Bioshock Infinite, Religion and Refunds

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Copper Zen:
I'm basically an animist but I went through a born-again phase years and years ago and was even baptized in the process. To put it mildly, however, I was far more inclusive than exclusive in my approach to my religion even then.

Granted, I agree with everyone else here that it's almost ludicrous to be offended by the Baptism scene when the majority of the game (which I haven't played but have heard much of) revolves around killing. Having said that and having read the guy's letter I can actually grok the mindset where he's coming from, though.

The key to this guy's problem seems to be the degree of significance he (personally?) places on the ritual of being baptized. Given that there literally tens of thousands of Christian sects, denominations, etc and that some folks are even taught that "only the people from THIS particular church will go to heaven" it's easy for me to picture someone getting their feathers ruffled by what they consider a sacred ritual.

From the comments in the OP's link he wasn't the only one bugged by the baptism scene, either.

From the linked story:

*************

Others disliked the scene--and not always because of its religious roots. Some of the responses I got:

"I felt that it was ham-handed as hell."

"It was irritating. I don't take baptism seriously, so the religious implications didn't offend, but the absence of choice did."

"I find baptisms generally creepy, especially magnified by timing of opening with a altered version of a common Passover prayer. Additionally made weird considering release date was during Passover. Generally, being involved in religious ceremonies not my own is a strange feeling."

"Eye rolling, because it felt like a forced setup with overblown Christian symbolism. And the payoff in the ending angered me."

*************

It speaks well of Valve's customer service that they refunded the kid his money/credit. It also makes sense that they didn't begrudge doing so given that this probably isn't the sort of complaint they often run into.

I can accept that, yeah. I can easily see why he might feel that way but I still don't think he's genuine. That might be more to do with cynicism than any actual evidence, though.

I'd congratulate Valve on being fair to everyone except it doesn't look like they looked into his claim. Can I get my money back if I claim to be religious? I finished the game, loved it but I should would like to have my money back anyway. What's to stop me from doing that?

I heard there was a moment in the games development that a guy wanted to resign because it was getting offensive to him.

What I guess bothers me, that Christianity is supposed to be this religion of peace and introspection, but what offended this dude wasn't the fact you can set guys on fire and boil them alive until they die, or that the solution to basically every human problem is bullets, but that somebody was baptized.

So apparently to this guy's point of view to his religion it's OK to shoot or incinerate people, but not get sprinkled with water, basically devolving Christianity into some sort of bizarre murderous Wicked Witch of Oz.

Malmberg:
"As baptism of the Holy spirit is at the center of Christianity - of which I am a devout believer - I am basically being forced to make a choice between committing extreme blasphemy by my actions in choosing to accept this 'choice' or forced to quit playing the game before it even really starts,"

"Of course I cannot hold true to my beliefs and also commit this act, so I am therefor[e] forced to not play the game."

Yeah, apparently accepting a baptism is extreme blasphemy that you can't take part in, but riddling human beings with bullets and setting them on fire or whipping them around with water is just completely fine?

I mean, I could accept the argument that no part of the game is fine for him, at which point I don't.. really know what he expected to get with this purchase?

But the idea that it's completely in-line with Christian philosophy to kill and maim people as long as they don't get wet in the process should trouble other Christians.

It was nice of Steam to do that, but the hypersensitivity of some Christians in 1st world countries makes me want to keep my eyes rolled 24/7. Considering some of what I hear about them being 'oppressed' and whatnot this is relatively more sane I suppose -_-

Damien Granz:
What I guess bothers me, that Christianity is supposed to be this religion of peace and introspection, but what offended this dude wasn't the fact you can set guys on fire and boil them alive until they die, or that the solution to basically every human problem is bullets, but that somebody was baptized.
[...]
But the idea that it's completely in-line with Christian philosophy to kill and maim people as long as they don't get wet in the process should trouble other Christians.

Like I said in my earlier post, it seems counter-intuitive and a bass-ackward set of priorities, but if there's an issue that a person is personally enough invested in, they may well find the inclusion of it in a game more odious than being expected to kill (which is after all completely par for the course in most action games).

This isn't a personal swipe, but imagine that you were playing a game. It's a violent game, perhaps even more violent than the context requires, but you play anyway and can compartmentalise the bloodshed as being just pixels. Then, there comes a scene in the game where you're expected to take part in a non-lethal act of homophobia or transphobia - possibly you aren't rewarded for this, but you're forced to do it if you want the game to progress. Would you do it? After all, it's virtual. Just lines of code and pixels on a screen. Or would you assign meaning to the act that made it repellant enough that you chose to stop playing? I suspect that latter. And at that stage, people saying "why are you so hypersensitive" or "you're a hypocrite since you enjoy virtual killing" would be fundamentally missing the point.

A while back Polarity made an excellent post explaining why sometimes it's the little details in game storytelling that cause us more discomfort on a personal level than the overused and desensitised mechanic of killing. Killing stuff is a game mechanic and has been since the inception of videogames. Social commentary has the potential to have a lot more "bite" since it's more relateable to most people's everyday experiences (assuming you don't live in a warzone).

Helmholtz Watson:
I'll have to remember this the next time a non-White, female, or LGBT person complains about how they feel the need to connect to the character in a video game.

Bioshock Infinite isn't a role-playing game. You play as a very specific character, Booker DeWitt, with a specific personality, history, behavior, set of beliefs, and very little of him changes over the course of the game, despite choices you can make for him. Different people identify with him in different ways, whereas in an RPG, you are the person, you are the personality, the decision-maker, and not a placeholder.

MarsAtlas:

Helmholtz Watson:
I'll have to remember this the next time a non-White, female, or LGBT person complains about how they feel the need to connect to the character in a video game.

Bioshock Infinite isn't a role-playing game. You play as a very specific character, Booker DeWitt, with a specific personality, history, behavior, set of beliefs, and very little of him changes over the course of the game, despite choices you can make for him. Different people identify with him in different ways, whereas in an RPG, you are the person, you are the personality, the decision-maker, and not a placeholder.

You make it sound as if only RPG's have faced these complaints before.

Helmholtz Watson:
You make it sound as if only RPG's have faced these complaints before.

No, you're confusing character representation with identification, and besides that point, you're not necessarily supposed to be able to identify with defined player-characters that much. I'm female but could identify with Booker and his familial protection of Elizabeth because while I'm not actually a parent myself, I have taken care of children under my stead, and wold love to have children. I didn't sell away my daughter, and I don't have any children, but I can identify with the regret that pains Booker so. Not everybody can fit into every demographic that Booker fits. Booker was part of the massacre at Wounded Knee at an age where the biggest worry for most guys is getting laid. He developed a driking and gambling problem because of it. He lost both his wife and child. He lives in 1912, a time during segregation, so he knows nothing about life with racial integration. I get to make four decisions for Booker throughout the game, yet the choices Booker makes as a character, independent from my input, are far more numerous and impactful. Tell me, how is this not a defined character independent from myself? He's a slightly dynamic character with a development arc, not a blank slate where I'm supposed to take the place of them. What would Bioshock Infinite be if you got to make every single decision and decide every single comment he makes, like in, say, the Fallout series, and what would Fallout be if for every single quest there was only one way it could be resolved?

-Hypernationalistic religion that deifies the Founding Fathers= Ok.
-Excessive racism that's extreme even for 1910= Ok.
-Killing thousands of people to pay off a debt= Ok.

But a forced baptism, FUCK NO.

Really, really?

So Valve rarely offer refunds for broken games without a huge stink being raised, yet they immediately capitulate to some tool pitching a religious fit? DOES NOT COMPUTE.

I saw this earlier, I think it's quite silly

Silliness always finds a way to manifest itself, however

Ah well, nothing is lost except his enjoyment of a great videogame

It amazes me how people can miss the point so entirely. Everyone is making comments about why they don't think its offensive, apparently being totally oblivious to the fact that something being "offensive" is completely subjective. "He" finds it offensive, enough that "he" cant bring himself to continue the game. Anyone else's opinion, my own included, is pointless and moot. I don't see a problem in refunding the money to guy who cant play the game, rather its because of technical or personal issues.

I only rented Bioshock Infinite, but had I brought it I might ask for a refund after being so completely offended at the lack of choice and the plot twists I saw coming before I even put the disk in the console.

Next time, on GTA 5:

"The way this game represents meals of pasta is against my religion! The FSM would never condone only one meatball. My fundamental religious convictions have been offended against, and there wasn't a word about this on the game cover or publicly available reviews! I demand back my money along with an apology!"

Really, hypocritical gamer? Really? Babtism in a game you take seriously, but not kidnapping, slaughter, thievery and racism?

Okay, I get how he might be personally offended, but of all the things it was the babtism and he complains possible religious topics weren't mentioned as game content?

...Amazed as always just how silly some people can act.

So, if he's taking a bath and someone breaks into his house and screams "By the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit I baptize thee: Cockgobbler Shitbucket!" and dunks his head under the water for a second or two will he honour the baptism and call himself Mr. Shitbucket (but Cockgobbler to his friends)?

If the answer is no then the idea of a character being baptized in a video game holds even less symbolism to him as a person. I would have refused the refund because I don't care if he didn't buy any video games ever again, he seems the type who doesn't play them very often.

Let's make a game where no one in the world is offended by anything and we have to appease every single minority / race / religion / sexual preference. The game will be about sexless walking teddy bears exchanging friendship cupcakes saying absolutely nothing to each other. From now on, this will be the only game ever made (don't worry there will be sequels) so no one is upset ever again and no one will ask for refunds!

Because obviously, whatever happens to a character is the same as it happening in real life. Also, no one can ever communicate with anyone and we will all be forced to live in bubbles so we don't begin conversations with anybody and offend them! EVERY minority must be appeased and we have to bow down to every single one!

Batou667:
--imagine that you were playing a game. It's a violent game, perhaps even more violent than the context requires, but you play anyway and can compartmentalise the bloodshed as being just pixels. Then, there comes a scene in the game where you're expected to take part in a non-lethal act of homophobia or transphobia - possibly you aren't rewarded for this, but you're forced to do it if you want the game to progress. Would you do it? After all, it's virtual. Just lines of code and pixels on a screen. Or would you assign meaning to the act that made it repellant enough that you chose to stop playing? I suspect that latter. And at that stage, people saying "why are you so hypersensitive" or "you're a hypocrite since you enjoy virtual killing" would be fundamentally missing the point.

A while back Polarity made an excellent post explaining why sometimes it's the little details in game storytelling that cause us more discomfort on a personal level than the overused and desensitised mechanic of killing. Killing stuff is a game mechanic and has been since the inception of videogames. Social commentary has the potential to have a lot more "bite" since it's more relateable to most people's everyday experiences (assuming you don't live in a warzone).

I hadn't thought of it from that perspective. You make a excellent point--several in fact. Better than I did truth be told.

I suspect that if your point was made in the news article many readers would pause for a moment before (very understandably) rolling their eyes at the guy's complaints and point of view.

For those who are curious as to why I'm trying to see the other side of this...well, I like to see both sides of an argument regardless of whether I agree with one or neither.

Batou667:

Damien Granz:
What I guess bothers me, that Christianity is supposed to be this religion of peace and introspection, but what offended this dude wasn't the fact you can set guys on fire and boil them alive until they die, or that the solution to basically every human problem is bullets, but that somebody was baptized.
[...]
But the idea that it's completely in-line with Christian philosophy to kill and maim people as long as they don't get wet in the process should trouble other Christians.

Like I said in my earlier post, it seems counter-intuitive and a bass-ackward set of priorities, but if there's an issue that a person is personally enough invested in, they may well find the inclusion of it in a game more odious than being expected to kill (which is after all completely par for the course in most action games).

I guess my point was that, he's sort of making a very terrible representation of Christians in general. He's implying that he can't play the game because of Booker's choices conflict with choices as a Christian. I was just pointing out that, killing people, in general for a debt and immolating them and all this other horrible stuff.. should rightfully conflict with his religion long before another baptism.

Batou667:
This isn't a personal swipe,

And I won't take it as such, because I presume you're framing this situation in a way that I can relate to based on what I've said in the past was important to me.

Batou667:
but imagine that you were playing a game. It's a violent game, perhaps even more violent than the context requires, but you play anyway and can compartmentalize the bloodshed as being just pixels. Then, there comes a scene in the game where you're expected to take part in a non-lethal act of homophobia or transphobia - possibly you aren't rewarded for this, but you're forced to do it if you want the game to progress.

I have played plenty of games that have done that, or quietly done that through 'translating' or 'airbrushing' away the gay. But if I take what you're saying at face value... Then I guess if I was to blame my distaste for participating in acts of homophobia (lethal or non-lethal) on something I wouldn't blame my say, slight leaning towards pacifism on it, while participating in the simulated murder of heterosexuals.

I guess that's the distinction that is weird to me. It'd be like if I bought Bioshock: Homophobia Edition, blew away all the heterosexual characters with technomagic and steampunk shotguns and what not then got to the point where I was expected to kill a homosexual character and was like.. "My pacifism forbids me from killing this gay guy". It'd seem like a poor like.. example of pacifism.

I get that this guy might be offended by this game. That's fine. There's something that's going to offend somebody in everything. I just find the insinuation that "Murdering folks to pay off a debt" is wholesome Christian fun, but a baptism isn't. He's not really portraying Christians in a very consistent or good light there though?

I mean, I don't think I would portray myself or my pro-homosexual/bisexual/trans stance in a very positive light if I played a game where I murdered people because they were straight or cisgendered but then refused to kill gay characters, either.

Batou667:
Would you do it? After all, it's virtual. Just lines of code and pixels on a screen. Or would you assign meaning to the act that made it repellant enough that you chose to stop playing? I suspect that latter. And at that stage, people saying "why are you so hypersensitive" or "you're a hypocrite since you enjoy virtual killing" would be fundamentally missing the point.

I guess if I was killing people based on them being gay, I'd have a problem with it, but if I had a game where I happened to kill somebody that happened to be gay, I wouldn't be opposed to it, for the same reason I'd find it distasteful to kill somebody in a game because they happened to be straight. But I would think you would be right to call me hypocritical if I chose to play Bioshock: Anti-Cisgendered Edition where you go around immolating people for being fine with their assigned at birth gender.

Batou667:
A while back Polarity made an excellent post explaining why sometimes it's the little details in game storytelling that cause us more discomfort on a personal level than the overused and desensitized mechanic of killing. Killing stuff is a game mechanic and has been since the inception of video games. Social commentary has the potential to have a lot more "bite" since it's more relateable to most people's everyday experiences (assuming you don't live in a warzone).

You know, that might be true, but I still think it's bizarre as hell. I'm not sure if that portrays this guy wanting a refund in a more positive light though. I think instead it portrays all of everybody else in a more negative light overall.

:( You've depressed me.

MarsAtlas:

Helmholtz Watson:
You make it sound as if only RPG's have faced these complaints before.

No, you're confusing character representation with identification, and besides that point, you're not necessarily supposed to be able to identify with defined player-characters that much.

Tell the to the fans of Mass Effect that wanted Shepherd to be gay, despite the fact that it never came up in the past games.

If he took offense he took offense, people are allowed to be offended by all sorts of stuff.

As far as the refund goes, I would do the same thing.

I COULD start a snafu over it, deny the guy the refund, have him post my reply, start shouting on the internet, maybe get some christian group involved..

Or I could just give him back a very minor sale in the grand scheme of things.

On the more interesting character versus tabula rasa: If you're playing a character who is clearly a character within the universe, that has a pre-set name, a pre-set history, pre-set reactions to someone or something, you of course can feel uncomfortable when that character acts in a way you don't agree with, the same you would if you were observing a real person who did something you were uncomfortable with.

Spoilers for early bioshock: infinite stuff

I blinked at the baptism, largely because he basically drowns your sorry ass. Booker even says something to that effect, like 'preacher needs to learn the difference between a baptism and a drowning...' or something.

Part of the whole thing of baptism is accepting it willingly and believing in it. Booker obviously didn't want to accept it and didn't believe in it, so yeah. Also it's a videogame. No water, actual water, is involved.

Batou667:
...imagine that you were playing a game. It's a violent game, perhaps even more violent than the context requires, but you play anyway and can compartmentalise the bloodshed as being just pixels. Then, there comes a scene in the game where you're expected to take part in a non-lethal act of homophobia or transphobia - possibly you aren't rewarded for this, but you're forced to do it if you want the game to progress. Would you do it? After all, it's virtual. Just lines of code and pixels on a screen. Or would you assign meaning to the act that made it repellant enough that you chose to stop playing? I suspect that latter. And at that stage, people saying "why are you so hypersensitive" or "you're a hypocrite since you enjoy virtual killing" would be fundamentally missing the point.

A while back Polarity made an excellent post explaining why sometimes it's the little details in game storytelling that cause us more discomfort on a personal level than the overused and desensitised mechanic of killing. Killing stuff is a game mechanic and has been since the inception of videogames. Social commentary has the potential to have a lot more "bite" since it's more relateable to most people's everyday experiences (assuming you don't live in a warzone).

That's all good and well, but also completely internal to the person playing the game.

It's nothing which should entitle him to receive special treatment, which people with equally subjective complaints about how the guns look, or that Elizabeth wasn't getting more frisky with the protagonist, wouldn't be getting. This guy received special treatment because his offence was religious in nature.

Also, people being more sensible to fictional stuff hitting closer to home for them might be natural. That doesn't make them happily engaging in military shooter genocide - which would hit close to home for others out there - any less hypocritical though.

Hypocrisy is usually all about (re)acting quite differently in regard to things affecting yourself, than you do in regard to them when affecting others. If you'll happily gun your way through some third world village on-screen, only to get offended when the word faggot is thrown out by your soldier character, then a hypocrite is exactly what you are.

Imperator_DK:

Batou667:
...imagine that you were playing a game. It's a violent game, perhaps even more violent than the context requires, but you play anyway and can compartmentalise the bloodshed as being just pixels. Then, there comes a scene in the game where you're expected to take part in a non-lethal act of homophobia or transphobia - possibly you aren't rewarded for this, but you're forced to do it if you want the game to progress. Would you do it? After all, it's virtual. Just lines of code and pixels on a screen. Or would you assign meaning to the act that made it repellant enough that you chose to stop playing? I suspect that latter. And at that stage, people saying "why are you so hypersensitive" or "you're a hypocrite since you enjoy virtual killing" would be fundamentally missing the point.

A while back Polarity made an excellent post explaining why sometimes it's the little details in game storytelling that cause us more discomfort on a personal level than the overused and desensitised mechanic of killing. Killing stuff is a game mechanic and has been since the inception of videogames. Social commentary has the potential to have a lot more "bite" since it's more relateable to most people's everyday experiences (assuming you don't live in a warzone).

That's all good and well, but also completely internal to the person playing the game.

It's nothing which should entitle him to receive special treatment, which people with equally subjective complaints about how the guns look, or that Elizabeth wasn't getting more frisky with the protagonist, wouldn't be getting. This guy received special treatment because his offence was religious in nature.

Also, people being more sensible to fictional stuff hitting closer to home for them might be natural. That doesn't make them happily engaging in military shooter genocide - which would hit close to home for others out there - any less hypocritical though.

Hypocrisy is usually all about (re)acting quite differently in regard to things affecting yourself, than you do in regard to them when affecting others. If you'll happily gun your way through some third world village on-screen, only to get offended when the word faggot is thrown out by your soldier character, then a hypocrite is exactly what you are.

I'd say the reason he got 'special' treatment is because america is the most litigious country in the world and Valve didn't want a PR and legal fight over something so stupid.

Bentusi16:
...
I'd say the reason he got 'special' treatment is because america is the most litigious country in the world and Valve didn't want a PR and legal fight over something so stupid.

And that makes it okay?

The Law of the Jungle might be pervasive, but it is hardly just.

Bentusi16:
Also it's a videogame. No water, actual water, is involved.

And no actual baptism.

Abomination:
I would have refused the refund because I don't care if he didn't buy any video games ever again, he seems the type who doesn't play them very often.

And if he's the type of person who gets offended by irrelevant bullshit like that, maybe he shouldn't play them very often.

Helmholtz Watson:
Tell the to the fans of Mass Effect that wanted Shepherd to be gay, despite the fact that it never came up in the past games.

Commander Shepard isn't a well-defined character. You can choose Shepard's personality, beliefs, and motives. Although given a background, its not very detailed, allowing you to fill in the blanks, and whether the situation in which Shepard was raised to adulthood, and the defining career moment, affect them and how, if at all. Commander Shepard is hardly defined, and for the most part, there's only a few things the player can't choose:

1. Whether or not to give up the struggle against the Reapers and Saren's forces
2. Whether or not to cooperate with the Alliance
3. Whether or not to go AWOL and cooperate with Cerberus
4. To senseless attack people on the street for lols like in Grand Theft Auto

Everything else I can think of is up in the air, and can be decided by the player at whim, including some aspects of Shepard's sexuality, including sexual orientation. It makes little sense not to include Shepard as being homosexual or bisexual, seeing as Shepard is a blank slate, a placeholder for the character, or if the player wishes, a character they choose their actions for and observe the results. If you think there's little-to-no difference between player input with Commander Shepard and player input with Booker DeWitt, you've got a sore appreciation of both role-playing design and the writers of Bioshock Infinite.

As someone who just bought the game and has not yet finished it, I concur that the scene is extremely important to translate the atmosphere and nature of the city he's about to step into. Religion, particularly early 20th century American protestant revivalism, is an extremely common theme throughout the game, particularly the opening scenes, and the religious fervor of the city is readily apparent. They believe they are in heaven, or the closest thing to it, and thus they treat it as if they were a cult.

Aris Khandr:

ninjaRiv:
Wow... Grey tweeted this comment he found on Kotaku

http://kotaku.com/im-so-sick-of-people-trying-to-come-don-on-christians-f-473332739

Yeah, I lost it at "Nudity is far more damaging to a person than violence." No, it isn't. You bloody clown. Seeing a pair of boobs will NEVER damage anyone unless the dancer gets too close and you get slapped in the face with them. I swear, America needs to get over its backwards fear of the human body. YOU LIVE INSIDE ONE.

Yeah, that's when I lost all respect for the guy too.

How the hell is nudity worse than violence? I...I just can't comprehend...The logic...it makes no sense...

One is a natural (but culturally embarrassing) thing. The other is a thing that involves harm to someone. How is the natural thing WORSE? @_@

Damien Granz:
I guess my point was that, he's sort of making a very terrible representation of Christians in general. He's implying that he can't play the game because of Booker's choices conflict with choices as a Christian. I was just pointing out that, killing people, in general for a debt and immolating them and all this other horrible stuff.. should rightfully conflict with his religion long before another baptism.

But I think the point is that nobody thinks it's OK to run around killing real people for entertainment - whether they be Christian, Jewish or atheist. However killing is something we can all enjoy within the context of a videogame, since it's the primary gameplay mechanic in most action games. I expect the guy started playing the game not as a "Christian gamer" but as "a gamer who happens to be Christian", if you see the distinction - he knows the killing isn't real, it's not going to change the way he thinks about treating his fellow man in real life, so why worry. Only when a much more personal and real-life issue comes up does it snap the guy out of his suspension of disbelief and make him say "hey, this isn't cool".

I'm glad you didn't take my use of you as an example the wrong way. Let me give you an example about me - I understand that Bioshock Infinite features some quite caricatured themes of racism and I think Yahtzee made some reference to interracial couples being stoned to death, or whatever. I have no idea if this was him talking figuratively or if this actually features in the game, but if it does, I can say fairly certainly that this would probably bother me more than the killing. I'm in an interracial relationship and when me and my girlfriend go out, some steampunk sky-pirate jumping up and killing us is rarely a concern. Being the potential targets of racist verbal abuse (and trust me, black people and white people alike are capable of some pretty ugly views about "race mixing") is a much more immediate and plausible concern. Therefore, the racial aspect is a lot more relevant to me, a lot more personal, and would put me off the game a lot more readily than some cartoonishly gory gunfighting.

Another paraphrase from Polarity: I play games for escapism, not to be reminded of unpleasant real-world issues. I hope that makes some sense?

:( You've depressed me.

Nah, don't be. The fact that we live in a society where violence and killing is uncommon enough for it to be considered suitable material for escapism and entertainment is surely quite encouraging? And when people do die, we collectively feel very upset by it, the Boston bombings being a case in point. Those aren't the actions of a society that's become cynical or desensitised.

Imperator_DK:
If you'll happily gun your way through some third world village on-screen, only to get offended when the word faggot is thrown out by your soldier character, then a hypocrite is exactly what you are.

I see your logic but it doesn't hold up within the context of videogames. Killing in games isn't necessarily an act of brutalism or bloodshed, it's a win/lose mechanic that benefits from being immediate, intuitive and self-explanatory - think Space Invaders or Pac Man.

Let's take your logic and run with it. Killing a human is bad, right? Killing an animal would be less bad. Non-lethally harming a human or animal would be less bad still.

So which would you feel more comfortable playing: Medal of Honor 7 or Cat Torture Simulator 2014?

aegix drakan:
Yeah, that's when I lost all respect for the guy too.

How the hell is nudity worse than violence? I...I just can't comprehend...The logic...it makes no sense...

One is a natural (but culturally embarrassing) thing. The other is a thing that involves harm to someone. How is the natural thing WORSE? @_@

Well, actually it's explained nicely here:

Batou667:
...
I see your logic but it doesn't hold up within the context of videogames. Killing in games isn't necessarily an act of brutalism or bloodshed, it's a win/lose mechanic that benefits from being immediate, intuitive and self-explanatory - think Space Invaders or Pac Man.

Let's take your logic and run with it. Killing a human is bad, right? Killing an animal would be less bad. Non-lethally harming a human or animal would be less bad still.

So which would you feel more comfortable playing: Medal of Honor 7 or Cat Torture Simulator 2014?

Well, having a fondness for the unusual, there's no way I wouldn't check out a title called Cat Torture Simulator 2014 (...might be pretty innocent).

I wouldn't be uncomfortable playing either, though cat torture might elicit a subjective reaction. A reaction which is 100 % illogical and subjective, meaning it'd be hypocritical for me to argue from it. If I bought Cat Torture Simulator without noticing that it might feature animal cruelty, and then tried to get a refund in the form of Medal of Honor 7, then everyone would have every right to call me a hypocrite.

I might feel worse to me, but there's no logic to the claim that it actually is worse. If I wanted a refund based on something which would be bad in real life going on on-screen, while being fine with something that'd be even worse, that'd be hypocritical. Emotions are of no relevance to that.

Was the gamer a Christian that was simply offended that a forced baptism was conducted? It seems that they have a place in history - there's a book called "Forced Baptisms: Histories of Jews, Christians, and Converts in Papal Rome" by Marina Caffiero, for one interesting look on the topic. There is also a Wiki on the practice of forced conversion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion

So it seems that this is something that a Christian would need to at least historically acknowledge did happen (I'm not sure about any happening at the Battle of Wounded Knee - but hey) - though I can understand that it might be uncomfortable to confront that part of your religion's past.

Wow. It's been a year since I've posted here. What is it with me popping up in April. Gnomes bloom in Spring?

Obviously there isn't anything in the Quran which says that a Muslim's avatar can't have a Christian baptism in a virtual world so technically his views don't have any theological grounding. But hey, if that's how he wants to interpret his religion then he has every right to- He's hardly the first Muslim to make a strange interpretation of Islam.

I'm a Christian myself, but I'm not entirely sure why the scene would offend him so much. Later in the game you find out that Columbia/Comstock's version of Christianity is mixed with early 20th century racism and contributes to their anti-foreigner, anti-minority, anti-labor philosophy, but that early in the game (at the time of the baptism), it just seems like some over passionate Great Awakening preacher just wants to baptize you.

I guess maybe the fact that you have to roleplay a guy who doesn't believe in baptism, but does it out of convenience to get into the city, can be offensive to some people.

Nickolai77:
Obviously there isn't anything in the Quran which says that a Muslim's avatar can't have a Christian baptism in a virtual world so technically his views don't have any theological grounding. But hey, if that's how he wants to interpret his religion then he has every right to- He's hardly the first Muslim to make a strange interpretation of Islam.

I also thought he was Muslim first (due to the Allah comparison), but actually he's a Christian who is upset about being virtually baptized into Christianity.

I'm gonna file this under "confirms every stereotype I have previously considered about freakishly religious people" and never think about it again until the next time someone else reconfirms it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked