
Recently I've been playing Dante's Inferno on the xbox which as one might surmise from the title is based on the work of Dante. It came out around a year ago but I've only just got around to playing it and as such the thoughts that it brings up in my mind are only now coming to light.
The game is based loosely on the 14th century poem, which is used as a blue print to form the world in which you play. Pixel Dante is much more pro active than his paper bound namesake (wielding a huge weapon and killing demons) and is the one to rescue the girl rather than the girl saving him. No doubt a student of both poem and game could form an impressive text of how things differ but for once that is not my point.
Visceral Games have used the source material to create a truly amazing setting for the game. It impressed my greatly but at the same time made me recoil and ask the TV just what the hell it thought it was trying to show me. Certainly the huge read 18 stamped on the box is well earned and this game is not for children.
Although children do feature in the game. They turn up in the first circle, limbo. This is the place where the good heathens and the unbaptised live, not so much punished just not allowed into heaven. Thus it is here we find a lot of children, there's not always time to get them to a font. So in limbo you will find yourself attacked by countless small children oh and the swords for arms and you have to kill them. In fact once you kill twenty of them a little achievement sign pops up telling you "you have killed 20 unbaptised children" and you get some points for it.
Now I could talk about violence in video games but no, not today. There were some protests over this baby killing but it turned out to have been staged by the games promoters. This in turn was actually protested for real.
Is it right that a game should allow you to kill children in hell? Well its based on a book, and one that is seen as a cornerstone of European culture. Admittedly it takes a much more graphic and violent interpretation than most others have done. But if there are issues with the game then there must be issues with book?
What this has actually made me think about is the notion of religious doctrine. Because the idea of limbo and its child inhabitants is a Catholic idea. As such the actions you take in the game are based on what the church has said. One might argue that again its a loose interpretation but my point is that its an idea formed in the mind of Catholics and is part of their theology.
A few years ago the Pope announced that this concept no longer applied and that God would make sure all infants got into heaven as its not their fault and they have done nothing wrong. Its just the limbo for the kiddies that has gone though all us Godless heathers will still be there. Now as far as I know this has never actually been a "word of God" law more of an idea. All bit it an idea that has at times been used very strongly and vehemently and has been believed by a great many people.
It seems the church are now fudging the issue a bit and saying that its just a theory, we don't know what God gets up to and if people want to think it then that's cool. No doubt with the expansion in to lands with a high infant mortality its a handy idea to keep hold off.
Clearly it existed in order to get people in to the faith, any children who lived into adulthood would thus be part of the flock. But in these modern times and medical mirlces the number of infant deaths in some countries is very small. We are also less impressed by such scare tactics and very few people want to hear about babies in limbo. So, to move with the times and to show how caring they are the church change things around.
So finally in my long winded way we come to the heart of the matter. How can religious doctrine, ideology or thinking be changed in any way? Its one of the main things that has puzzled me about religion. I can appreciate a belief in God because that seems pretty absolute. Its when people and organisations get in on the act and start deciding what God wants. If someone was wrong years ago how can it now be allowed? The Pope is even ever so slightly relaxing the rule on condoms. But I thought God hated those things.
To me it seems like a lot of what Churches say has nothing to with God but is to serve there own interest or to get the faithful to behave how they want, sometimes for good it has to be said. Why do Muslims and Jews not eat pork? Most likely has something to do with all those people in the middle east who died from eating ill prepared bacon so rules get made to stop them doing so. Is Armageddon the wraith of God or simply hidden propaganda of Jewish resistance to Roman rule?
I can see why this things come into being but then they drift into "fact" and peoples lives are affected by humans deciding what God has planned for us. Its this sort of things that has kept me away from religion, well that and not believing in God of course. But as a said I can see the point or need of following God or Gods and I think that need is part of being human. In deed so much so that we invented God ourselves but are slowly moving onto other things as we advance.
But I don't want to told how to think by people who claim to know what God thinks any more than I want a politician telling me how to behave. Why is the Pope Gods go to guy? I don't get it and I kind of resent it and its implications.
So, ur, yeah. these are my thoughts playing the game which, while being over reliant on button bashing is a good game that's worth playing, even if your mind does wonder a little while you do so.