Why You Will Never Hear Me Shut Up About The Dante’s Inferno Videogame

I know, I know. I’ve already written one angry article about this game filled with literary snobbery. But I can’t help but to go back to this subject when I stumble upon it slathered over the front page of Destructoid, like peanut butter on a fish. Jim Sterling is normally an intelligent man, which it why it puzzles me to no end as to why he would support EA’s ridiculous massacre of Dante Alighieri’s good name.

If you don’t want to read any sort of in-depth explanation, feel free to skip down to the words “Why You Should Care” in boldface.

To start, as I have briefly mentioned before, it is pointless to compare Dante’s Inferno to the God of War franchise. While GoW was indeed based on Greek mythology, it was not derived from any single piece of literature, but rather a time period and the pagan religion that accompanied it. Kratos is a completely fictional character, with a (though somewhat recycled) new plot. It was in truth merely inspired, and not solely based upon, the religion and myths of Grecian society. Dante’s Inferno is based solely upon one book. It claims to use the “inspired by” excuse as well, but who puts the original name of the author on a piece of art that takes so much creative license? The amount of changes being made to the original text is enough that it no longer the work of Dante Alighieri, but the work of Jonathan Knight, the Executive Producer and Creative Director of the game. It is not Dante’s vision that is being utilized, it is Jonathan Knight’s. Jim Sterling argues this concerning adaption of books to games:

It would be like taking Romeo and Juliet, setting it in space, and having Romeo rescue Juliet from a race of giant insects that are plotting to put a pox on both their houses under the rule of Macbeth, who is inexplicably in the story for some reason and also a massive fly. Personally, I’d find that hilarious, although I’m sure some in the literary world would be offended.

No doubt anyone would find this type of game silly. However, no developer would think to name this game Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. You know, because it’s not. Using the name of Dante is a marketing ploy. Everyone knows the phrase “Dante’s Inferno,” even if that’s not the real name of the book. Ever since Dante penned this book, his name has forever been associated with Inferno and as a result, with Hell. In short, tacking the word “Dante” onto the title of the game is not in any way to give recognition to the original author. If this is truly Knight’s own interpretation of Inferno, then why isn’t it being called Knight’s Inferno?

It is a marketing strategy used by companies everywhere: consumers are attracted to familiar names or phrases. It works on everyone. If you’re sitting around thinking, “Well, I’m different,” then think back to the last time you bought a pain reliever. Did you buy the generic brand, which is cheaper and has pretty much all of the same ingredients as any other ibuprofen tablet? Or did you do the same as I did and buy Tylenol or Advil, brands that are familiar because of constant TV and print advertisements? There are many, many psychological studies proving that consumers will prefer the familiar to the unknown (there is a reference in my previous article).

Many people argue that it is silly to expect a perfect interpretation, of course the company will take creative license, etc etc. This I have no issue with. What bothers me is the idea of calling the game “Dante’s” when the long-dead poet gets pretty minimal creative input. Dante’s own Inferno exists only within the confines of his pages, and not anywhere else.  I know it may seem to be merely a question of linguistics, but I know if I wrote a book called Turkey Sandwich, and there was a game made about the book where the designers had taken creative license and  all the sandwiches were suddenly made of ham instead, I surely would not want the game to be entitled Chelsea Thompson’s Turkey Sandwich. Because essentially, it would have no real relation to the book I wrote. It is a matter of ethics in the artistic and literary world: your name should not be on something that is not yours, and conversely the name of another should not be on your work (unless it’s a pseudonym).

Why You Should Care

But here is the important question (that certainly more people are interested in): Why should you or I or any other average gamer care? Why does it matter that this game hides behind the name of its former author while re-molding and twisting the storyline? Why does it matter if a great literary work is essentially being exploited?

For me, it’s because games are an evolving art. I would absolutely love to see a time in which Dante’s Inferno can be moved to a visual medium and capture the many layers of meaning. It’s entirely possible, and the game being made here at least attempts to include some of those layers. In IGN.com’s hands-on preview of the game, there is some detail given as to the nature of the plot and characters in the game.  Much like the book, as game-Dante moves through the outer rims of Hell the audience is shown a glimpse of Dante’s own tendency towards the sins of the flesh. In the book it was a reminder of how all men are guilty of these sins, while the game uses this as a way of giving “players a better understanding of this darker, more complex depiction of Dante.” We, as gamers, should care whether a not a game coming out will have the depth and detail of the original work reflected in it, if for no other reason than because it makes for a better gaming experience.

Is it wrong to want more from our games? I don’t think so. It’s strange that when these arguments are presented to those that support the “other side” their retaliation is: “Lighten up, it’s just a game.” Well if that’s how you truly feel, then why did you waste your time arguing about it? If gamers didn’t actually care, then they wouldn’t be reading any of these blogs or arguing one way or another. People do care in varying degrees, whether they recognize it or not. When people use the “lighten up” argument, I feel like it’s such a cop out. To me, it pretty much says you’ve used up everything in your arsenal of witty comebacks and slanted reasoning and simply want to save face.

I could go on with my reasons as to why this personally matters to me, but I think that those details are a bit unnecessary. If you want to see for yourself how much the plot deviates from the original text, check out the aforementioned preview done by IGN. Knight seems to be under the impression that the point of Inferno is Dante’s quest for Beatrice (which it is not) and that a good game mechanic would be to have the main character sew a tapestry onto his chest for no apparent reason.  Some of the Christian lore that’s used in the game actually contradicts itself as well. But hey, maybe they can make that work.

The game might be good or it might be awful. This is a chance for EA to take a brilliant concept and make something great out of it (though I have the feeling the scores will end up being similar to the original Dante’s Inferno game). I’m in no position to pass judgement on the game itself, and neither is anyone else who has yet to play it. But whatever the game is, it is certainly not Dante Aligheiri’s Inferno.