GI.biz: Learning from the Resistance row

"The Church's position is far from incomprehensible..."

With far more predictable sources of tabloid ire - Manhunt 2 or GTA IV, for instance - due for release on their consoles relatively soon, Sony can be forgiven for being blindsided by the latest headline-grabbing furore over games content.

Resistance: Fall of Man, an alt-history alien blaster for PS3, is a surprising source of complaint compared to Rockstar's controversy-baiting output - and it's also surprising that the complaint comes from the Church of England.

This is fantasy games violence, heroic rather than criminal. But nonetheless the Church remains unhappy that Manchester Cathedral should be used as a battleground in a major console title without any prior consultation or compensation.

Regardless of the legal merits of the case, discussed widely on this site as well as legal blogs, the Church's position is far from incomprehensible. A church is, after all, a place of peace, and it is understandable that the sight of such a building as an arena for a gun battle - no matter how fantastical - might cause offence, especially considering problems with gun crime in the city.

In his recent interview with ITV News, Bishop of Manchester the Rt Rev Nigel McCulloch cited the 'photo-realistic quality' of the Cathedral's reproduction in Resistance as part of the problem. If Resistance had been released for an earlier system, with a more abstract, pixelated or jagged portrayal of the Cathedral, then the reaction to seeing it in the context of a game may not have been so visceral.

That the realism of the portrayal has caused the kind of adverse reaction that, say, a live action film showing similar scenes might have garnered, is in some ways a back-handed compliment to the power of PS3's graphical grunt.

Greater realism in graphics makes, obviously, for images that will be more immersive and convincing. Stripped of the abstraction of primitive graphics, the images and actions in games are more easily comprehensible not just to gamers, but to more casual observers.

This is part of gaming's gradual movement into the mainstream, from the near complete abstraction of Pac-Man, requiring total suspension of disbelief from the player, to the instantly recognisable, realistic worlds of Resistance or MotorStorm.

The level of realism in a game alters the impact of player actions. Mario jumping on a bad guy's head is cartoonish, not even really violence in any appreciable sense. Abstracted, the consequences have no moral dimension and are not taken seriously. A casual observer may not know, or even care, what Mario is up to.

Transfer that sequence of events into a more photo-realistic presentation, and the image of booted feet crashing into the side of someone's head raises considerably more questions. An observer will instantly understand what the gamer is doing, and have a real life context to put it into. A closer resemblance to the real world can provoke real reactions and potentially cause real offence.

The advances in games' ability to portray a convincing world have come so rapidly that the industry has not necessarily appreciated the impact certain images can make - that photo-realism in games can create the same impact as a photo or filmed image, especially when a real life location is represented.

This state of incomprehension seems likely to change considering recent reactions to real locations appearing within games, especially when guns and/or crime are involved.

Some complaints have an obvious political and economic dimension, where a country or city feels badly treated by being portrayed as either a war zone or a crime-ridden hell.

It's hardly surprising that Venezuelans should be displeased when their country is shown as a nest of terrorist cannon fodder to be blown away without remorse in Mercenaries 2, or that New York politicians have taken offence at the more realistic, nearer-to-the-knuckle 'Liberty City' of GTA IV. No one likes their neighbourhood to be misrepresented, especially elected representatives keen to be seen to stick up for their constituents.

Other cases have a more serious, potentially deadly, dimension. Following the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech earlier this year, a student was transferred from one Texas school to another after it was found he had been playing Counter-strike using a map modelled on his school. Around the same time, a student in Washington State arrested for planning a school shooting claimed his plans for a massacre were designs for an FPS.

Under these circumstances it can be hard to see where the line is drawn between the relatively innocent, albeit macabre, fantasy of gunning down terrorists in a familiar environment, and a more violent fixation that could eventually lead to tragic real world consequences.

To interpret these cases correctly will require greater understanding from authorities of how play and the real world overlap, especially in the minds of the young. At present, games are in an interim stage, where the mainstream media and the general public have a heightened awareness of videogames as a phenomenon, but not necessarily a particularly deep understanding of how gamers think.

This is where the industry needs to help to bridge the knowledge gap, to show that representation of the real world in games does not reflect directly on the locations shown, or express a desire on the part of gamers to imitate game actions in real life.

This may not be the best time to have to argue such a case, as representation in all media is an increasingly fractious issue. Interested parties and lobby groups are jumping into action at cases of alleged misrepresentation, no matter how fantastical the fictions.

Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, set in an ancient and long lost civilisation, raised accusations of distortion. The Da Vinci Code provoked polite statements from religious group Opus Dei to explain that they did not in fact employ any albino monk assassins, and protests when Lincoln Cathedral was used as a location for the movie. Even Harry Potter has been derided by hard-line groups as a textbook for practical paganism that shouldn't be given to kids.

A higher profile means higher levels of scrutiny, and greater potential to be used as a whipping boy by other interest groups desperate for headlines. Where there are legitimate concerns, they need to be met - and illegitimate concerns and scaremongering needs to be played down.

This is the situation that all mainstream media have to deal with, and engaging with it is, as Sony have found this week, a necessary evil that comes when you sit at the big boys' table.

This article was originally published on our sister site GamesIndustry.biz. Coincidentally, we believe we sought all appropriate permissions before re-publishing it.

Comments (20) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • 3william56 #1 5 years ago

    Yeah, but be realistic. This hasn't cost Sony a single sale of a PS3, and has probably sold a lot of copies of R:FOM from getting footage of things going bang on national and international TV. Rockstar and others have demonstrated that there's no such thing as bad publicity. In the long term, some poor schmo at Sony will go on TV and gently apologise without admitting liability for form, but really they don't give a sh*t what the church of england says, as from a business case, it's irellevant. Same as the lames who sued Borat. Just count the sales.

    At least this is a genuine surprise, not the headline hunting of Manhunt. And what about the catholic overtones of The Darkness? Sure the Emperor Palpatine (whoops, Pope Benedict) will have something to say about that on a slow news day.

    Church wants publicity. Sony wants publicity. Everyone's a winner in their own demographic. Thats how the tabloids work nowadays.

    Carry on as you were.
  • AcidSnake #2 5 years ago

    By upping the realism the games are more capable of offending and 'altering' someone's mind...
    The articles yesterday focussed IMO on the legal issue...
    Sony played it by the rules (unless proven otherwise) and this whole mess is a result of ethics and good taste...

    Where my problem lies is in the fact that the church want money to compensate...The apology fine, but money? And for what purpose? So that they can 'alter' other people's minds...

    I say no dice...

    The church is entitled to an apology because what Sony did (arguably) went against good taste...But if they had all permissions then not a cent should be tranferred to them...
  • rashes #3 5 years ago

    I think you might be giving a little too much weight to the Churchs argument here?

    Iconic buildings are used a lot as the backdrop (or core location) to many mainstream Hollywood movies. Did Independance Day or the War of the Worlds have seek permission from owners of every major building that was represented (and blown up) in those films.

    This argument is only making tabloid headlines as its a computer game and journalists can pepper their article with combinations of words such as graphic/violence/children/murder/realistic etc.
    Edited by 1 at 13/06/07 @ 15:00
  • Rodney #4 5 years ago

    Yes it was slightly distatesfull on Sony's part. But what is the alternative if a game is set a real location, censor everything that might cause offence....
    (I am fairly sure there was a zombie eating human scene set in a church in 28 days later which do not court very much contraversey and it was 'photo' realistic and everything)

    I am a little unsure if the church of England can claim such a moral/ethical high ground on this one. Yes it is a church, but it also a state religion and therefore political. If I am not mistaken many CofE Church walls display military flags. I am not saying this is wrong, but slightly hypocritical perhaps.

    Edited by 4 at 13/06/07 @ 15:23
  • Les #5 5 years ago

    Is the cathedral part of the story or is it a multiplayer map? In case of the first, I really can’t see what’s distasteful about it as it serves a story purpose. In case of the latter I can understand that for some people this might be offensive, though I’m not one of them.
  • AcidSnake #6 5 years ago

    Just to clarify, I don't think it was distasteful either...
  • Wobble #7 5 years ago

    Madness?? <a href="http://www .vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=231">This is mushroom kingdom<a>!!!
  • kangarootoo #8 5 years ago

  • rudedudejude #9 5 years ago

  • Monkey-Wizard-Ken #10 5 years ago

    Sony probably generated the story.
    Then paid eurogamer to talk about it ;)
    Who cares its a shit game.
    Edited by 2 at 14/06/07 @ 00:31
  • Atari_Boy #11 5 years ago

    "Iconic buildings are used a lot as the backdrop (or core location) to many mainstream Hollywood movies. Did Independance Day or the War of the Worlds have seek permission from owners of every major building that was represented (and blown up) in those films."

    Yes they would need to. I have some experience creating environments (Photo Real ones at that) and the law differs from country to country and state to state in the case of the USA but in all cases massive amounts of licensing is needed. What I’m shocked at is that Sony had a Church in the game in the first place; the publisher I’m used to working with usually shies away from any religious iconography, preferring to change a building rather than include it in the game and court possible controversy. I’m sure the people at Sony legal had all the correct permits for the team to recreate this in-game and I’m sure the Church or City Council of Manchester was well aware that there was an art team photographing are recreating the Cathedral for a video game, it’s just too hard in this post 9/11 and 7/7 era to photograph major landmarks without such paperwork (Something like this Cathedral would take about 1000 to 1500 photographs for the interior and exterior)

    Maybe the Church or the Council wasn’t aware of just what the game was and what it entailed but as the say “Ignorance is not an excuse”. Sony should apologise, placate the Church and promise to have no dealings with them in any shape or form in the future, be it fund raising or charitable donations.
  • drxym #12 5 years ago

    This whole row is pretty dumb. The church doesn't have any right to dictate how a public building is represented in a video game. Even putting that aside, what is their objection? The cathedral is portrayed as a field hospital in the game! The level shows hospital beds, and medical equipment. How is this offensive to any religion? Is it offensive that aliens do not hold the faith and choose to violate the sanctity of a church?

    A further note about hypocrisy - why did the COE allow The Eagle Has Landed to film a battle in and around a church? Why did they allow Hot Fuzz to film a murderer drop a stone spike from a church tower through somebody's head?

    Yet they have an objection to a cathedral in a fictional 50s universe being used as a hospital! It's all very silly. Sony should just ignore them.
  • AcidSnake #13 5 years ago

  • zuljin #14 5 years ago

    @Atari_Boy
    "it’s just too hard in this post 9/11 and 7/7 era to photograph major landmarks without such paperwork (Something like this Cathedral would take about 1000 to 1500 photographs for the interior and exterior)"

    No it isn't. Especially when you can take a free 3D online tour of the cathedral.
    [link url=http://www.manchestercathedralonline.co.uk/gallery.html
    ]http://www.manchestercathedralonline.co....[/link]

    Which begs the question, is it legal to make a virtual representation of a virtual representation?
  • alithebull #15 5 years ago

    "The Church's position is far from incomprehensible..."

    ..but the position of this article is. I can't believe that anyone could try and defend the PS3 or the game in this respect. they don't have a leg to stand on, the church is completely entitled to take offence.

    why do games have to use realistic settings? why is this becoming more common? because we want to make games more like the real world (it seems simple to me...) and this is not always a "good thing". its good for the game because it makes it more realistic (obviously) but should we be making games more realistic??
    only in the past couple of years has there been this drive for realism. we seem to want to create a virtual world identical to our own that allows us to perform all the nasty little things we can't do in real life. the trouble that I fear is that blurring the lines of fantasy and reality by making realistic games will lead to spill over from one to the other.

    what ever happened to using our imagination? tha harry potter example given in the articel is the only defensible one cos its all made up. calling it practical paganism is a load of rubish.

    anyway, vitriol depleted, back to work....
  • Atari_Boy #16 5 years ago

    @zuljin

    Far from legal to use! And a poor QTVR or VRML isn't going to help you build it in 3D, at least not to a good standard.

    On the many photo shoots I've been on I've had to have the correct paper work, photographing civic buildings (And I mean taking hundreds of Photo's) without it can lead to all sorts of trouble... America is a very paranoid place!
  • zuljin #17 5 years ago

    @Atari_Boy
    And did you actually look at it? It is surprisingly high quality. The point is that the church is putting all this info up, and took me 2 mins to find. I'm sure you could find thousands, combined with floor plans, dimensions all online.

    In fact, it just took me another minute to find a floorplan online. Not too detailed, but given a minute not too shabby.

    Don't get me wrong, I think its a very tricky legal issue, but should Sony turn around and say, well we got all our info online, then I think that'd make the churchs case slightly harder.
  • YourMessageHere #18 5 years ago

    Does anyone know if films have to get permission to create a mockup of an interior they have been denied permission to film in? Surely this is exactly the same process simply created on a different media. Also, how much like the real cathedral is the game map? I find it hard to believe it's a total carbon copy - surely they'd leave out some details and make some changes for gameplay's sake.
  • Atari_Boy #19 5 years ago

    @zuljin

    Yeah I checked it out, QTVR's and oddly enough I was on that web site last week! Good enough to get an idea for the place but not close to the quality needed to generate textures from.

    I don't want to mention the company I work for but I've had dealings with licensing in this specific area for a while now and in more than one country. Basically every country has something called "fair use" and this can cover everything from maps to photographs to buildings and artwork. Just because information is readily available (floor-plans for example) and free of charge does not mean that you can do what you want with it. This isn't the same as IP licensing, which for all it's issues and complexities at least has a definite outcome 99 times out of 100.

    It's a grey area and as I'm under NDA with what I'm working on now I'll shut up!
  • huxathon #20 5 years ago

    Since when were Resistance:FOM's graphics photo real?
    If the curch suceed in banning/altering the game and yet films like Bad Lieutenant or Priest or any other far more contrversial church based entertainment remains on sale, where does that leave us. You could go to the shops now and pick up John Woo's The Killer for about £2 and see the most fetishised gun porn shootout in a church in the history of cinema. Never have the church approached this film. Admitedly R:FOM is linked to a very specific church but is there really a difference?
    Also I think the church should apologise for their stance on the holocaust during the 2nd world war and pardon all the victims of the Inquisition. Oh and stop Mormons coming to my house.