Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Games

Religion in Video Games 523

The Opposable Thumbs blog recently took a look at how religious themes are handled in video games. Most makers of mainstream games are hesitant, given the strong feelings of most consumers on the subject, but other companies are trying desperately to bring religion into the spotlight. Quoting: "Part of the problem is that the game industry is often touted as being a corrupting influence for the youth of the world. Criticism against the game industry has come from leaders as high up as the current Pope, and many of us who have been exposed to sermons bemoaning the influence that games and movies have on kids. Even when groups like the Christian Game Developers Foundation put out a video encouraging developers to create wholesome titles for kids, the attitude conveyed towards current members of the industry was contemptuous at best. Needless to say, games with heavy religious content are usually fringe projects, independently created and oftentimes sporting dodgy production values, because publishers wisely don't want to risk boycotts from legions of the faithful."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Religion in Video Games

Comments Filter:
  • Re:SimChurch (Score:5, Informative)

    by ShakaUVM ( 157947 ) on Saturday December 26, 2009 @01:20AM (#30554264) Homepage Journal

    >>This would teach kids way too much about how religion really works.

    Sure you don't want to call it Church Tycoon?

    But honestly, having worked with/on church councils, while you see a lot of the politics you see in, well, all social organizations, churches are actually filled with good people who are trying to make a difference in society. Perhaps your game could actually encompass some of that, instead of just focusing on monetary issues.

  • by ShakaUVM ( 157947 ) on Saturday December 26, 2009 @01:30AM (#30554308) Homepage Journal

    >>There's an obvious difference here. The Christians persecute others to spread their religion. Atheists persecute others for other reasons. In this case, it was to spread political ideas rather than religious ones.

    LOL. How many people have Christians persecuted since, say, 1800? Quite few, if any. How many Christians have atheists killed for their Christianity? Quite a bit.

    But I'm sure it makes you feel better that atheists did it because they didn't want to "spread their religion". Even though I'm rather quite sure the USSR persecuted Christians in order to, you know, spread atheism.

  • by bertoelcon ( 1557907 ) on Saturday December 26, 2009 @01:31AM (#30554310)
    Like Dante's Inferno? Even though it isn't "canon" it would be good bits of Christian mythology. God of War has bases in Greek mythology. Stuff like that is probably as close as many companies would dare to get today to real world religions.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 26, 2009 @02:17AM (#30554442)

    Whenever a religious extremist murders someone, it's always blamed on religion. Of course, most of the murder in the name of religion in the world today is done to also further political goals. It's due to tyranny and not due purely to religion.

    Likewise, religion posed a threat to tyrants like Stalin because the religious ideas were conflicting with the political policies and goals of said tyrants. Religious ideas respecting the dignity of human life, rejecting oppression, and supporting freedom and free will were in conflict with those states. Religion was a threat to the state because it told people they deserved better than what they were getting from their government.

    Unfortunately your post is a perfect example of the bigotry against religion when you say that religion was viewed as a bad thing and then insert your opinion that it rightly viewed as a bad thing.

  • In the case of the Soviet Union, it was precisely to "spread their religion" as atheism was explicitly the established state policy and explicitly by law persecuted all other religious philosophies with the ultimate goal of extinction of those philosophies.

    I see little difference between the kinds of persecution that happened under the Soviet Union and that which was done in the 2nd & 3rd Centuries (AD, or "common era") against the Christians in the Roman Empire. Both were done for the very same reasons: to support and sustain the state religion.

    Of current modern philosophies in play, that religion which is most intolerant of other philosophies is currently Islam. Comparing the number of incidents caused by "Christian terrorists" vs. "Islamic terrorists" or "Jewish terrorists" is no contest. And yes, both Christian (Northern Ireland) and Jewish (Palestine) terrorists have existed in the past, but they don't hold a candle to the destructive nature currently being done. It is also hard to compare the Crusades by King Richard (of England) vs. the Jihad of Saladin as both were destructive.

    But I'd still go with the grandparent to point out that the Soviet Union, in the name of atheism, killed more than almost all of these religious crusades/jihads combined throughout nearly the entire history of mankind. It was certainly multiple times that killed by Hitler for religious reasons under the Third Reich. I was by far and away a much larger threat to other religious philosophies than any other philosophical movement ever.

  • Games corrupt youth? (Score:2, Informative)

    by bocin ( 886008 ) on Saturday December 26, 2009 @02:29AM (#30554486)
    "Part of the problem is that the game industry is often touted as being a corrupting influence for the youth of the world." This is a statement that has no basis in fact. Kids used to play cowboys and indians and other games that involved pretend gunfights and pretend killing. Since the memory of man goeth not to the contrary children have had games that involved make believe violence. I believe it is clear who is to blame for the lack of disipline that todays youth displays: The social workers who strike fear into parents and the psychiatrists with their diagnosis of "attention deficit disorder". When a child has only self direction to steer them because their parents are to afraid to teach them the word NO then you get a child who is confused, anxious even violent. Of course this is nothing a good dose of ritlan or some such drug can't fix right up. Please note that a majority of the proponents of the theory that video games cause violence in youth are the social workers and the psychiatrists. Look at the time line. When these two groups became the last word in child rearing is when most of the problems in young people (violence in particular) started. These people are educated and totally aware of what they have wrought in the lives of our children. Teaching self disipline to children can and will improve their quality of life. Here's a link to a TED video that more than proves this point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0yhHKWUa0g&feature=player_embedded [youtube.com] Peace..... Oh bye the way religion has nothing to sell that I care to buy....
  • by athlon02 ( 201713 ) on Saturday December 26, 2009 @02:46AM (#30554538)

    That's not the truth about religion though... that's the truth about fringe elements and people stirred into mob mentality. Every religion or lack thereof has such elements.

    If that religion's teachings encourage such rampant violence then such an assessment is fair. But Christianity has no such teachings in the Bible. Killing people for not converting has no part in Christianity. And before someone points to destruction of people in the Promised Land (Old Testament), it is not fair to say they killed all those people and assume the motives were sheer violence, ignorance, bigotry, etc. The reason all those nations were destroyed is rampant disobedience to God and subsequent punishment in the form of the death penalty. Consider that those societies lived in that land for centuries before their destruction. That's a sign of extreme patience against rampant disobedience. So complete destruction of those people was not without merit. A society who has no death penalty or sense of objective morality historically leads to less & less morality and more violence. For a more recent example research the history of Liberal, Missouri.

    I agree that killing people for not converting to Christianity is wrong. But, by definition, those who practice such things are not Christians.

    </rant>

  • Japanese Video Games (Score:3, Informative)

    by sesshomaru ( 173381 ) on Saturday December 26, 2009 @02:56AM (#30554570) Journal

    Many, many Japanese video games have pretty strong religious elements in them. I mean Shinto religious elements.

    A good example recently is Ju-on, the Grudge [wikipedia.org], which is loosely based on an old Shinto legend [wikipedia.org]. (Variations on the supernatural grudge theme show up in a lot of Japanese cartoons or "anime.")

    Even way back in 8-Bit days, the Shinto story that later inspired The Ring [wikipedia.org] was used in a video game called Monster Party. [wikipedia.org]

    Oh, and of course, Shinto shrines play a role in Shenmue. Like the shrine where you find the cat, and Ryo will actually do a small devotion at the shrine in the house if you "use" it.

    I could go on and on here, but I think it would be a bit shocking for games made in another country to include an alien religion, like Christianity is in Japan. Even Japanese games that include Christianity might not quite get it... it might be used the way Western games use pagan religious elements.

    Well anyway, for more information on the Shinto religion, consult your local library!

  • by ravenshrike ( 808508 ) on Saturday December 26, 2009 @04:25AM (#30554758)

    That would be because the proper Commandment is thou shalt not murder. Which is utterly different from thou shalt not kill.

  • by X0563511 ( 793323 ) on Saturday December 26, 2009 @04:51AM (#30554820) Homepage Journal

    Take note of Assassin's Creed's disclaimer though. When you run the game they state it was created by a multinational team of various faiths and beliefs.

    I swear, the number of times I failed because I _HAD_ to kill those damn public speakers (you know, whining about Salahadeen (sp?) and/or Richard) ... Yes! It's a crusade for madness! And I am the harbinger! stab

    (you would have had to play it to understand this)

  • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Saturday December 26, 2009 @06:03AM (#30554996)

    The rating you are looking for is AO, adults only. It's a real ESRB rating. It is more or less the "anything goes" rating. The reason you don't see much of it is because most retailers refuse to carry games with that rating. It's a real rating though and there have been a few games with it (Sim's Singles being one of them). An accurate depiction of the Old Testament would most certainly qualify for that rating.

    Of course that's not what the fundie Christian types want. They are rather... selective in their knowledge of the bible. There are parts of the OT and NT they like and would want in a game, there are other parts they like to forget about.

  • by John Betonschaar ( 178617 ) on Saturday December 26, 2009 @06:36AM (#30555076)

    There's three versions of atheism I'm aware of: I don't believe in God because no-one's (tried to) convince me of it; I don't believe in God because there's adequate non-theological explanations for why we're here and/or the explanations that rely in God introduce as many problems as they solve; I don't believe in God, but I don't disbelieve in him either (also classifiable as a subvariety of agnosticism).

    So because you can't come up with more than 3 versions of atheism, atheism is less diverse than the variety in Christianity?

    I know a few more variants: I don't believe in God because it doesn't make sense; I don't believe in God since I don't see why I should believe in God, and not in Allah, Brahma, extraterrestials or whatever; I don't believe in God because all the God-stories are inconsistent and ambiguous; I don't believe in God because the moment I start asking religious people about things they end up reasoning in circles; I don't believe in God because it so often appears to provide grounds for hate and intolerance; I don't believe in God because I disagree with his (or her, think about that!) views; I don't believe in God because if God would actually exists he's either not omnipotent at all, he doesn't really care about humanity and the earth that much, or he's just an evil sadist motherfucker; I don't believe in God because there seems to be no correlation whatsoever between what people believe and what people act on; I don't believe in God because I don't have the impression that people who do have better lives than people who don't; I don't believe in God because believing in God has proven to go against rationality and reason; I don't believe in God because I don't want to believe in hypocrisy.

    Should I go on? I can go on for hours...

  • by BasilBrush ( 643681 ) on Saturday December 26, 2009 @07:37AM (#30555194)

    I agree that killing people for not converting to Christianity is wrong. But, by definition, those who practice such things are not Christians.

    That wasn't a rant, simply an example of you deceiving yourself with a common logical fallacy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman [wikipedia.org]

  • by Dwonis ( 52652 ) * on Saturday December 26, 2009 @09:48AM (#30555466)
    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    See this [about.com]:

    Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist — there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more “reasonable” position while atheism is more “dogmatic,” ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. This is not a valid position to adopt because it misrepresents or misunderstands everything involved: atheism, theism, agnosticism, and the nature of belief itself. It also happens to reinforce popular prejudice against atheists.

  • by MadMartigan2001 ( 766552 ) on Saturday December 26, 2009 @11:20AM (#30555920)

    by definition, those who practice such things are not Christians.

    Who's definition is that? Maybe you have not read your bible lately?

    Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)

    And when you decide to actually do gods work, here is where you can start...

    If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

    These are just a few of HUNDREDS of examples in the bible of god promoting death and murder.

  • by mikael_j ( 106439 ) on Saturday December 26, 2009 @11:57AM (#30556148)

    Atheism is not faith in the absence of a God, it is absence of faith in a God.

    /Mikael

  • Know your terms (Score:3, Informative)

    by Tony ( 765 ) on Saturday December 26, 2009 @12:31PM (#30556382) Journal

    Agnosticism is about epistemology -- it's the position that you can't know for certain whether or not god exists.

    Theism/atheism is about ontology.

    Theism is believing gods exist.

    Atheism is believing god does not exist.

    Most agnostics are either atheist or theist. There are few agnostics who leave the existence of god in that quantum state of both existing and not existing.

  • by BasilBrush ( 643681 ) on Saturday December 26, 2009 @12:56PM (#30556546)

    If "Christian" is defined by not killing people

    But, as you suspect, it's not. Just as being a Scotsman isn't defined by not killing people. The "No true Scotsman" fallacy applies here completely. It's a textbook example.

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...