Following on from the recent conflict between the Church of England and the inclusion of a digital representation of Manchester cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man, it’s probably worth looking at the issues surrounding using real-life locations in games. As Sony and the Church are in talks to resolve this one, I won’t comment on this particular instance, but as luck would have it there have been more than enough examples of gaming coming into contact with the real-life settings for their games. For example in the last year we’ve seen:
1) Rainbow Six: Vegas was criticised for featuring Las Vegas in the game. The mayor of Vegas Oscar Goodman said that the whole game was “based on a false premise”
2) Another Ubisoft title and another mayor clash as the mayor of Juarez, Mexico objects to most of GRAW 2 being set in the town.
3) Of course, Rockstar Games managed to draw the attention of New York’s authorities over the location for GTA: IV, even though it’s supposedly set in fictional Liberty City. It didn’t help that the trailer for the game featured photo-realistic representations of New York landmarks like the Chrysler building. The New York authorities issued a statement saying that GTA IV in New York would be like setting “Halo in Disneyland”.
4) A student was suspended from an American school because he made and distributed a Counterstrike map based on the school premises. Although he made the map a long time before the Virginia Tech shooting and with seemingly no intention of any violence, the two events were linked and he was eventually removed from the school and forbidden from graduating.
And that’s just the start, it seems that any time a game uses a real-life setting, people become uneasy. The comparison that’s made most often is between games to film and television, which use real-world settings all the time. GTA IV is criticised for being set in New York, but the Sopranos is never criticised in the same way. Substitute Rainbow Six:Vegas for the final sequence in Con Air where a plane crashes on the Vegas Strip and you’ll notice that there were no complaints, and so on. In fact, you can probably substitute any other form of media for all the examples above and you’ll notice that the moral outrage was notably lacking
So what’s the difference? Why is gaming held to a higher standard than films or television? Is it that the interactive element is seen as more powerful?
One major difference between games and film is that if you want to film somewhere you need a permit, and to get that permit you will normally have to go over what you’re shooting, and give a plot synopsis. It’s also worth noting that film companies pay to use locations for filming. Therefore not only do the locations get paid, they also get advance warning of what the film will be about.
Games don’t need to do that, they can take images and then map the location from anywhere in the world. So the locations don’t get to look at the plot, and they don’t get paid, it’s no wonder that many of the examples listed above have a slightly different view between games to TV. To be clear, no-one’s suggesting that the lack of a fee is the only difference between locations in games and those in films, but the fact that there is a relationship between films and their locations that you won’t find in games surely makes a difference.
So how to proceed? If I was a game developer, I’d seriously consider going beyond what you have to do legally. Inform the locations as you start making the game, and then offer them a chance to look at the game before it comes out so you can answer their questions. Most people who complain about games aren’t familiar with them, they see them as an alien form of culture that they don’t get. If you show them that your average action game isn’t much different from your average action movie, you’d see less showdowns. Even people who don’t like action movies at least understand them, you can’t really say the same with games.
It comes down to what people think games are, and people who don’t play them seem to think of them as in being in a different class to everything else you can do on a TV screen. Why not show them that they’re, for the most part, wrong in believing that?
Of course the other alternative is that games developers deliberately stir up controversy to build up a buzz around their titles, but that just doesn’t sound likely…
By Chris Blenkarn

I don’t see the problem with using real life locations. It’s not like it’ll make us want to go shoot up the place for real.
If anything, I’d want to go see the places I’ve played in for real, as nothing compares to the real thing.
Comment by Youlikeyams — Jun 14, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
I totally agree with this, game developers don’t make games with the intention of brainwashing people into going round cities as an anti-terror squad and shooting up the place or starting a crime spree, if people copy games by doing this sort of thing it’s not the games fault, it is the person who plays it who decides to take it into real life.
Comment by Stuart Courts — Jun 14, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
I don’t think that Rockstar sat down during development and said ‘Alright, let’s poke the political beehive by making our next game take place in NYC!” but they’re not dumb enough to ignore the potential problems it was bound to cause. That being said, the old GTA took place in London, if I’m not mistaken. Granted, there was NO photo realism in that game, but the embedded violence was definitely still there.
The Church of England are most likely jumping on the band-wagon. I’m glad I renounced my religious association with them many years ago (long live Norse-Paganism!)
Comment by Bleak Harvest — Jun 14, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
Good point, I think improvements in graphics are the main fuel for this fire. Provided devs get appropriate permissions before hand I can’t see this being too much of a problem in the future.
Comment by Ben Furneaux — Jun 14, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
I just think a non gamer which most of these people are who scream and shout about games being bad just really dont have ANY idea or respect for gaming so in a way i see why the hell so many people are quick to blame gaming for violence, bad portrail etc..
Film is a extremely established entertainment format where people wont think twice about the gore, violence etc in a film as “its just a film you know!”
Gaming isnt really at that level and so i think it will nieve of us for people to have the same attitude towards games.
As for the solution.. oh this i dont really know.. maybe it just takes time.
Comment by Ricky — Jun 14, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
To comment on the ‘4′ in your numbered list:
That’s just about the dumbest thing I’ve heard all week. I can’t believe that kid can’t graduate from high school because he made a model of his school for a game. Doing that shows no evidence that the kid is going to shoot up the school at all. Scared people are the scariest things on earth, I swear.
People need to get educated. Gaming needs some respected lobbies on K-Street or something, because this stuff is getting ridiculous.
Comment by Bob — Jun 14, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
Seems folks are afraid of the unproven link of violence and video game playing. So “just to be safe”, they don’t want their landmarks, cities and schools to be depicted in such. However, show me some proof that actually shows the link between millions of folks everyday who play violent games leading to a more violent society. They have none. It’s all just another way to lay blame for societal ills.
Comment by nmc75 — Jun 15, 2007 @ 1:54 am
The only reasonable solution to these types of disputes is for the game creators to tell the complainers that their input will be disregarded.
It’s time for innocent people like gamers and game companies to stop letting themselves be pushed around by a bunch of windbags.
Comment by Ben — Jun 15, 2007 @ 6:08 am
Reminds me of that film, Foot Loose, where the kids aren’t allowed to dance, because the adults think it’s a sign of Satan or something, and try and stop them doing anything exciting at all, other than religious stuff, even though the Parents had some form of Dancing when they were kids.
This is what these games are. It’s our generation that is being penalised for a small percentage of the Adults of our Parents generation who don’t understand what these games are all about, and the fact that Games just don’t make people violent.
If they did, there would probably be close to 2 million or more mass murderers across the globe, because the amount of people who play online so called violent games(I mean, R-FoM isn’t exactly Ultra Violent is it??) must be mass murderers.
Come on, are these people really that thick?
I think it’s coming down to money and these people who are complaining are seeking funds because they know how much these games are making. The gaming world is the New Hollywood and is gaining in size each year, where as Hollywood is slowing up or decreasing because of the crap they are producing lately.
Also, what happens when they get there funds after seeing what these games are all about, if there is any uproar by the parents of kids who have been killed, what happens then??
Those people who run government offices in the locations being portrayed, got there money. Does that mean they are going to foot the bill if the parents sue the Games company. No. The games company will be sued.
In which case, why should they pay the official people anything??
Again, it’s the few who complain, that are ruining it for the masses. Sorry, but why do we have to keep listening to just a small portion of people that ruin everything, because of there lack of understanding or vision into what it’s all about.
Comment by Cape — Jun 15, 2007 @ 11:18 am
I’d like to think that the gaming community can be grown up enough about this to find a solution, and if this means getting the appropriate permits to use locations then so be it. Although I don’t think it should be the same amount as what the film industry pays as I doubt games need to shut down high streets etc. Getting permission to use a location is a good idea.
Perhaps this would lead to certain locations having HD photo packs and schematics that games companies can just lease from the authorities? Might make game modelling easier, more accurate, more detailed, etc.
Games companies pay for licenses for football players and film stars, etc already anyway, so location licenses make sense too.
Comment by Richard — Jun 15, 2007 @ 11:33 am
“Most people who complain about games aren’t familiar with them, they see them as an alien form of culture that they don’t get.”
That hit the nail on the head. Take Manchester Cathedral, there is no legal obligation seek permission to use the location under UK law as it’s a) a public landmark and b) 850 years old so more than the required time after the architect’s death to expire the copyright. If this were a film this wouldn’t have been an issue, take the old version of War of the Worlds where people take refuge in a church from the aliens as they fire at it, no one batted an eyelid at that and that was in a much more conservative time.
Ask a generation that doesn’t understand video games what they are like and they will sight examples of GTA and violent crime. Like recently when a nurse was stabbed 70 times by someone who is clearly disturbed, but the headline was something along the lines of “Murdered by loner obsessed with the Internet and Violent Video Games”, as if to imply his mental heath had nothing to do with it, and it was playing video games that made him stab someone 70 times. I’ve played violent video games for nearly 15 years, and I’ve never thought about killing anyone!
To hear people talk about this level of Resistance, people who have never even seen or played the game, you would think what actually happened was a man with a machine gun walked into the cathedral during Sunday service and gunned down all the women and children and threw a grenade at a crucifix! What actually happens is troops that have been fighting in a War seek refuge from the enemy in a cathedral that was being used as a make-shift hospital, as it no doubt was during WWII, only to find the enemy was there to ambush them. From what I recall when I played the game, the interior was very generic anyway with pews and pillars, it’s not as if you had to blow the head of a statue of Mary to proceed to the next part of the level or anything!
It’s an ignorance towards the media that causes these problems, a WWII movie with Germans hiding in the Cathedral wouldn’t have caused as much (if any) uproar, and in many ways that would be worse as that’s killing human beings in the church, not alien insects as was the case with Resistance.
Sooner or later though the gamers of today will be the Bishop’s and Prime Minister’s of tomorrow (example, anyone heard of the Black Hat Lama aka the Funky Buddha?), and when that is the case games will be no more controversial than a TV show or film. Do you know any game hater’s under the age of 25? I don’t, Jack Thompson, Hilary Clinton, Church of England officials, I bet none of them have ever held a controller in their lives, they are content on imposing their views on a media they are completely ignorant of…
Comment by Apnomis — Jun 15, 2007 @ 11:41 am
This all comes back to the debate about games as art.
I think Sony has had the right ideas about this since the beginning. They consider what they do as Computer Entertainment. It should looked upon as any other form of entertainment, whether it be movies or music. It’s all creative expression. As much as they complain they cant take our rights away from us. They will never win.
Comment by Coolwater — Jun 15, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
If ‘no-one’s suggesting that the lack of a fee is the only difference between locations in games and those in films’ then i will. Someone will always be complaining for the use of their stuff unless they are paid.
Comment by salavaster — Jun 16, 2007 @ 7:37 am
I just want to leave this link here. I think many people try to restrict what games can do and where they can go, but its ultimately up to developers to break those boundaries and produce great titles. Cheers.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/CofEChill/index.html
Comment by Kamesen — Jun 16, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
Why should game makers pay a fee to portray real-life locations? You seem to be confusing the image of the location with the physical use of the location. When film-makers portray a location without going there (e.g., by building replica sets) they don’t have to pay the RL locations a fee either. To demand a fee when the actual location is merely simulated rather than physically used is censorship.
Comment by Steven Jones — Oct 3, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment