Changes

:Well, I've compromised a couple of times, but Jinx appears hell-bent on pushing his agenda of 'this game is superb, and no-one can actually level any valid criticism against it', come what may.  As far as I'm concerned, the article, in it's current form, if anything, is slightly biased in the game's favour (though far less than it was before I started editing it), due to the inclusion, by Jinx, of such phrases as 'Left Behind Games subsequently issued several patches to address dozens of issues', as if this is something unusual (it's not - most, if not all, games developers typically bring out patches post-release that address many issues), and, for another example, the implication that the Game Revolution review was poor due to religious reasons, despite the fact the reviewer specifically makes the point he believes in the freedom of people to believe what they like (and his corresponding freedom to believe they're all nuts), and actually cites various gameplay, graphical and technical reasons for giving the game a poor rating.  That doesn't seem good enough for Jinx, however.  It seems very obvious that saying that all the criticisms and issues raised by the various reviews have been addressed is simply not true, but Jinx seems to be going out of his way to try to reinsert this into the article at every opportunity and using any excuse, so, in my opinion, it should be left as is, or that sentence removed entirely, and the first sentence of that paragraph reworded to 'Some of the complaints in the initial reviews of the game...'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:30, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well, I've compromised a couple of times, but Jinx appears hell-bent on pushing his agenda of 'this game is superb, and no-one can actually level any valid criticism against it', come what may.  As far as I'm concerned, the article, in it's current form, if anything, is slightly biased in the game's favour (though far less than it was before I started editing it), due to the inclusion, by Jinx, of such phrases as 'Left Behind Games subsequently issued several patches to address dozens of issues', as if this is something unusual (it's not - most, if not all, games developers typically bring out patches post-release that address many issues), and, for another example, the implication that the Game Revolution review was poor due to religious reasons, despite the fact the reviewer specifically makes the point he believes in the freedom of people to believe what they like (and his corresponding freedom to believe they're all nuts), and actually cites various gameplay, graphical and technical reasons for giving the game a poor rating.  That doesn't seem good enough for Jinx, however.  It seems very obvious that saying that all the criticisms and issues raised by the various reviews have been addressed is simply not true, but Jinx seems to be going out of his way to try to reinsert this into the article at every opportunity and using any excuse, so, in my opinion, it should be left as is, or that sentence removed entirely, and the first sentence of that paragraph reworded to 'Some of the complaints in the initial reviews of the game...'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:30, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::*sigh* Well, your very first sentence there shows us exactly who is the one pushing their agenda.  The only "agreement" or "compromise" that you want is the one that favors your biased view.  I've actually provided a reference that says the game is fully patched.  Your "only some of the issues were addressed" is based on... what?  Your say-so and nothing more.  Hrm...  Reference vs. your say-so.  Which is more trustworthy?  And the article is hardly "slightly biased in the game's favour."  It has presented both sides from the beginning.  Oh, and I like your oh-so humble "It's less biased now that ''I'' started editing it!  Dun-da-da-DA!" bit.  Give me a flipping break!  [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::<sigh> Well, your very first sentence there shows us exactly who is the one pushing their agenda.  The only "agreement" or "compromise" that you want is the one that favors your biased view.  I've actually provided a reference that says the game is fully patched.  Your "only some of the issues were addressed" is based on... what?  Your say-so and nothing more.  Hrm...  Reference vs. your say-so.  Which is more trustworthy?  And the article is hardly "slightly biased in the game's favour."  It has presented both sides from the beginning.  Oh, and I like your oh-so humble "It's less biased now that ''I'' started editing it!  Dun-da-da-DA!" bit.  Give me a flipping break!  [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)