Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
Games

Religion in Video Games 523

Posted by Soulskill
from the neptune-vs-noah-deathmatch dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • by Evil Shabazz (937088) on Saturday December 26 2009, @12:38AM (#30554126)
    These groups and these complaints are a perfect example of people who don't understand the idea of freedom. They are the people who want everyone to live like they live and believe what they believe. They don't get that people are free to make and sell whatever games they want, and that people are free to choose which games they buy and which they don't. If people wanted more religious video games, companies would recognize this demand and create more religious video games. There are no regulations encouraging or prohibiting any of this. If there are few religious video games, realize that the demand must just not be there for it.
  • SimChurch (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Animats (122034) on Saturday December 26 2009, @12:48AM (#30554154) Homepage

    If religion in games was done right, it would make kids too cynical. Imagine this game:

    "SimChurch - start your own religion, gain adherents, build a church, advertise, and grow. You can tweak your theology - too loose, and your people lose interest; too strict, and your people backslide. You can ask your followers for financial support, but ask too hard and they'll drop out. You can train fanatics to help you expand, but they may turn against you."

    "In multiplayer mode, you can try to convert people from other religions to yours. Become strong enough in an area, and you can convert your country to a theocracy. Then you can have wars with other theocracies."

    "If your theology calls for miracles, they might just happen. But they won't always help you. You can also fake miracles, once you have enough assets, and gain adherents that way."

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

  • by Artifakt (700173) on Saturday December 26 2009, @01:15AM (#30554248)

    The Crusades resulted in the deaths of roughly ninety to one-hundred-eighty thousand non-combatants (nominal civilians, over a multi-century period. This was the 28th most severe invasion of the fertile crescent after all, falling behind only such other invasions as the Califate, The Hittite expansion, Assyria, Alexander the great, and 24 other wars with higher death tolls.
    If you include crusades not directed at the holy land, such as the Fourth Crusade versus Constantinople, the Albigensian Crusade versus the Cathars and the Northern Crusades, a Million is not an unreasonable death toll. That's both ways of course, not just the 'Christian side' body-counts, and includes wars where both sides claimed to be Christian.

    The witch burnings were really post middle ages (about 1480 to 1700) spanning the Reformation and the Thirty Years' War, resulting in a problem of figuring out which executions were witch related and which were of Cathars, political and nationalist based population obliterations and so on. Best estimates for a death toll definitely cross the line into the 100,000-110,000 range. but still taking over 200 years total to do so, and falling behind not just the rest of the thirty years war, but the hundred years war, maybe the English civil war, the Armenian atrocities, and a couple of mid 20th century events I won't bother to mention in the same areas. It's even possible that what Vlad personally did to combat the Muslim invaders of Transylvania resulted in more civilian deaths than the witch trials.

    The best estimates for the Spanish Inquisition come from the church's own records, and thousands of people who wouldn't convert is quite accurate, in fact the best guess is around 32,000. I wouldn't mind seeing a game in this setting, but if it's a typical first person shooter, The Player will probably have to gibe that many personally to get a high score.

  • by Culture20 (968837) on Saturday December 26 2009, @01:28AM (#30554300)

    A lot of religious mythology would make pretty awesome settings for games.

    "Bring me the foreskins of 100 Philistine warriors, bonus points for 200" - Quest from "A Lorena Bobbit in King Saul's court"

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 26 2009, @02:00AM (#30554400)

    You're obviously not from the region.

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

    While the STATE was considered Atheist, most of the country was religious, and even a lot of the state. However, it was considered a bad thing (rightly so), and so people kept quiet about it. If you talk to a vast majority of people around here and ask them what it was like, they'll tell you, people were religious, they just didn't jam it in peoples faces, else they could be killed.

    The point you're trying to make, which is unjustified, is that Atheist killed people because of their religion. While these people were Atheist and did kill people because of their religion, the amount of THESE deaths was relatively small, especially compared to the inquisition. Stalin's Russia killed many people, but not for their religion, this was due to the tyranny of the state.

    So, here's an idea churchy, next time you think you're really smart and recite what some priest told you, perhaps you should do some research first, before repeating it as fact, to see if the guy who makes shit up (The priest), is still making shit up.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 26 2009, @03:24AM (#30554638)

    I agree, that quality is essential or no one takes it seriously anyway, though i think there are games(Assasins creed) which at least touch on religion. Its too bad because there a number of world religious views that could be explored to make some very interesting games. side note Im glad to here i am not the only one who has heard of/ likes sufjan stevens. Awesome yet under appreciated

  • by Mr2cents (323101) on Saturday December 26 2009, @05:27AM (#30554908)

    Could turn out to be interesting, a game based on the old testament could be plausible, where you get missions directly from God (enslave your neighboring tribe, kill every man in another tribe, ...). It would be very violent though, so I don't think it would get approved for children.

  • by Insanity Defense (1232008) on Saturday December 26 2009, @07:07AM (#30555150)

    So are you saying that the Catholic Church was full of extremists during the Crusades and Inquisition? Conventional historians would say that their motivations were more about control, power, and geopolitics.

    The leadership of the Catholic Church had those motivations. They promoted extremism among the followers of the church to achieve those goals. How many Popes went on Crusade.

    Note the Spanish inquisition went far beyond the control of the Pope. If the Inquisition had been purely of the Catholic church as a whole it would have spread the same way to many other nations yet it was only in countries that were under Spanish control that it went to extremes and carried on for centuries.

    Historical note on the Inquisition. While the Spanish controlled the Netherlands the Inquisition ordered the extermination of all the people there as it was considered too difficult to sort out the Catholics from the Heretics. Fortunately before it could be done the Netherlands broke free of Spain.

  • by BasilBrush (643681) on Saturday December 26 2009, @07:57AM (#30555232)

    Don't believe me? Look at who won the last Richard Dawkins Award. A pseudo-scientific anti-vaccine alternative medicine promoter. Reason my ass, sounds more like organized religion to me.

    OK, I looked it up and it's Bill Maher. Someone I'm only vaguely aware of because I'm not American. But I've scanned his Wiki entry to discover what you were referring to. It says this:

    "In October 9, 2009, on his HBO show, Maher debated the effectiveness of flu vaccinations with Bill Frist and stated, "Why would you let them be the ones to stick a disease into your arm? I would never get a swine flu vaccine or any vaccine. I don't trust the government, especially with my health." Maher also expressed skepticism about the seriousness of the swine flu and whether completely healthy people could die from it. His comments have generated criticism, and his remarks have been called unscientific and even harmful.[43]

    "Maher responded to the criticism, noting, "What I've read about what they think I'm saying is not what I've said. I'm not a germ theory denier. I believe vaccinations can work. Polio is a good example. Do I think in certain situations that inoculating Third World children against malaria or diphtheria, or whatever, is right? Of course. In a situation like that, the benefits outweigh costs. But to me living in Los Angeles? To get a flu shot? No."[44]"

    That's not anti-vaccine. That's legitimate skepticism of the benefits of a particular vaccine versus the risk of the disease itself. And elsewhere he expresses legitimate skepticism of the US healthcare system - which doesn't imply rejection of healthcare in general. Just the broken system you have there.

    Skepticism is very much an atheist principle, not a religious one.

    Now it you'd come up with some evidence that he believed in homeopathy, or some such unscientific nonsense, then I'd agree with you that that's a religious type belief. But there's nothing like that here. Skepticism is not belief. It's the opposite.

  • by Kjella (173770) on Saturday December 26 2009, @09:32AM (#30555412) Homepage

    And the only business with a reality destortion field bigger than Steve Jobs.

  • Re:Religion (Score:3, Interesting)

    by williamhb (758070) on Saturday December 26 2009, @09:41AM (#30555442) Journal

    Religion does exist in video games. They aren't usually the same religions as we have meatside, however. I think that's what people are complaining about. The problem is if you let, say, World of Warcraft priests worship the Christian god, then people will automatically boycott when it doesn't follow a particular sect's beliefs

    There's a blocker that comes up before that -- the game designers don't like to do it. The issue is that the game designer is the game's Creator -- he designs the rules, even intervenes with server-upgrades. It, therefore, starts feeling a bit blasphemous to ascribe your own "game-supernatural" actions of creation to God. So, game designers and programmers who believe in God don't want to put their words into His mouth; and the atheist ones don't want God in their game anyway.

  • Dragon Age (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rpillala (583965) on Saturday December 26 2009, @09:44AM (#30555452)

    There are issues of religion brought up behind a thin veil in Dragon Age. The different countries of medieval Europe are represented, as well as shoddy treatment of Jews (read: elves.) In addition to this, there is a powerful church organization that some people think is too oppressive. There's even the legacy of the Roman empire and I think the Babylonian captivity is mentioned.

    I didn't see Dragon Age in the article, but this is because the game isn't really about these things. They are incidental, and can occupy as much or as little time as you like. Your NPC companions in the game sometimes get into religious debates with each other, depending on your squad selection.

  • by mmarlett (520340) on Saturday December 26 2009, @09:49AM (#30555474)

    Actually, my grandpa was at the real Normandy -- on Omaha Beach and through the front lines of the European invasion. You should see his reaction to my brother playing Medal of Honor. He just shakes his 90-year-old head and walks away.

  • by something_wicked_thi (918168) on Saturday December 26 2009, @10:41AM (#30555652)

    Oh, please. Every single Christian argument I've ever read (and trust me, I've read a few), boils down to some variation on the following:

    1. We don't know there isn't a god, so there must be one (of course, that may be true, but why must it be a Christian god?).

    2. We can't explain everything yet, so there must be a god to explain the unknown (same problem as the last one).

    3. Jesus seems like a pretty good guy. Why would he lie (too easy)?

    4. My piece of toast looks like the face of Jesus.

    None of these claims constitute evidence. I also see several websites out there dedicated to debunking the book you quote, including this one [infidels.org] which seems to suggest that the book you reference is drivel on the same order as Lewis' Mere Christianity. If your champion's best work is claiming that psychic's predicted Jesus, then perhaps you should try reading up on the James Randy foundation before making claims about reliable evidence.

  • by ZeRu (1486391) on Saturday December 26 2009, @10:47AM (#30555696)
    There were some wery good Bible-themed movies (most notably by Cecil B. DeMille [imdb.com]) in the past, so I think it's entirely possible to have a good Bible-themed video game. It's just that nobody has put enough effort in it yet.
  • by hitmark (640295) on Saturday December 26 2009, @11:07AM (#30555812) Journal

    i do wonder, how much of that was stated as "for atheism", vs how much of the crusades or similar was stated as "for god"?

  • by name*censored* (884880) on Saturday December 26 2009, @11:20AM (#30555912)

    Cyberax (705495) posted:

    Nope. It's religion. Every religion breeds extremism. So the blame's well placed.

    During the Black Plague, the disease was spread by the fleas which rats carried. Back then, people blamed (amongst other things) rats. These days, however, we (correctly) blame the fleas for being the actual carrier. See,

    • Not every rat is necessarily a danger
    • The rat is not directly carrying the disease
    • There are other means of infection besides rats

    Where am I going with this? Surprise! This is an analogy for religion/extremism. Religion/rats may be a common carrier of extremism/fleas+plague, but it's not technically correct to blame rats/religion. Congratulations, you think as those you have disdain for (medieval-ers are a subset of religious folk)! Paradox!

    If that explanation didn't sway you, try this -

    Nope. It's ________ . Every ________ breeds extremism. So the blame's well placed.
    Nope. It's politics . Every political alignment breeds extremism. So the blame's well placed.
    Nope. It's sports teams. Every sports team breeds extremism. So the blame's well placed.
    Nope. It's text editors. Every text editor breeds extremism. So the blame's well placed.
    Nope. It's skub [pbfcomics.com]. Every jar of skub [pbfcomics.com] breeds extremism. So the blame's well placed.

    See how easy it is? I'm sorry if that screws with your pre-conceived notions, but the fact is that religion is merely a manifestation of the problem, not the problem itself.

    Anonymous Coward posted:

    And religion easily provides the most convenient excuse to do so. Prohibitions against killing obviously don't work. Rational arguments are useless against someone who claims that god has spoken to him because he has it on higher authority than anyone else. Religion goes well with the uneducated because it teaches people to take things on faith - once you get people to swallow that, you can pretty much tell them anything.

    No other system comes close. Education is the best way for some immunity against religions and quasi-religious cults (see the comment on Stalinism elsewhere). I'm close to defining religion as any system that doesn't put humans first.

    Bang, hit the nail on the head. If I hadn't posted here, I'd mod this up (though if I hadn't posted, you wouldn't have replied, so it's self-defeating prophecy). Yes, the largest problem with religion is it's almost tailor-made for exploitation. You could try crafting another system of exploitation, but it would end up being another incarnation of religion (see: Cults of Personality, which operate exactly as exploitative religions do). The mind-boggling irony is that although the vast majority of modern mainstream religions preach peace, they seem to have been twisted into weapons of hate. If I made bets, I'd bet that the promise of peace is the "bait" and the hatred is the "switch". But I digress.

  • by mabhatter654 (561290) on Saturday December 26 2009, @11:52AM (#30556124)

    My problem is that I do believe the Bible and if my kids were playing a game I would not want it "loosely based" on things. I'd imagine Hindus, Buddhists, etc would not really like their religious figures turned into game characters either... and that's why publishers won't touch it.

    You mention C.S. Lewis, who was a heavy proponent of Allegory and fantasy in stories. I'm more like Tolkien in that I want my stories as "play" and my religion taken seriously. C.S. Lewis did a bit of disservice because many of his fantasy books are "too close" and people expect all religious elements to be like that. I always avoid the Star Wars "Force" debate with my Uncle because Star Wars is "play" with good guys and bad guys, it's not a "religion". But the same token not all religious imagery has to be viewed as "Christian vs. non-Christian". I don't think computer games quite have the level of play needed to do good "religious" experiments yet.

    For historical perspective look at how the Church handled this in the Middle Ages. As the majority of folks couldn't read, religious tales were told thru statuary, stained glass, and story telling. By the 1200's especially after the Plagues, religious imagery was taken to extremes serving as folklore, and "science fiction" of the day. Debates about "angels on the head of a pin" were taken as morally "right" or "wrong" fighting arguments. The religion BECAME the imagery and the Church is STILL hung up on some of those things. One thing I don't like about SCA is that they really discourage playing in the religious aspects of the Middle Ages and religion was the defining thing of Western Europe from 700-1500. When it comes to religion in media and culture there is a lot to learn about how it was done [or not done] before in Western culture. I think that also colors how we look at things now. Because we want people that are part of a religion to understand what they believe. With so many things out there competing now there is no room for "playing AT church" like there was in the 50's and 60's where "everybody" was Christian.

  • by npsimons (32752) * on Saturday December 26 2009, @02:50PM (#30557360) Homepage Journal

    "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby."

    One of my favorites :) Here are some more:

    If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease!
            -- Clark Adams

    Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
            -- Don Hirschberg

    Militant agnostic: I don't know, and you don't either.

    Which goes along nicely with one of my own creation:

    Everyone is an agnostic; no one knows whether god exists or not.
            -- Nathan Paul Simons

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 26 2009, @04:04PM (#30557904)

    Being a pretty fundie Christian, I agree with the rating that would be applied to a Bible-based game. I disagree about the "parts they like to forget about" comment. The majority of Christians (and nearly all Catholics) don't read their Bibles and are not aware of those racy parts, so there's nothing to forget. You can thank this, for the most part, on Christian church staff, for the most part, being mainly concerned with getting people in the door and not wanting to upset them; they don't teach the hard stuff because when people hear it they leave.

    For instance, one Sunday my Pastor taught a sermon on forgiveness (maybe the problem with people pissing you off is not the other people but instead is you) it was a great sermon, I thanked him for it, but he told me to watch next week and see if 1/2 the people returned. Sure enough, next week the population was drastically reduced. People don't want to hear that they may be part of the problem.

    Maybe putting out a video game based on those stories in the Bible would be a really good thing. It would be fun to be Samson and take on several hundred Philistines with nothing but a jaw bone, or Jonah trying to avoid doing God's will (and deliver a warning to Nineva which would save them from God's wrath) and seeing how long you can avoid it, the possibilities are endless.

    People think that the Bible is full of stories about good people. There are very few good people in the Bible but there's lots of stories about how God used them for good, and lots of epic battles, lots of possibilities for cool video games if people are willing accept all of it.

  • by Simetrical (1047518) <Simetrical+sd@gmail.com> on Saturday December 26 2009, @10:27PM (#30560182) Homepage

    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.

    I don't see why you'd think that. About the only thing that gets AO is actual pornography. The Bible discusses sex sometimes, but never very explicitly. It relies very heavily on euphemism – "know" and "lie with" and so on. The most explicit things I can think of are in Song of Songs, and that's very mild by today's standards. (Like: "Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.") Likewise, the Bible doesn't depict graphic violence, it just says something like "Phineas got up and stabbed him with a spear" at most.

    If the entire Bible were depicted as a game, with violence and sex made as explicit (or non-explicit) as in the text, it would probably be T at most, quite possibly E10+. No swearing, no detailed descriptions of violence, only oblique reference to sex – what could anyone possibly think would merit even M, let alone AO? Other than, you know, knee-jerk anti-religious sentiment by people who have never read more than two chapters of the Bible but are happy to make it sound like religious zealots are hypocrites.

Metermaids eat their young.

Working...