In the case of Sony Corp. vs. God, the court finds...

I've definitely been bitten by the retro-gaming bug again. It happens every summer. I've spent the entire day poking around eBay auctions. I'll be completely broke and surrounded by tat by the end of the week, just you wait.


Those of you keeping up with video game news will be aware of the storm that the Church of England is kicking up over Sony's inclusion of Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man. Sony has apologised, twice it seems, but the Church still isn't fully satisfied. Well, they never are but that's not the point.

Headlines always amuse me. I can't look at newspapers without laughing these days. The local papers are often the best (the Troon Times and the Ayrshire Post, the former usually more so than the latter) with their hugely melodramatic phrases printed in some randomly changing font. The national papers generally make some sort of sense but their habit of putting a headline next to an unrelated picture, separated by a tiny line, can lead to some interesting suggestions.

Anyway, to tie back into my original topic, there have been some great headlines on this affair. I saw one yesterday, "Sony says sorry in cathedral violence row" (paraphrasing a bit), which seemed to imply that Sony had actually started some form of riot in the church. Today, BBC News give us "Sony 'sorry' over cathedral game". I love the implication that the entire game is based around cathedrals.

On a related (you'll see) note, the woodle for today is delayed owing to a brilliant idea. More tomorrow.

Steering away from the headlines, I've just read some of the articles on this. Turns out that the church has decided that an apology isn't enough and they are still demanding that the game be withdrawn from sale and that all developers adhere to strict guidelines for the treatment of religious sites in future games.

I could've sworn there was something in the Bible about forgiveness but these guys are the experts. Or maybe they're just money-grubbing, publicity-seeking zealots jumping on the gamer hatred band wagon. But, hey, judge not, etc.

The term "virtual desecration" has been bandied about a lot. It looks like a lot of pressure is being brought to bare on Sony over this. They've issued an apology but the Church of England is still demanding the withdrawal of the game (do they have any idea how hard that would be?), that Sony give a substantial donation to the community groups nominated by the cathedral and that they sign up to new "Sacred Digital Guidelines" which have yet to be finalised.

Withdrawing a flagship title from shelves would be extremely bad for Sony, which explains their reluctance on that front. Giving to charity is a very worthy and noble thing. Telling someone "give money to charity or we'll sue your ass" is not. The idea of "Sacred Digital Guidelines" makes me laugh. Just how widespread is this epidemic of exact CGI clones of real-life religious structures being used in violent video games? I can think of this case and no others. Plus, "Sacred Digital Guidelines" just sounds ridiculously pompous. It sounds like they should include rules about not formatting floppies on a Sunday and cleaning CDs with holy water.

I don't mean to demean the church or anything (I have to say that in case I get sued). I just hope this doesn't spiral out of control and reach the levels of "game burning" events at churches up and down the country.

And so, I leave you with a question.

If Sony have truly desecrated a religious monument then they should technically be spending eternity in hell. Why rub it in with litigation? That's just mean.