1337mokro said:
Scorpid said:
1337mokro said:
Scorpid said:
1337mokro said:
Scorpid said:
1337mokro said:
Scorpid said:
1337mokro said:
rcs619 said:
felbot said:
Seriously though, if Smite offends these guys, their heads are going to explode whenever they find out about the Shin Megami Tensei series. lol
LOL
Oh I had a good laugh when I read that.
But seriously people stop being butthurt over a game. First of all it's not slandering your religion it's just using figures as heroes. Second of all your religion is not protected from slander.
I can say anything I want about it whenever I want to. So please, go cry in the corner silently.
Sigh... So it's okay if gamers get offended when Samus takes a character turn that they don't appreciate, but a religion getting offended that their gods, that they hold as absolute truth, are getting put into a fighting game where they can lose to another religions god is just them being bitchy and not knowing that they've already lost?
Personally I can see their point and sort of agree with them, I certainly wouldn't want to see my mother or father or some other person I hold near and dear getting their face beaten in by someone as a game. Though Hindus and Buddhists getting together for something isn't at all surprising for anyone that has studied Indian history for more then five minutes.
Did I say that? No. You brought that up. So let's now examine that ans see how wrong you are.
When those gamers raised hell, what were their complaints. "Samus is made into a completely different character than previous games" or "The way Samus bows down to Adam is down right disgusting".
What they didn't say was "Because we believe Samus is a Supreme almighty Goddess she should never be used in any media unless it is depicted according to our very narrow standards of what is correct".
You compare a religious group complaining about their deities being used in a commercial product which they perceive as slanderous with a group of gamers who didn't like changes made between games.
Just to give you a personal opinion here.
What I didn't like about Other M was the abusive relationship between our two main characters, culminating in a stand off where a woman gets shot for being "disobedient".
Yay feminism!
I didn't play other M. My point is that people were upset, and you amongst them, that the character took a change they didn't like, that they felt she was misrepresented as a character on who she is at a fundamental level. Do I agree or disagree? I have no idea because I didn't play the game and I'm not a particular fan of Samus or side scrolling platforming that brought about her fame, but I do think your opinion certainly seems reasoned and shouldn't be mocked with statements like your very own above.
So now if we bring it back to people angry that their gods are being used in a fighting game to beat each other up, gods and religions by extension that people base their lives around and whose teachings they follow to some degree or another shouldn't be dismissed because it's a religion saying it, as you seem inclined to do.
Atheists sometime seem to have this view that they're absolutely right and where ever there is disagreement with their point of view that it should be put down with all the indignant rage they can muster against it without even a seemly consideration for the consequences of their what they say and do... or at least the majority I know. I'm not religious but being grouped with people like that is simply miserable to consider.
BUT most of all because you have a right to speak that alone should obligate you to feel it necessary to speak with some consideration of what you're saying and how it effects people, otherwise dialogue will just dissolve into shouting matches at an impasse which serves no purpose except to entrench ideologies with us vs them mentality being the first and last reason for anything said.
CAPTCHA: Silence is gold
(Most certainly...)
Then you should. Never use something as an example without actually playing it. It sets you up with a huge disadvantage as being merely an outsider who observes a group of people shouting aloud about how much a game sucks.
Let's take a look at what you misunderstood.
You think that my motivation is because it's religion you can freely mock it because it isn't real. That is incorrect.
My stance is that anything is free game for creative purposes. Religion is not a shield that protects you from that. Just because someone believes some being really exists doesn't mean we have to tip toe around them for the sake of their feelings.
That is nonsense. If I see someone who holds a belief that the earth is flat should I now never be able to point that out? Whatever medium I choose is wrong now because he might get offended that I dare to use his ideas for the purpose of entertainment or criticism.
Silence is indeed golden, but ducktape is silver, even the ducktape used by the protestors.
THERE WE GO! Now we're having something resembling debate ^_^
First off the example I used I didn't use for the content it I used it for the reaction by your group to a character they cared about. I didn't take an opinion for or against your own in your opinion of Other M. IF I was arguing that Other M represented accurately Samus and revealed that I hadn't ever played the game or any Metroid game then OH CERTAINLY your argument would sink my own like the Hindenburg, just fire and complete destruction. But that's not what I'm arguing, I was using it as an example of something you might of felt justified in debating and contrasting it to this debate over whether or not if the same holds true. Your conclusion in your case of Metroid was, to paraphrase "It most certainly is worth debating because I care about the character and wish to see some consistency in her motivations and attitudes." While on the other hand you argued that "But seriously people stop being butthurt over a game. First of all it's not slandering your religion it's just using figures as heroes. Second of all your religion is not protected from slander. I can say anything I want about it whenever I want to. So please, go cry in the corner silently."
Are you a follower of Hinduism Catholicism or Buddhism if not then by your own logic with Other M you don't have ground stand on to debate this issue. Since I've already said why I think they should be able to get this issue brought up we'll move past that. My issue secondly and the one you don't seem to appreciate was that your argument was both unintentionally(I hope) injudicious AND hypocritical when compared to another debate in video games. Well informed reasoned arguments that don't insult the audience and is at least some what consistent with what the speaker says isn't up for debate, it's public speaking 101 something you should understand because as you've said you have a right to speak so you should absolutely do it well. And this isn't aimed exclusively at you either it's aimed squarely at anyone that uses your style of debate of belittling the other side into submission while apply ZERO introspection into their own argument, more specifically atheists who believe that their opinions above reproach. `
snip
snip
Apparently you are not smart enough to get that "Jesus story 2006" is just a parody video game title and it implies the entire bible. Not to mention that apparently the only people who are capable of forming an opinion about religion HAVE to be part of that religion.
I am a little fuzzy on the whole good bad "only people who are capable"... part... Having of studied many religions over the years I have formed plenty of opinions concerning the how's and why's of various faiths. Unless your being facetious... which (come to think of it) I think you are. Nicely done.
My comment about Other M was, you have no idea why people were outraged, because you haven't played the game, you don't know what is in the content.
I simply found Other M to be a classic example of weakly written Japanese narrative. It is surprisingly difficult to write for a female lead character on the one hand, on the other, the writer's really didn't know what to do with the character outside of make her submissive in the context of Japanese culture... as he saw it. It's video games, I would think at this point we are all accustomed to incredibly bad writing. The need for a love interest was redundant in the context of the character... just another narrative brick that dragged the game down.
I on the other hand know why these people are outraged and have also played the game. They are pissed because their deities are depicted in a game where they fight each other. They aren't pissed because their deities were given completely different characters from sequel to sequel. They aren't complaining that the depiction of Kali The Destroyer <- is uncharacteristic to the source material.
That assumes they have actually played it. I doubt this. This group as I mentioned in previous post have protested other commercial products that use Hindu deities in the naming structure. They seem to have a problem with "fair use", more than "context". Feel free too look it up.
You are comparing a group complaining about the depiction of an established character to a group who are complaining simply because the game depicts their deities. That is your logical fallacy. One isn't protesting the depiction of a character but the way the character was depicted in consistency with PREVIOUS depictions. The other is protesting the mere presence of their deities in the game itself.
It's this... the protest is about the depiction of the deities or naming structure associated with anything in a commercial setting. There is evidence to support this thesis. They just happened to have picked on this, I suspect someone sent them something to get them upset to push the marketing for the game... but that is just a guess.
You can have an opinion on how something should be depicted sure. However what you can have but I will never allow you to enforce is the opinion that something should NEVER be depicted. That is the difference my good man. You seem to be nicely entrenched in Other M but you seem to forget not a single complaint actually read "They should never depict Samus in a game".
Had a similar thought above myself... respect where people are coming from, disagree with the conclusion. As I recalled I had mentioned if this was "India" this game could not be made, as it would of been censured without debate.
That is the demand posed by the Buddhists. Depicting their supreme beings in a videogame trivializes them they say therefore it should not be done.
I detailed above some very grievous issues I have with this "so called" Buddhist Reverend. I have since contacted his Sanga and asked him to explain his position concerning both the "Shame" of the developers, and the "Supreme Beings" comment.
He apparently was trained in Soto Zen, and now teaches at a Jodo (pure land Mahayana) school. To reference your previous comment, yes, I have trained for many years in Soto and the comment about respecting Supreme Beings is a Spock "Eyebrow Raiser". So far my investigation has revealed that Mr. Phil is not qualified to hold the position that he claims under either lineage, and that he has chosen to be a "Reverend" for tax exemption purposes. He has never been "ordained" by a Soto or Jodo lineage.
He is "just some guy" playing Buddhist in a "Sanga" which is a building of about 10-20 people that "study" there. The difficulty with westernized Jodo is that it is often confused as being compatible or even "Christian" in is etymology. I suspect it was his dislike for Soto (which is inherently atheist) and went to Jodo with in about a year. The other issue with this is that to become a "teacher" in this case requires about 8 years give or take... this is of course not the case, his transition was less than a year... when his teacher passed away. He took on the sanga.
He is technically teaching Buddhism such as the noble eight-fold path, and methodologies of arising, BUT the context is (in my estimation) in error. His Buddhism more closely resembles that of an Indian Buddhist amalgamated with Hinduism and it's pantheon. I'm thinking this modification is in part an attempt to get into this Unitarian religious club in Reno.
Zen - in general - has little to no use for deities, spirits, nonsense, mumbo jumbo, and certainly has no tenant for "Respecting Supreme Beings" of other faiths. The very idea of a mind concocting such an entity is in and of itself a sign of a deluded mind outside of the Dharma.
That one should seek a stillness and equanimity (in an effort for self-liberation), is certainly a part of zazen and sesshin, but to condemn someone outside of "personal experience", a product outside of "personal experience", on a topic outside of "personal experience" is a big no-no. It's intellectually dishonest, contrary to this form of practice.
However let's just get on to the actual meat of the matter here.
I don't HAVE to defend myself for the simple reason that I refuse to abide by other people dictating what can and cannot be depicted in a game, book, movie, song, cartoon or even a child's scribbling in the corner of his notebook.
There IS no discussion because I refuse to accept any circumstance where I cannot touch a subject because it is Divine, Sensitive or simply Off Limits. I refuse to compromise on any front to make you feel better now that people aren't talking or depicting what you believe in any form of media.
That is not going to happen.
Sounds good to me.
People campaigning for limitations on this are not worthy of going in debate with. They DEMAND I have respect and reference for their beliefs when nothing merits that. They demand everyone else mind them and not thread on their toes. They have already lost by demanding things from me they have not earned and go even further by demanding that everyone on earth abide by their desires.
The audacity and arrogance is astounding. To demand that everyone, regardless of their own believes to respect and honour your beliefs and prevent them from being used for any purposes but your own.
Part of this comes from a fairly right wing approach to Hinduism and by that Brahmanism which implies that the depiction of a God or whatever does "enact" the God, like a summon. It's a belief that is of course trope in SMT.
I have never met a teacher of Japanese flavored Buddhism that ever believed such a thing... well until now... which is why I question the "Japan Buddhism" of it. Being completely honest, I am mildly shocked at his comment.
As far as the Hindu practitioners, they seem to come in two flavors... easy going, and right wing. Most the ones I know are easy going, having of only met one right winger we went our separate ways pretty quickly.
Most the Catholics that I have encountered perceive Buddhism as Gnostic at best, and borderline (or outright) Satanism at worst. Takes all kinds to make a world I suppose.
Well guess what, if you really believe we should all mind these people so much and carefully thread around them let me start a new Church of Kali In Videogames. We have only one rule. Kali must be included in every videogame ever made, even retro-actively. Not having Shiva in a game offends me and I am going to protest that every game, no matter whether it needs to or not, includes a playable Kali character.
You had me at nonsense.
Take it easy.
