Catholics, Buddhists Join Hindu Protests Against Smite

[vid87]

Should we be happy that stupid crap like this is actually bringing about some form of religious harmony? Glass half-full and all that?

 

[FEichinger]

Because it fits:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/8161-39

Anyways ... I do get the drift, but yet again, it's an overreaction (and I'm not sure whether the Catholic church just uses this as an opportunity to fix their "reputation" o.o)

 

[Fapmaster5000]

Because it fits:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/8161-39

Anyways ... I do get the drift, but yet again, it's an overreaction (and I'm not sure whether the Catholic church just uses this as an opportunity to fix their "reputation" o.o)

I think the Catholic Church (despite reputation, it's filled with some really smart people) is looking at this as a legal ground game. If Smite flies against the Hindu faith, then the next step is the Abrahamic religions, which means Smite 2.0 will have Jesus and Mohammed in a slap-fight. The Catholic Church obviously doesn't want this, so it picks the early fight on someone else's turf, joining into a united front to build consensus.

Enlightened self interest and establishing precedent. Maybe even honest respect, but definitely the first two.

 

[starwarsgeek]

I get the idea behind this outcry: people of the Hindu faith don't want to see their religion treated as a toy. Gaming has yet to treat the topic of religion well. I don't think they're reacting the right way though. Encourage people to ignore the game, and hold it up as an example on not treating the topic properly. After all, I don't remember a huge deal being made about Final Fantasy 10.

Final Fantasy tends to just toss "impressive" names onto unrelated creatures. It probably never even popped onto their radar. Smite, on the other hand, is directly marketing "Play as this god/goddess and whup some divine ass!" It's a little more... direct.

It's the difference between someone saying they "banged ur mom" and that person creating a lifelike inflatable doll of your mother, banging it, and then mailing you the explicit video, complete with recorded sounds of your mother's orgasm. One, most people would brush off, the other, people might care about.

Not saying I disagree with Smite, I've had friends say the test runs were a lot of fun, but there is a matter of perspective to consider for those who don't share our worldview.

I'm not talking about impressive sounding names, but the story of FFX.

Spoiler

Yuna has the power to send trapped souls to the afterlife, walks on water, and is on a journey to sacrifice herself to save the world....from sin. She is clearly meant to be a Christ figure. As you progress, you interact more with the local Church, find out the not-Bishops are purposefully keeping the cycle of sin alive, and Yevon, their God, is the true source of sin, because he didn't want the world to advance passed the medieval age. The key to stopping sin is not sacrifice, but killing Yevon.

Any of these factors alone could have been unintended. After all, Christ figures are easy symbolism, and Final Fantasy loves rebelling against the establishment. However, with all of these together, it seems unlikely that "abandon the Church because it is holding us back" is not the intended message of the game.

.

 

[Don Savik]

You should respect people's choice to religion yes....

but should you defaultly respect religion?

I think the answer is no. Nobody should be forced to agree with religion, even casually. I don't care if religious people get butthurt if I find something fundamentally wrong with their beliefs. If I make something considered "offensive" to a religious figure I have every right to, as does Hi-Rez. Religion loves to censor.

 

[Fapmaster5000]

I get the idea behind this outcry: people of the Hindu faith don't want to see their religion treated as a toy. Gaming has yet to treat the topic of religion well. I don't think they're reacting the right way though. Encourage people to ignore the game, and hold it up as an example on not treating the topic properly. After all, I don't remember a huge deal being made about Final Fantasy 10.

Final Fantasy tends to just toss "impressive" names onto unrelated creatures. It probably never even popped onto their radar. Smite, on the other hand, is directly marketing "Play as this god/goddess and whup some divine ass!" It's a little more... direct.

It's the difference between someone saying they "banged ur mom" and that person creating a lifelike inflatable doll of your mother, banging it, and then mailing you the explicit video, complete with recorded sounds of your mother's orgasm. One, most people would brush off, the other, people might care about.

Not saying I disagree with Smite, I've had friends say the test runs were a lot of fun, but there is a matter of perspective to consider for those who don't share our worldview.

I'm not talking about impressive sounding names, but the story of FFX.

Spoiler

Yuna has the power to send trapped souls to the afterlife, walks on water, and is on a journey to sacrifice herself to save the world....from sin. She is clearly meant to be a Christ figure. As you progress, you interact more with the local Church, find out the not-Bishops are purposefully keeping the cycle of sin alive, and Yevon, their God, is the true source of sin, because he didn't want the world to advance passed the medieval age. The key to stopping sin is not sacrifice, but killing Yevon.

Any of these factors alone could have been unintended. After all, Christ figures are easy symbolism, and Final Fantasy loves rebelling against the establishment. However, with all of these together, it seems unlikely that "abandon the Church because it is holding us back" is not the intended message of the game.

.

Thing is, that's not direct enough. Corrupt churches, false gods, those are all included inside a lot of religious texts. Again, someone could get offended, but it's nowhere near as direct.

Now, if they'd named the Maesters the "College of Cardinals", called Yevon the tetragrammaton, and had you battle the Undead Pope John Paul II, I think it would have gotten more notice.

Personally, I'd have pointed more towards Assassin's Creed II, where you do fist fight the pope, but then again, Borgia was a dick in real life, too, and I don't think the Church wants to fight that battle, and would rather just ignore that entire era.

 

[Azuaron]

--snip--

Science, as you suggested, cannot be copyright. A non-fiction book, a book about science for example, can be copyrighted as a literary work. Again, there's a huge difference. Just as you can't copyright scientific terms, you cannot copyright historical figures, there for if religion is meant to be taken as a work of non-fiction then the figures in it cannot be copyrighted.

Everything you list is copyrighting the authors words; not the people, subjects, etc of the work.

Science can be copyrighted in exactly the manner I suggested: I cannot reproduce an article word-for-word that I did not write without violating copyright law. That's the manner I suggested, and that's how the law works.

And, while you can't copyright historical figures, you can copyright the portrayal of historical figures. For instance, if I take a picture of President Obama, I own the copyright to that picture. No one else can use that picture without my permission.

Likewise, if I write a nonfiction book about Joe Johannasmith, a small town grocer, no one else can write a book about Joe Johannasmith unless they go talk to Joe and people who know Joe and do their own research. If everything they know about Joe was acquired through reading my book, even though everything's nonfiction, I own the copyright to that portrayal of Joe Johannasmith, and no one else can write a book about him without doing independent research.

Beyond that, these religions still came about millennia prior to the invention of copyright law, and even if they weren't, they'd have been put into the public domain shortly (relatively speaking) after their creation.

Jokes aren't funny if you don't have a sense of humor, or if you're a bit slow and they go over your head.

Wow. Ran out of anything of substance to say already, have we?

Well, I'm right, and you're a poopoo head!

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

oh now i definitely hope they include the abrahamic god and include allah incase the muslims wanna protest too.

Aren't they technically the same guy?

Besides ever read the old testament? That guy is so over-powered it's beyond belief, it would ruin the game balance

Yeah, the reaction in this thread seems appropriate if:

-The protesters were issues death threats.
-The protesters were turning this into a crusade.
-The protesters were using "YOU WILL BURN IN HELL, HEATHENS!" language and embarrassing themselves.

Instead, this is a very reasonable "Hey, that's pretty insulting, could you please *not* do that?" There's no crusade, no fatwas, no threats to murder the creators, not even threats of pointless lawsuits. What we're seeing here is a bunch of different religions getting together and agreeing, reasonably, that this is insulting, and standing together on a mutual point, respectfully.

There's a good debate here, but it's NOT on this forum right now. The only juvenile ranting I've seen from this story has been the first page and half of mindless rage.

Escapists, you're better than this.

Could not agree more. I kind of pleased to see religions setting beliefs aside to agree on a matter.

 

[mindlesspuppet]

--snip--

Science, as you suggested, cannot be copyright. A non-fiction book, a book about science for example, can be copyrighted as a literary work. Again, there's a huge difference. Just as you can't copyright scientific terms, you cannot copyright historical figures, there for if religion is meant to be taken as a work of non-fiction then the figures in it cannot be copyrighted.

Everything you list is copyrighting the authors words; not the people, subjects, etc of the work.

Science can be copyrighted in exactly the manner I suggested: I cannot reproduce an article word-for-word that I did not write without violating copyright law. That's the manner I suggested, and that's how the law works.

For like the third time, that's not copyrighting science, it's copyrighting a scientific writing. Is the concept that hard to grasp? You cannot copyright a formula, equation, even a theory, you can however copyright writing or other works based on such topics.

It's not in anyway the same thing as copyrighting the science itself. If you can't understand this you're hopeless.

And, while you can't copyright historical figures, you can copyright the portrayal of historical figures. For instance, if I take a picture of President Obama, I own the copyright to that picture. No one else can use that picture without my permission.

Yes, no shit. I already said this. You aren't copyrighting the historical figure but rather the work the figure was part of.

If you copyright a photo you are not copyrighting the president's image but rather an image, a composition, of him. You are copyrighting the artistic work.

Likewise, if I write a nonfiction book about Joe Johannasmith, a small town grocer, no one else can write a book about Joe Johannasmith unless they go talk to Joe and people who know Joe and do their own research. If everything they know about Joe was acquired through reading my book, even though everything's nonfiction, I own the copyright to that portrayal of Joe Johannasmith, and no one else can write a book about him without doing independent research.

It's almost like I said "everything you list is copyrighting the authors words; not the people, subjects, etc of the work,", and you either didn't get it or just skipped over it. But way to type out a paragraph confirming what I've already wrote, it often helps an argument flow when the person I'm arguing against reiterates my point for me.

snip...

Wow. Ran out of anything of substance to say already, have we?

Well, I'm right, and you're a poopoo head!

I made my point, several times, no more substance needed. Perhaps you just don't see how saying one can "copyright science" is incorrect (how stupid it sounds), or even how vastly different it is than saying "copyright scientific works", which is valid.

I'm sure you'll respond with some more examples which do nothing to illustrate your point and everything to illustrate my own. Perhaps you'll try to claim that it's all semantics -- it's not at all -- in order to get away without yolk on your face. Either way, feel free to get the last word.

 

[kouriichi]

GG Game Developer? Creates a game with Gods, to bring religions to a peaceful middle ground?

OT: I think they need to get off their golden thrones and shove it. While i believe disrespecting someones religion is wrong, they arnt doing that. I see nothing wrong with them featuring deities from fictional stories in a neutral light. Its not like theyre cursing, having sex or murdering children.

As of this very moment, Hi-rez is doing nothing wrong. So long as they keep it in a semi-respectful or satirical light, i will support them.

 

[Azuaron]

--snip--

A scientific work is science. Science is also other things, but a work of science, is, by definition, science. When I say that science is copyrightable in the exact manner I explained, and when I explained I used an example of the copyrightability of a scientific work in the JPSP, I mean that science is copyrightable in the exact manner I explained (i.e., a scientific work being copyrightable).

I honestly can't tell if you're intentionally or unintentionally dense; I'm almost hoping for the former at this point.

It seems strange to me that you're claiming I've made your point, except your point was:

If religious texts were classified as fiction, then they could be copyrighted.

But I have shown (repeatedly!) that this is not the case, as religious texts are both too old and (typically) represent the sole source of information for the figures displayed within, and, therefore, any media using those figures would be using the text itself as their sole source, and would, thus, be violating the copyright of that text, regardless of whether the figures within are historical.

 

[Worgen]

*snip*

Thank you mr. downer face! Now Imma have to go watch some silly videos to make myself feel better again. And that is also blatantly wrong and a gross oversimplification.

Last time I recall hearing about all them working together, it was to make it illegal for anyone to say anything bad about religion.

Also, so you get some of the happy you need.
Here is a dancing Luna.

 

[piinyouri]

There you have it.
Video games, a medium religion has been at odds with for sometime, just brought one religion together with another who on any other day would describe the other with words including but not limited to:
heathen, blasphemous, sinful, idolizing, false



I don't know how to feel about this.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

There is nothing hypocritical about that. Just because speech is free and unrestricted doesn't mean all speech is a good idea. Just because they legally can complain about it does not mean they ought to. There's nothing wrong with telling someone to shut the hell up, at least not in-and-of-itself. And if I think it's a good idea to complain about one product for a particular reason in a particular instance that doesn't mean I have to approve of all complaining for any reason forevermore Amen.

A simple question: Do you even comprehend how dissonant the inciting statement was?

Let me lay it out for you.

"I can say anything I want about it whenever I want to. So please, go cry in the corner silently."

I can say anything I want about it whenever I want to. --> This indicates that the speaker takes pride in his free speech, and doesn't care who it hurts or offends. While this is legal under the Constitution, with certain very tight restrictions (assuming America here, based on previous discussion, but many other countries possess very similar laws), it is still highly juvenile. Empathy and enlightened self-interest are basic steps in human development, after all.

So please, go cry in the corner silently. --> This indicates that the speaker DOES NOT WISH to hear any other points of view: that the speaker does not respect the rights of others to enjoy the same free he/she enjoys. This is not only juvenile, it speaks of a lack of basic understanding and comprehension of the very purpose of the right of free speech.

On topic: Can Smite be made? Absolutely. Should it be? That's the debate. Obviously, some feel it should be, others disagree, but the artist will produce, and that will be that. What in here required such ferocity?

Now, on to your statement. Throughout much of it, you seem to express the same inability to comprehend that rights for you mean rights for others, and that speech you agree with is not the speech that needs protected most, but rather, it is unpopular speech that needs sanctuary, but I'll assume I'm simply reading your post incorrectly, and focus on this line:

Just because speech is free and unrestricted doesn't mean all speech is a good idea.

Wonderful. Now, oh wise councilor, can you please tell me which speech you deem appropriate?

Now, I'm not going to disagree. There is dangerous speech (Yelling "fire" in the theater, perhaps, or revealing information about national security.) but these boundaries are very tightly kept by the supreme legal authorities in a free land. What part of "We disagree" requires that society slam down upon them with the burning censor stamp?

I'm waiting eagerly for your reply.

I understand that you think that statement is dissonant. I believe I even understand why you think that. The statement "So please, go cry in the corner silently" does not mean the speaker does not wish to hear any other point of view, it means he does not approve of a particular view. And it certainly does not display a lack of respect for anyone's rights. For them and their views, sure.

In other words, you are turning 'he doesn't agree with me!' into 'he doesn't respect my freedom of speech!'. Please spare me the straw man about my infringing anybody's free speech. No one is trying to censor you or anybody. I hardly thought "just because speech is free and unrestricted doesn't mean all speech is a good idea" would be a point of controversy. That is not a call for censorship as you seem to believe. In fact the statement assumes the premise that speech is free and unrestricted. Doesn't say a thing about whether it should be.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

-- snip--

There is nothing hypocritical about that. Just because speech is free and unrestricted doesn't mean all speech is a good idea. Just because they legally can complain about it does not mean they ought to. There's nothing wrong with telling someone to shut the hell up, at least not in-and-of-itself. And if I think it's a good idea to complain about one product for a particular reason in a particular instance that doesn't mean I have to approve of all complaining for any reason forevermore Amen.

There are many ways to express the view that something someone else has said is disagreeable to you, incorrect, or, even, probably shouldn't have been said. Many of these ways can be expressed without making you a hypocrite.

When someone criticizes what you say, and your response is, "I can say what I want, so shut up," you're a hypocrite. It's really about understanding one's personal rights but not extending that understanding to others that makes one a hypocrite in this instance.

Beyond that, other than our one disagreement about what constitutes hypocrisy, we seem to be saying the same thing--if you'd read the part of my post about disagreeable jackasses, you'd know I already brought up a number of the points that you did, and also basically told a number of people that they shouldn't be saying what they were saying, but did so in a way that did not impugn their right to say it or make me a hypocrite.

And, this is getting somewhat recursive, but but if you think it's a good idea to complain about one product for a particular reason in a particular instance, whether or not you approve of other complaints towards other products is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not people should be allowed to complain about products.

Saying that one view should be expressed and one shouldn't is not in-and-of-itself hypocritical. And there is certainly no abridgement of freedom of speech here, explicit or implied. To tell someone to shut up is not to impugn their freedoms. To force them to shut up would be. They have the right to speech, they don't have the right to a captive audience.

I did read your whole post of course, but I did not understand how you were reconciling some of the things you said so I just stated the parts I thought were relevant. Sorry if it was redundant or misleading. I don't understand your last paragraph, of course people should be allowed to complain about products. But that doesn't mean a particular complaint is necessarily a good one that demands redress.

 

[Saxnot]

so after reading this, i had an idea for a mozes character. now i have to admit i don't know what their skill structure is, so i'm sort of basing this on LoL/Dota.

skill 1: Let my peeople go. mozes places an area of effect radius where two walls of water appear. after 3 seconds the walls collapse, damaging all enemies within the radius.

Skill 2: March trough the desert. slows and damages all enemy players in a radius around him.

Skill 3: Thou shalt not. mozes throws two slabs of rock in a skillshot which damage and stun the target.

ultimate skill: seven plagues. a channeling skill where seven plagues hit the enemy in rapid succession. (some of the would be easy from a visual perspective, like having the enemy attacked by locusts, others more difficult, like turning the nile into blood or killing his firstborn)

i'm thinking he'll be a nuke/control character.
what do you think? any other biblical figures to make characters out of?

 

[maninahat]

Everyone can and should appreciate my avatar. You know, I was just about to change it to something from league of legends as I have become addicted to that game, but now it just wouldn't be right. Thank you for showing me the way individual who is apparently chilly chill.

You must keep the Rail Tracer. While Vino is an amazing character, Firo just takes the hat for me. That green fedora and suit...oh man...

Pah, Ladd Russo all the way.

Anyway - the problem with these issues is basically that if you aren't especially religious, you're less likely to see the big deal. That doesn't mean you should think it's a big deal, but it means you're at a disadvantage when it comes to deciding how outraged other people should be.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

If your God didn't like it, he would stop it himself/herself. Or just rest easy knowing that Hi-Rez and all SMITE players will burn alive forever and all eternity in hell, amen.

 

[joeman098]

people need to stop being offended by shit. It offends me that they are offended so whos right? who gets to be offended. I can never understand why people feel the need to push what offends them away. if anything offends me I tend to stay away from it and ignore it. For example the way COD is monetized though map after map offends the hell out of me so guess what I dont play it I dont buy it. I dont go on a rampage trying to Ban cod cause it offends me.