Slashdot Mirror
Game with God
Andrew writes "GamerDad has an article up about how religion is handled in computer gaming, titled 'Game With God'. The article features quotes from Sid Meier, Jane Jensen, Will Wright, Peter Molyneaux, Phil Steinmeyer, and Richard Garriott. Here's a snippet: 'While religion and spirituality add a lot to a game world, they often aren't used effectively. 'I don't think there are any games that treat religion at anything more than a superficial level,'; says Firaxis founder and Civilization creator Sid Meier. PopTop Software's Phil Steinmeyer agrees, noting that 'Religion is ignored in gaming, or if it is portrayed, it's wildly caricatured.'"
What's the typical action flick treatment of religion? Barely existent if at all, and usually just an excuse to give people cool special powers.
Member of Orkut? Annoyed with spam?
I would state that not only is religion handled "ineffectively" in most games, but between the wish to be politically correct and catering to the predominantly anti-christian sentiments in the gaming community most games end up being downright disdainful of christianity.
What is worse is the fact that most games put out by christians fall into one of two categories; blatant propaganda which is more concerned with pushing a message than with providing an enjoyable gaming experience, and "fluff" mostly written for children.
What the christian community urgently needs is a development company to emerge which can balance both the needs of the gospel, and the needs of the game playing experience.
I always thought of games as escapism. Many wouldn't define religion as escapism, or at least those that strictly adhere to their faith.
To me, the two do not mix well.
YMMV
So, is this yet another case of game designers trying to imitate the real world too closely?
-- MarkusQ
Semi-serious? That's just an artifact of the youth of the medium and the lack of a real artistic indie segment.
There's nothing about the gaming medium itself that is semi-serious. It's perfectly capable of tackling any topic just as well as narrative fiction on celluloid or page.
Calling the medium semi-serious as of now is an unfortunate but true overview, but implying the medium is incapable of more is shortsighted and wrong.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
A "serious treatment" of religion is not needed in games. Maybe in a form of edutainment, but not a game! Do you want to play SimWorshipper, where you choose your religion (Buddhist, Hindu, Islam, Christian, and Jew, with Sikhs and Wicca forthcoming in an expansion pack) whereby you must go to synagogue/church/mosque once a week, or click to use the prayer mat, or else sit outside and meditate with nature? Then after 20 game-years have elapsed, you start trying to convince your game children to marry within the religion? Of course, we could always do "The Passion of the Christ, the officially licensed game," and give Icon Entertainment another few hundred million dollars, allowing you to be beaten for an hour and try to still stay alive by mashing the circle button. You could also argue there's been no real treatment of "sex" in video games either. Let's make a realistic sex game where the sheets smell and you have to do laundry, you have to rummage through your underwear drawer for condoms, and your roommate comes home in the middle and you have to suddenly get quiet! No thanks. Games don't have to address everything. They're supposed to be FUN.
Who'se AI programming could be considered good enough to simulate God? How would God come into play in, say, Doom3 or The Sims? Do you lose if you are sinful?
All religions I know of assume the existence of another, spiritual, universe that's truly important, compared to our material universe, which is considered more or less irrelevant. Their reasoning goes more or less like "we do not have to worry about this life, eventually we will all die, so we should be more concerned about what comes after death."
But that assumes the existence of that unproved afterlife. What if it doesn't exist? What if this life is our only chance and, once it ends, everything is over for us? To refuse to even contemplate this possibility is the Mother Of All Escapisms.
"Religion is ignored in gaming, or if it is portrayed, it's wildly caricatured."
Insert *any* substantive intellectual or philosophical topic in place of "religion" and that sentence almost always holds true. They're *games*, they're not meant to provide truly rigorous analysis but rather to entertain.
The only game I can think of that has some rather sophisticated references to religious and philosophical concepts is Xenosaga (and presumably the prequel Xenogears, though I've not played it), but even then it's nowhere near as deep or intellectually stimulating as a good book.
So while this is not a hard and fast rule, I would say that the vast majority of games are, well, just entertainment. Very few games truly broach into what I would consider art or substantive dialogue.
The article falls flat on two fronts for me. The article assume that 1) religion means christianity 2)ethics are the sole domain of religion.
Outside of that particular pet peeve I would also argue that the article does not address the issue on its true scale: religion in mass media. Nor does it address the reason for the typically marginal role of religion in the mass media: there are a lot of people who either don't want to see it in that context(Christians included) or who do want to see it but can't agree on what it should look like.
Just looking at the miriad of splinter groups within the judeo-christian pantheon of religions and the innumerable hotly contested details that caused them to split in the first place should make it clear why a strongly religious game with mass appeal would be difficult to create. Now think in terms of the gaming demographic. That doesn't mean impossible, but outside of the occassional high production value rarity al-la Passion of Christ I wouldn't hold my breath.
And to get to the heart of the issue, is that really such a bad thing? Doesn't relying on video games to provide religion, education, ethical guidance, etc. simply mirror the TV as a baby sitter/parent problem?
Ahh, civ2.
Always used fundamentalism. Always ended up causing a world war. Always nuked entire continents into submission.
The world should be so glad I don't have a nation under my control... :P
- Seth
There are intelligent followers of every great religion in the world. When I say "intelligent" in this context, I not only mean natural gifts for information retention, information processing, logical thought, and so on....but also well educated and accomplished in various realms of scholarship.
There are also just as many equally intelligent and equally educated and equally accomplished atheists, agnostics, and "spiritually unclassifiable"s.
People who are religious like to believe that intelligence predisposes people to follow their religion. People who are anti-religious like to believe that intelligence predisposes people to be anti-religious.
History, however, shows that intelligence alone does not sway one in either direction.
Philosophize until you are blue in the face, but the determining factor must lie elsewhere.
It seems to me some good games based on theology may finally ignite some critical thinking on religion dogma. Just *what* is 'religion' and what is of God himself?
It is a strong belief of mine that earthly religions are the work of man and they are just using the name of God to bolster power for themselves. Even the Bible states Jesus had to throw the Scribes and Pharisees ( yeh, all those loud moaning prayer-sayers and interpreters of the Word that pontificate profusely in public so as to appear holy ) out of the temple.
There is a human condition called "cognitive dissonance", which is a strong drive within us to know we made the correct decision. The last thing a guy who just bought a car wants to hear is that he made a big mistake by doing so. He wants positive affirmation he made an intelligent choice. I see religious congregations in a similar light - once 'converted' to that religion, those members push it because if others join, that bolsters their belief that they were correct. Its a human condition we form religions - but I don't see these as really having anything much to do with God. Its just a gang of people - and they can be very dangerous if they are ever led to believe that doing violence in the name of God is acceptable.
I have a hard time distinguishing earthly religion from cult and superstition. Like I am not aware of any proof that Zeus or Thor do NOT exist, yet I have no faith in their power. Well, are things any different today?
Maybe some good games where a "supreme power" did indeed create us, and our goal is to find out about him, but along the way are all these people who have formed these little gangs to feed us misinformation and make us waste time until our lifetime runs out.
You know these little 'pyramid' schemes that run around every so often, where a few guys organize this financial ponzi scheme that require the contributions of lots of suckers so the guys at the top can get fabulously wealthy? Yeh, they print up these little business plans and have rows of lines for people to sign up for a measly donation of $1000 to get a $64,000 tax-free return. Their heads begin yammering like air compressors as their mouths begin spewing streams of words like "outpouring of wealth", "faith", "make a committment", etc.
But, once you've seen it, you recognize it for what it is. A ponzi scheme. A way for people to get money for just jabbering. A quick way for you to lose your resources.
I see earthly manmade religions in exactly the same way. This is not to say I don't believe in God - its just I know that Man will lie. And Man can be very cruel if he's ever led to believe he is just being an instrument of God ( as if the God who created the universe needed the services of Man! I think of it like asking my cat to fix a leaky faucet. ).
Please don't tell me I've got it wrong. I most likely do have it wrong. I may never find what I am looking for. I know Man will lie. And I know Man , even though he obediently follows all the religious rituals, can do unbelievably cruel things to others - and feel completely guiltless over the trauma left in his wake. ( Southern Baptist )
It would be nice to see a few games where people actually had to *think* about their relationship with our Creator and fellow man, instead of just being led by another man.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Uh... Read the Article anyone?
It's not as though the second paragraph on page two was ALL ABOUT Peter Molyneux, Populous and Black & White or anything.
You could configure the game to play by your favorite belief system.
The last time I went to Church, I fell asleep.
Then you went to a stupid church, and need to look for a different distributor.
"Church, the product" can meet the needs of many consumers (to continue the commercial theme). There is music, social interaction, and free coffee. Worship services and sermons are opportunities to deal with crucial social issues of the day, explore deeply spiritual and philosophical topics, and receive instruction on intimate psychological matters. Churches are also places where people can organize into collectives to further the social good--either directly, through projects of their own, or by rallying behind other organizations like Habitat for Humanity or Heifer Project. If the church you went to has lousy music, people, and coffee, doesn't challenge you intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, and morally, and doesn't do worthwhile things for others, then you picked a crappy church.
I readily admit that there are indeed many crappy churches on the market, but I would ask for the concession that there may be non-crappy churches also. I've gone to several that contributed significantly to the lives of the people who showed up and the community around them.
Please don't paint everything and everyone with a single, broad brush. Your attitude is akin to having a bad experience at Sears and saying that all stores are bad, or shopping in general is bad. If you don't like the store, by all means, be a smart shopper and take your business elsewhere; don't decide to forswear shopping or malign all the stores that carry a similar product line.
Even old Populous had more depth in this respect, and it also is basically an "economic" system wrapped in semi-religious terminology.
The analysis should perhaps take a look at art. The most successful and profound religious artists in the realm of writing often have barely detectable overt religous activities depicted: yet the religion in woven into the fabric of their art gives it a profoundness it could have gotten nowhere else. Look at Dostoevsky for example. Even look at Tolkien. His work is very spiritual, but you never actually see the Elves go to church or the Hobbits consult a priest.
The very structure of the world and the nature of the characters imply the depth of spiritual consciousness.
I think Garriot's Ultima has been the closest thing yet created to a religious system. It is basically an ethical system, as he explained: but it allows the character to apply religious meaning to those ethics beyond the simple religious factions provided in the game.
I have lately been playing Deus Ex (the original... i never got around to it before), and actually think it comes close to an almost religious depth. It's interesting that it was not mentioned in the article. The name of the game at least gives a hinting reference to God. (And the G.K. Chesterton quote in a copy of "The Man Who was Thursday" found in various places in the game world was a nice touch.) While there are no priests, or cliche religious cults to battle, the balance of competing perspectives in the game often imply a depth to the characters, and an artistic soul in the designer. While most of the conversations are more political in nature, they could easily have been spun in a more spiritual direction: it's all about motives and underlying premises up which the characters feel the meaning of their existence depends and is expressed.
Most religions, minus the people, are neither good nor bad.
Yeah, but that's about as meaningful as the NRA's "Guns don't kill people; people do". Just like guns make killing people easier than with a knife, religion makes hating the foreign unbeliever easier than if you just had to hate them for speaking funny.
However, I was referring to the current brand of Christianity. This tends to be more liberal, although any religion's purpose is to "convert the world." This is because the followers believe it to be the best way to live, so others should also join.
That said, nowadays large bits of Christianity, and Hinduism apparently, accept that actually there is no one true way and that many religions are just different ways of getting to the same goal. This is quite different to the historical interpretation of "repent or burn (either at the stake or in hell)"
im in ur
(re: religion is like a car you use to get to the top of a hill of life.)
To make the analogy work, you need to also point out that the only people saying you *need* a vehicle are the ones who are currently using them. The statement that the hill is too tall and steep to walk up it is false, and although there aren't many who chose to go on foot, those that do end up getting a little bit miffed at those who keep telling them they can't make it that way - especially when the trail is filled with out-of-gas cars, stalled on the side and filled with people who have managed to convince themsleves they are actually at the top when they aren't even halfway up, and the hikers trod past them and keep going.
(On the subject of rejecting religion without knowing it's not true)
It is unnecessary to know for sure some belief system is false in order to reject it. It is merely sufficient to know that it is unable to back up the claims it has made for itself. The one who is proposing the belief is the one with the burden of proof.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The reason games don't have real religions modeled in them is just that it would divide their potential userbase. I really think that's all there is to it. Instead of getting people mad, since it is literally impossible to have a portrayal of religion that looks balanced and evenhanded to every potential consumer, they either make the religion realy comic-book-like and fakey, or they shift it off to something else entirely so it doesn't look like anything on earth (like the Hammerites from Thief).
Even the preachy Ultima IV mentioned in the article had to do that sort of thing - making up a new religion that is based on eight virtues, and stays well away from anything like a belief in a god. (It was a good game, although having a computer program enforce rules of morality had problems in that it only cared about the letter of the law, and not the spirit of the law. For example, you could lose an 'eigth' for lack of bravery when your main character doesn't stay behind to be the last person to leave a map in a fight. That was severly flawed when sometimes the congestion of characters on the mapboard made it necessary for you to leave with your main character first just to make the room for the rest to fit out the exit. Sometimes the computer's random placement of figures on the map made it such that your only two choices were 1 - lose the virtue of bravery because the leader is in the way and has to leave first, or 2 - reload the game.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
It's remarks like this that will ensure that nobody ever takes you seriously. "Overwhelming", huh. If it were so "overwhelming", everyone would be in agreement on the matter. The non-Christian population isn't in some paranoid conspiracy to deny the obvious, despite your need to believe so.
It would be interesting to see you present the "overwhelming" "evidence" that, say, E. coli was created by the Christian god. (Note: claims that "evolution is a lie" or other attempts to falsify or discredit science do not in turn constitute positive evidence in favor of creation by a deity, let alone the Christian deity.)
Most Christians disagree with you. Funny, that.
Yeah, let's make sure they are never exposed to any viewpoint but your own.
Your argument is specious. In principle you could make up an arbitrary rule that says, "Only Democrats are allowed to marry", or something, and argue that everyone has exactly the same civil liberties as everyone else, so the rule is therefore "fair" -- even though non-Democrats aren't allowed to marry. But I don't think you would agree it is fair.
Because, um, homosexuals are different from heterosexuals? What kind of argument is that?
How about "5-year-olds can't drink alcohol, so why should adults be able to do it?" Or "women can't go topless in public, so why should men be able to do it?" Or, going back a century, "women can't vote, so why should men?"
If two groups of people are different, you need to consider on a case-by-case basis whether they should be treated similarly or differently. In the case of alcohol, one could make a strong case as to why 5-year-olds shouldn't be able to drink alcohol; it's not so easy to make a case for why women shouldn't be able to vote. The question is, which category does homosexual marriage fall into, and why?
You're trying to escape on the basis of legalistic wording: heterosexuals can't marry members of the same sex, so why should gays be able to do it? But you can equally well say: homosexuals can't marry members of their sexually-compatible sex (i.e., the same sex), so why should heterosexuals be able to marry members of their sexually-compatible sex (the opposite sex)?
Perhaps a better question is, why can't anyone (heterosexual or homosexual) marry someone of any sex they choose? Or, for that matter, what does sex intrinsically have to do with marriage? Is it the possibility of reproduction? Should infertile man/woman couples be allowed to marry?
That is a matter of definition; that definition is what is currently being debated in society.
That's quite a non-sequitur. Homosexuality exists in nature among non-human animals as well as human animals; in that sense, it is "natural". What does being natural have to do with procreation? People, and animals, do many things naturally. Sex is one of them; so is yawning.