle" and that screenshots show the interior of the Cathedral "with the player's gun ready to fight; soldiers can be seen elsewhere in the nave taking aim".

We don't know what's worse; accusing Sony of desecrating a cathedral, talking about Resistance like it's real-life or describing Manchester as a city plagued by gun violence. Sound off below.


now,i live in Manchester,and i am in no way religious....so,now knowing this about Manchester cathedral...i wanna play the game even more,and i am thinking that CoE have given this game a little bit more advertising that sony wont mind at all!!....sued or not sued
Logged

Manchester United Premier League Champions 2013!!

Xbox LIVE:Metallicorphan
Wii:8565 1513 0206 1960
PSN:Metallicorphan
Jarrodhk
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3056


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2007, 08:24:30 PM »

So all of the WWII games where you take cover in a blown up church are also desecrating the churches?  Or maybe the other game devs asked permission.
Logged

Pikachu, I Blame you!
Clanwolfer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1374


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2007, 09:26:19 PM »

Quote from: Jarrodhk on June 09, 2007, 08:24:30 PM

So all of the WWII games where you take cover in a blown up church are also desecrating the churches?  Or maybe the other game devs asked permission.

Or didn't consciously model one exact church.
Logged

Eduardo X
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2681



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2007, 09:39:14 PM »

Quote from: Clanwolfer on June 09, 2007, 09:26:19 PM

Quote from: Jarrodhk on June 09, 2007, 08:24:30 PM

So all of the WWII games where you take cover in a blown up church are also desecrating the churches?  Or maybe the other game devs asked permission.

Or didn't consciously model one exact church.
I'm pretty sure some of the churches are exact, or at least approximate, models of specific churches. I know Brothers in Arms tried to model battlefields according to aerial recon photos.
Logged

PSN ID: EduardoX
metallicorphan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 16378



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2007, 05:09:13 AM »

maybe those churches have been demolished now...perhaps
Logged

Manchester United Premier League Champions 2013!!

Xbox LIVE:Metallicorphan
Wii:8565 1513 0206 1960
PSN:Metallicorphan
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2007, 02:09:08 PM »

The thrilling conclusion (or is it?) of this story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19631663/

Quote
Sony issued a public apology Friday for a violent video game that features a bloody shootout inside an Anglican cathedral, but it did not address the Church of England’s demands that the company withdraw the game.

Quote
Reeves did say the cathedral would never appear in another game sold by the company.

This sets a hilarious precedent for developers.  "Hey, man, is St. Paul's on the restricted list?  Or was it just Salisbury Cathedral?  Do you remember if there are any approved Baha'i temples?"
Logged
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2007, 02:12:48 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on July 06, 2007, 02:09:08 PM

The thrilling conclusion (or is it?) of this story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19631663/

Quote
Sony issued a public apology Friday for a violent video game that features a bloody shootout inside an Anglican cathedral, but it did not address the Church of England’s demands that the company withdraw the game.

Quote
Reeves did say the cathedral would never appear in another game sold by the company.

This sets a hilarious precedent for developers.  "Hey, man, is St. Paul's on the restricted list?  Or was it just Salisbury Cathedral?  Do you remember if there are any approved Baha'i temples?"

It seems that both absurdity, and the hypocrisy of this particular church know no bounds.
Logged
Devil
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7742



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2007, 02:14:29 PM »

Ten bucks says EA will acquire a 5 year exclusive on church licensing for games next week.

At E3, they trot out The Pope on stage with LeBron James, Vince Young and Sidney Crosby as they announce the fall lineup.
Logged

XBox Gamertag: Devil13Devil
Wii Number: 0305 6568 6417 2609
PS3 Thing: Slived
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21048



View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2007, 02:25:58 PM »

Quote from: Devil on July 06, 2007, 02:14:29 PM

Ten bucks says EA will acquire a 5 year exclusive on church licensing for games next week.

At E3, they trot out The Pope on stage with LeBron James, Vince Young and Sidney Crosby as they announce the fall lineup.

Oh man...you said the magic words.  10 bucks.



**Coming this Fall - Buy your gunfight in the Taj Mahal!  Only 1200 MS points**
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
Andrew Mallon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1900


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2007, 02:46:14 PM »

Quote from: Calvin on July 06, 2007, 02:12:48 PM

It seems that both absurdity, and the hypocrisy of this particular church know no bounds.

Why is it hypocritical for the Anglican Church to object to having the likeness of one of its cathedrals exploited for commercial gain?
Logged
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2007, 02:57:12 PM »

Quote from: Andrew Mallon on July 06, 2007, 02:46:14 PM

Quote from: Calvin on July 06, 2007, 02:12:48 PM

It seems that both absurdity, and the hypocrisy of this particular church know no bounds.

Why is it hypocritical for the Anglican Church to object to having the likeness of one of its cathedrals exploited for commercial gain?

Let me list a few of the many reasons:
-Churches and other places of public interest have been used in movies, books, poems, plays, and video games for countless years with little to no issue. Unless you are fliming inside or on the grounds of those areas, you don't need permission to use the image. I can make Independance Day and nuke the White House digitally-and need no permission, nor should any rational human think there is a problem with that in an entertainment, fictional medium.

-The world of Resistance is not only in a video game, which is by definition NOT REAL, but it is an alternate history timeline where freaking aliens have invaded the earth. You are fighting for your very survival and seek refuge in a church, and from there fight off an alien horde. Oh my dear, how incredibly sacreligous and exploitative-and of course, never seen in any other medium. One more time, shall we? It's not real.

-What financial gain? The cathedral is not prominently used in advertising for the game, in fact I don't remember it advertised at all. It's not a selling point. Its rarely mentioned except perhaps in reviews. It's not a particularly interesting or engaging or long part of the game. They barely mention the actual church in game. Show me the direct financial gain. So, should the entire city of Manchester, London, and Bristol sue for the entire city being used as the backdrop for the game? After all, those are cities, property is owned by the government, and private organizations-should they all sue for compensation? After all, thats where all the profit is coming frmo?

-I have neither the time nor the energy to point out the staggering hypocrisy of the Catholic church (or any other organized religious or church body), or this church in particular. I understand they do a great deal of good for the community, and I praise them for that. But the Anglican Church has been a money-making industry for going on 600 years now. This "lawsuit" is simply absurd.

I am sure you think you have a point here, but its one that simply ignores just about the entirety of the medium of entertainment, literature, and hell even classic "art" as well. I think I am done now, I can't imagine anyone actually arguing this rationally on the merits. I need to go overbill some clients.
Logged
skystride
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2216



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 06, 2007, 06:42:18 PM »

Quote
For a global manufacturer to re-create one of our great Cathedrals with photo-realistic quality and then encourage people to have guns battles in the building is beyond belief and highly irresponsible."

Sony should sue the church for false statements.  Obviously PS3 is not powerful enough to accomplish this. ninja
Logged
Andrew Mallon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1900


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: July 06, 2007, 08:59:58 PM »

Quote from: Calvin on July 06, 2007, 02:57:12 PM

Quote from: Andrew Mallon on July 06, 2007, 02:46:14 PM

Quote from: Calvin on July 06, 2007, 02:12:48 PM

It seems that both absurdity, and the hypocrisy of this particular church know no bounds.

Why is it hypocritical for the Anglican Church to object to having the likeness of one of its cathedrals exploited for commercial gain?

Let me list a few of the many reasons:
-Churches and other places of public interest have been used in movies, books, poems, plays, and video games for countless years with little to no issue. Unless you are fliming inside or on the grounds of those areas, you don't need permission to use the image. I can make Independance Day and nuke the White House digitally-and need no permission, nor should any rational human think there is a problem with that in an entertainment, fictional medium.
[/QUOTE]

The exterior, sure. I can see why the Church would be upset about Sony modeling the interior of the cathedral and then having a virtual firefight in it. Why is it so hard to understand why the Bishop would be pissed off about it? I'd be upset if someone modeled the interior of my house for a Capture The Flag level in an FPS.

Quote
-The world of Resistance is not only in a video game, which is by definition NOT REAL, but it is an alternate history timeline where freaking aliens have invaded the earth. You are fighting for your very survival and seek refuge in a church, and from there fight off an alien horde. Oh my dear, how incredibly sacreligous and exploitative-and of course, never seen in any other medium. One more time, shall we? It's not real.

The world may have been fictional, but it's my understanding that they modeled the church to its real-world specifcations. What difference does it make if you're shooting aliens in it, instead of people. It's still in bad taste to exploit a place of worship like that.

Quote
-What financial gain? The cathedral is not prominently used in advertising for the game, in fact I don't remember it advertised at all. It's not a selling point. Its rarely mentioned except perhaps in reviews. It's not a particularly interesting or engaging or long part of the game. They barely mention the actual church in game. Show me the direct financial gain. So, should the entire city of Manchester, London, and Bristol sue for the entire city being used as the backdrop for the game? After all, those are cities, property is owned by the government, and private organizations-should they all sue for compensation? After all, thats where all the profit is coming frmo?

They are featuring the interiors of the buildng prominently in the game. That's using the church for fnancial gain, instead of using the likeness of the exterior as a backdrop to add to the atmosphere.

Quote
-I have neither the time nor the energy to point out the staggering hypocrisy of the Catholic church (or any other organized religious or church body), or this church in particular. I understand they do a great deal of good for the community, and I praise them for that. But the Anglican Church has been a money-making industry for going on 600 years now. This "lawsuit" is simply absurd.

I am sure you think you have a point here, but its one that simply ignores just about the entirety of the medium of entertainment, literature, and hell even classic "art" as well. I think I am done now, I can't imagine anyone actually arguing this rationally on the merits. I need to go overbill some clients.

Call off the attack. I asked you a simple question. You could have answered the question nicely instead of flying off the deep end.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2007, 09:02:06 PM by Andrew Mallon » Logged
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2007, 09:27:21 PM »

I did not "fly off the deep end". I just found any defense of the actions of Church of England in this instance so absurd as to be worthy of a strong response. You obviously disagree, and your position on the matter simply baffles me-which is why I initially said there was no point attempting to have discourse about this. I think its absurd on its face, and you are not going to change your mind either way. Do not automatically confuse vigorous defense with frothing at the mouth anger or lack of niceness. It was a simple response with what I thought were obvious answers.

I would suggest however, for the sake of argument in this thread, that you demonstrate any credible instance in the recent history of art and entertainment where interiors and exteriors of at least some public areas are not used or created for that entertainment that do not qualify under the "used for profit" byline that you are hanging onto. Demonstrate where that has been a successful legal argument for any other similar scenario in related media.
Logged
Andrew Mallon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1900


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2007, 10:12:02 PM »

Quote from: Calvin on July 06, 2007, 09:27:21 PM

I did not "fly off the deep end". I just found any defense of the actions of Church of England in this instance so absurd as to be worthy of a strong response. You obviously disagree, and your position on the matter simply baffles me-which is why I initially said there was no point attempting to have discourse about this. I think its absurd on its face, and you are not going to change your mind either way. Do not automatically confuse vigorous defense with frothing at the mouth anger or lack of niceness. It was a simple response with what I thought were obvious answers.

Your response was so arrogant that it bordered on hostile. I don't know if your contempt was directed at me or the Anglican Church, or religion in general, but it definitely colored your response.

Quote
I would suggest however, for the sake of argument in this thread, that you demonstrate any credible instance in the recent history of art and entertainment where interiors and exteriors of at least some public areas are not used or created for that entertainment that do not qualify under the "used for profit" byline that you are hanging onto. Demonstrate where that has been a successful legal argument for any other similar scenario in related media.

What? I'm not making a legal argument. I said, that I found exploiting the likeness of the Cathedral for financial gain to be in bad taste and I could understand why the Bishop was upset. I don't see any hypocrisy in the Church's stance.


Logged
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: July 06, 2007, 10:20:43 PM »

My response was actually directed entirely at the Anglican Church for their handling of (and the existence of) this matter. My "shock and awe" was that you were defending the position, one where I see absolutely nothing that is defensible save your "bad taste" comment-which might certainly be true, yet also, as said before, encompasses too many other forms of art and entertainment to count. This was an issue because it was a video game, and the Church thought they could extort money out of it. It seemed fairly simple.

There was no intention of a personal attack against you, just the position.
Logged
JuniorDan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1312



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2007, 10:38:56 PM »

Quote
I said, that I found exploiting the likeness of the Cathedral for financial gain to be in bad taste and I could understand why the Bishop was upset. I don't see any hypocrisy in the Church's stance.

The Church is on the front cover?...........I don't remember them saying I get to shoot up the Cathedral.....? Well that changes everything....I must buy a PS3 to play this game  Roll Eyes...
Seriously I thing the financial gain came after the Church started making a stink about it.
Oh, I would love for someone to feature my house in multiplayer CTF mode. icon_biggrin
Logged

360 GAMERTAG:Juniordan       ‹(•Ώ•)›  ‹(•Ώ•)›  ‹(•Ώ•)›
Wii: 2834 4528 4246 3222 ‹(•Ώ•)›  ‹(•Ώ•)›  ‹(•Ώ•)›
PS3 Spinks
Andrew Mallon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1900


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: July 06, 2007, 10:45:39 PM »

Calvin, first off, I apologize. I have a bit of a thin skin right now, due to RL stuff.  Anyway, I don't have an opinion on whether or not Sony is within their rights to use the church (and I don't think I expressed an opinion on that one way or another), I just understand the position that the Church is taking (the Bishop's hyperbole about 'virtual desecration' notwithstanding).
« Last Edit: July 06, 2007, 10:49:07 PM by Andrew Mallon » Logged
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: July 06, 2007, 10:47:28 PM »

Quote from: Andrew Mallon on July 06, 2007, 10:45:39 PM

Calvin, first off, I apologize. I have a bit of a thin skin right now, due to RL stuff.  Anyway, I don't have an opinion on whether or not Sony is within their rights to use the church (and I don't think I expressed an opinion on that one way or another, I just understand the position that the Church is taking (the Bishop's hyperbole about 'virtual desecration' notwithstanding).

Well I reciprocate the apologies as I my indignation was directed at this particular church-not you or Christianity in general, and I do apologize if it came off that way.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.169 seconds with 61 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.059s, 2q)