Sony Apologizes To Church Of Manchester For Resistance >

	2007/06/15 15:51:28: Posted by DM
	The ongoing Sony vs. Church Of England saga continues today. Sony has officially apologized to the Dean of Manchester Cathedral for Insomniac's portrayal of the church building in a less-than-kosher-way (get it?) during gameplay from Resistance Fall Of Man. The letter states that it was not Sony's intention to cause offense. Of course, in classic SonyStyle (get that one too?), the electronics giant does not accept "that there is any connection between contemporary issues in 21st century Manchester and the work of science fiction in which a fictitious 1950s Britain is under attack by aliens. We believe a comprehensive viewing of the work will make its content and context clear." >Link
	Labeled With  resistance fall of man playstation 3 insomniac Comments [28]  | Rate this article: -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  | Avg. rating of 7.0

I love their response. Classy of them to apologize for any offense and state that it was not their intention, but sticking by their guns. The Church of England should accept the apology and move on.

Sony should apologise for RFoM to everyone

Response to WORMGERM:

I agree with you about how Sony owes all Playstation 3 consumers an apology for Resistance: Fall of Man, because it has received very mixed reviews and disappointed a lot of people--not just gamers, but now members of the church.

Some of the disappointed professional reviews have rated R:FOM with scores as low as 6 out of 10, and some have even gone lower in the United Kingdom, which is where this argument is taking place.

Many of the people were disappointed by the way Sony tries to market this game as if it has an online Co-Op Campaign mode, but it doesn't. Not everyone has the ability to read online reviews or reviews in magazines, so marketing can sometimes be deceptive like that, in ways that result in disappointment.

I don't think Sony should try the old, "This storyline is taking place in an alternate dimension," nonsense for an excuse. If that excuse were valid, then every criminal out there could simply use the excuse, "I was given permission to commit that crime in the imaginary dimension I came from."

See my point. Sony should either give that church some royalties from the game, or Sony should make a BIG charitable contribution to the church with the promise that a mistake like that won't happen in the future. An apology on its own isn't good enough.

The church need to apologize to sony for being the DEVIL.

Meh, outside of the USA, people in indusrialised countries stopped going to church a long time ago. Nobody cares.

Response to Smarty Pantz:

There are still plenty of people who care, especially the people who do go to church; they care more than ever.

Those people have a right to be respected in the appropriate ways.

If Larry Flynt or Hugh Hefner had their magazine images of Hustler or Playboy in that videogame, don't you think Sony would already have settled in court, because they KNOW they would lose that legal battle!

Well, Sony needs to do the same with this church. They could have an out-of-court settlement in an honorable way, by just making a large charitable donation to the church.

I think all video game manufactures need to have some common sense after the shootings at Columbine, Dunblane and Virgina. There should be no real landmarks or buildings used as scenes for violence. Can you imagine the reaction if somebody used a School or University in a game, this is no different. Developers would be better to sensor themselves than have laws that sensor them.

i played and beat the game and i dont see how people who went/go to the church are offended.. sony is just apologizing for PR reasons. They really dont give a crap..kinda like how no one gives a crap about utp and his false statements

Ah isn't that nice. Now if only ALL churches and ALL religions apologize for all the shit they've done we'll be set.

my take on this is that if you're out in the public like an institution or something than using the likeness but not the branding is fine. as long as you aren't criticizing it or displaying it in any defamatory way.

i like when games use real world settings, more realism

Unbiased Technology Professor...Where was RFOM rated a 6 out 10 ? If there is such a site they're either biased or incredibly horrible at rating games. Please post a link to this 6 out of 10...

I can't wait to hear what their name is....LOL. RFOM is one of the best FPS I've ever played and i'm sure allot of people would agree with me. I had more fun playing Resistance than the mighty Gears Of War... Are RFOM's graphics better ? Not a chance but, IMO Resistance murdered Gears in the single player campaign.

I just checked all of the CREDIBLE gaming sites and it looks like Resistance gets right around a 9 out of 10 from everyone. 6 out of 10...LOL..Your reaching big time with that rating.

@jb33 that dude is the worst of the worst when it comes down to FUD.I guess that shit i heard about M$ hiring dudes like UTP to post FUD on gamingsites around the web is true lol.Rfom is thee best FPS around period.M$ has to do better with who they hire lol.

Response to jb33:

Eurogamer is one of the most well known websites in the entire world.

Eurogamer is one of the websites that rated Resistance: Fall of Man with a score of 6 out of 10.

The rating of 6 out of 10 is equivalent to 60%...that means if it were on a report card it would be graded with an official, "D." The grade of “D” is a failure in college.

There were actually other magazines in Europe, across the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, and Norway that also rated Resistance: Fall of Man 6 out of 10.

Here is the hyperlink you asked for. It is a two page review that talks about things in great detail. This is the hyperlink for page 2 where you simply scroll to the bottom and look to see, "6/10"

h ttp://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=74110&page=2

But here are a couple notable paragraphs from the review of Resistance: Fall of Man for PS3:

"All the game can offer the player at the end is the chance to play through again and unlock some new weapons. If we're honest, playing it through once was enough of a slog (and only out of duty) - the desire to run through a tired, derivative cookie cutter FPS like this would have to come with a cash prize attached to it to make us do it again. And the discovery of concept art as a reward for unlocking the various skill points felt like the ultimate slap in the mush. Are they trying to upset us?"

Here is another paragraph:

"That said, in the cut and thrust world of online shooters, Resistance ranks well below some of the established big hitters out there. The lack of co-op, in particular, is a major oversight. Given how popular the co-op online modes of Gears of War, GRAW 2 and Rainbow Six: Vegas have been, you can't help but feel that gamers have a basic requirement for collaborative online play these days. Another black mark, then."

Here is the final paragraph of the review:

"The overall disappointment that comes from playing Resistance is troubling. For years, Insomniac has carved itself an impressive reputation, and had a golden opportunity to throw its creativity at a genre which has been stuck in its ways for far too long. That it merely aped almost all of the things wrong with this creatively moribund genre is alarming. That's not to say that it's a bad game at all, because in most senses Resistance bears a solid resemblance to a lot of very successful shooters of the last few years. But to simply come up with a game on a new platform that completely stands still feels like a huge disappointment from a studio that's more than capable of doing thing differently to everyone else. Put bluntly, the combat and AI is merely average, the visuals don't really wow, and the much-vaunted weaponry makes little difference to how it plays. To say we're underwhelmed is the understatement of the year."

Thanks for the link... Explain to my why some of the worlds most well known game review sites (Gamespot/Ign/Gamepro/Gamezone) gave this game an 8 or 9 out of 10 and Eurogamer gave it a 6/10 ? It seems a little weird to me that Eurogamer gave RFOM a 6 out of 10... Kind of funny really...LOL.

You believe what you want... I guarantee if you've ever played RFOM you would agree that it deserves NOTHING LESS than an 8/10. Eurogamer should be ashamed of themselves for posting such a low score for such a great game. Well at least i know not to trust anything they say now...LOL.

Resistance is actually a great shooter. It's actually a lot better than most of the fps's that are on the 360.

Even though the 360 library pretty much only consists of shooters..lol

@Sicbud atleast the 360 has a library .. lol

The church only making a big deal out of it because the church needs money, they would rather you sit and realize is a peaceful place than have it showcased as a Shooting grounds.

@The Limey I agree with you..Devs should use common sense not make in games building as exact replica. and if they do they should be bacground buildings that you can't go into.

(@Sicbud atleast the 360 has a library .. lol) Yea... The PS3's library is pretty pitiful right now...LOL. The PS3 looks pretty cool sitting there but, i hardly play the damn thing...LOL. Hopefully i won't have to wait to PLAY B3YOND much longer. The thing's gonna need a serious dusting when it's time to play...LOL Lair is coming soon so it should get a good workout then.

well im pretty sure that the 360 has a library because it has been out quite a bit longer than the ps3.. so once the ps3 has been out longer it to will have a library and it won't consist of just crappy shooters and pc ports.

Response to sicbud:

The PS3 would have more games if it was released when Sony said it was supposed to be released in spring of 2006. Sony chose to delay the system until late 2006, and they are paying the price now. So that can't be used for an excuse, because the PS3 does NOT compete with the Xbox 360 from the past; it competes with the Xbox 360 NOW. The Xbox 360 will ALWAYS be a generation ahead of the Playstation 3.

Xbox 360 now receives much more third-party exclusive support than the Playstation 3.

For example, look at how the Xbox 360 currently has Real-Time Strategy games like Command & Conquer 3, but the PS3 doesn't have anything like that in that genre.

RPG games like Two Worlds and Overlord are being released for PC and Xbox 360, but not for PS3.

Xbox 360 also receives better support from third-parties when it comes to multi-platform games.

For example, the Xbox 360 version of Marvel Ultimate Alliance gives you the ability to play as all of those cool new characters like Hulk, Magneto, and Sabretooth, but the PS3 version doesn't.

Another example would be the way Grand Theft Auto 4 is being released for both systems, and the Standard features will be included in both the Xbox 360 version and the Playstation 3 version. However, the Xbox 360 version of Grand Theft Auto 4 is the ONLY version of the game that will feature the cool Episodic Content.

With that in mind we can prove three things:

1. The Xbox 360 library of games is obviously much stronger than the library of the Playstation 3.

2. The libraries of both systems will obviously improve over time, but based on the number of games being released for both systems, the evidence shows that the Xbox 360 library is growing faster than the Playstation 3 library.

3. The first two facts are also applied to the superiority of Xbox Live Arcade.

In terms of online gaming and community feature set, Xbox Live shits all over PSN

In terms of gaming content on sale, PSN shits all over Xbox Live already after two months, so much exclusive fantastic content now and soon - GT HD, Tekken, fl0w, Warhawk, just amazing. And can be payed from EU too. Compared to that XBLA is like baby software.

Psn is going to get better as time pass HOME.Wow it's so good to be a ps3 owner.

Unbiased Technology Professor....LOL...You'll always find some way to make the 360 look better...LOL. It could be the simplest thing like the 360's version of a game package has a sticker the PS3 version don't...LOL. I could care less which one is better to be honest.

From your daily ARTICLE'S it seems you like video games and like it or not the PS3 is gonna have great games the 360 don't. Your the one missing out if you choose to miss great games like RFOM/Motorstorm/ and many more to come. Please respond with one of your alter egos so i can laugh....LOL. X of 360

Response to jb33,

jb33, I will respond the best I can. First, I agree the libraries of both systems will get better as time goes by, but Xbox 360 has a FAR superior library of games, and the Xbox 360 library is improving at a faster rate; that won't change anytime soon.

The poor sales of the PS3 show that the PS3 simply doesn't have enough high quality exclusive games at this point in time to be worthy of the high price.

With that in mind, if I "always find a way to make the 360 look better," it's because...It comes naturally, since IT IS A LOT BETTER!!!

When has this become an issue about quality of games?</br></br>Doesn't Gears of War have a certain creature smashing something that looks like a church!?!??</br></br>Or better yet Call of Juarez with a crazy man claiming to be the hand of god by killing! When God says thou shall kill</br></br>[REMOVED]r></br>This is all just something to gain attention from, there is ALOt and i do mean alot of video games that has something offended to churches and religion and i'm surprised they decided to come out of their closed doors on something like this, yet alone Sony even Appologizing, or churches asking MONEY from profits?</br></br>

This is an on topic comment

for all of you people from America or an other country most likely you don't know this but this is the same cathedral that was hiding from the police that one of its members was abusing a boy for 8 years and yet they complain about this game, rediculas.

OMG, trust UTP to turn this into one of his ps3-bashing threads. Roll over.

Still, a bad game is better than a broken console right?

IGN.com - 9.1/10 IGN.com UK - 8.0/10 IGN.com AU - 8.4/10 Gamepro.com - 4.5/5.0(basically 9/10) 1up.com - 8.0/10(average) gamespy.com - 4.5/5.0 gamezone.com - 9.5/10 CNET.com - 8.6/10 EGM - 8.5/10 Game Informer - 9.5/10 eurogamer.com - 7.9/10 from users

those are pretty good scores, and even the members on eurogamer.com enjoyed the game more then the website.(i found that you posted that link after i started typing this) but i'm not posting this to bash at you UTP. you bring a lot of solid goods points. but just because one site doesnt like the game, doesnt mean that its a bad game.i like resistance. some people here do too. and the millions of people who bought it(seeing that it went multi-platinum) seem to enjoy it too, regardless of the flaws. why should sony apologize to that? the mistakes made in RFOM will probably not be made in RFOM2... at least they shouldn't(Sony... are you listening?!)

Response to incoming00:

There's no question that Resistance: FOM is a game that has received mixed reviews; but the one thing virtually everyone agrees on is that it is certainly not a “killer-app.” One thing is very clear; the reviews of the game continued to get worse as time passed. For example, the European reviews of Resistance: FOM are lower than the initial American reviews...and American reviews that took place later in the year also rated the game lower than magazines and websites that initially reviewed the game.

The reason for that is because by the time the PS3 launched in Europe, people had become familiar with games like Gears of War, GRAW 2, and Rainbow Six: Vegas. Games like that had set a new Standard where Campaign modes for games are SUPPOSED to include an Online Co-Op mode.

Prior to November of 2006, you could say that it was an added feature if there was an Online Co-Op Campaign mode feature in a game. The Multi-Player Online parts of the games were considered Standard, but the Co-Op Campaign modes were considered Special. But the Xbox 360 really did do a great job of changing the Standard so that the feature of a Campaign Online Co-Op mode is something expected in games released today, since games like Gears of War and Rainbow Six: Vegas did such a great job with that feature.

When Resistance: FOM was released in November of 2006, the reviews placed a different level of importance on the lack of an Online Campaign Co-Op mode than the people who reviewed the game when it was released in Europe months later. That was a later point in time when people CLEARLY thought it was much more important to be missing that Online Co-Op feature, because games like Gears of War and Rainbow Six: Vegas caused them to value the Online Co-Op Campaign mode that Resistance: FOM does NOT include.

I actually agreed with what you said in one of my statements above. I think R:FOM would have included those features if there would have been enough time...there probably just wasn't enough time to add that feature to the game. It is easy to say the game should have been delayed until that feature could be included, but the library of the PS3 was so overwhelmingly weak when it was launched that Resistance: FOM was considered one of the only games worth purchasing. Games like Genji, Untold Legends, NBA 07, a choppy framerate version of Call of Duty 3, and other software disappointments meant that PS3 owners best option was to buy R:FOM. If the sales competition would have been tougher--for example, if Call of Duty 3 didn’t have a choppy framerate on the PS3 version, then the sales competition would have been tougher for R:FOM.

It's not a surprise that R:FOM is a sales leader on the PS3, because it actually did win "PS3 Awards," such as "Best First Person Shooter on PS3 for 2006." The problem is that the PS3 was only available for less than two months in 2006, and there was very little competition. What's worse is that Resistance: FOM didn't win awards when competing with other consoles. PS3 games only won "PS3 Awards." Games like Gears of War and Rainbow Six: Vegas on the Xbox 360 dominated the awards when the systems were competing against each other.

I personally agree with the professional reviews from Eurogamer and some of the European magazines that rated Resistance: FOM a 6 out of 10. I personally think it deserves that grade of a "D," because the lack of an Online Co-Op mode makes it below average. Even the "users" still think the game only deserves a 7.9, which would receive the grade of "C," and be rated as average. I just think the lack of an Online Co-Op Campaign mode is a terrible thing in today's marketplace, and the poor sales of the Playstation 3 show that millions of people out there agree with me.

Um, did I NOT make it clear that all your Sony-bashing MS-loving rant do NOT belong here? Act like a human being if you can.