Changes

::::::Jinx, did you, as I said, actually do a Google search for the term? Here, I've [http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=%40fully+patched%27&meta=&btnG=Google+Search done one for you]. Go through those, and count how many times you can see that 'fully patched' is definitely used to mean 'there are no issues left to be addressed'. What I have stated as the meaning of 'fully patched' is the NORMAL USAGE OF THE TERM. It would be more correct to say that YOU are claiming that it means 'no issues left to be addressed' because that is what YOU claim it means, and no-one else. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::Jinx, did you, as I said, actually do a Google search for the term? Here, I've [http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=%40fully+patched%27&meta=&btnG=Google+Search done one for you]. Go through those, and count how many times you can see that 'fully patched' is definitely used to mean 'there are no issues left to be addressed'. What I have stated as the meaning of 'fully patched' is the NORMAL USAGE OF THE TERM. It would be more correct to say that YOU are claiming that it means 'no issues left to be addressed' because that is what YOU claim it means, and no-one else. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I should also add that your claim of the article 'presenting both sides from the start' is questionable to say the least. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Left_Behind:_Eternal_Forces&direction=next&oldid=393348#Reviews Here] is the relevant section before I started editing it.  Now, this seems to imply that all the negative reviews were down to 'religious bias' rather than anything else (even though if you actually read the one [http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/left_behind review] actually quoted there, well, that's the Game Revolution review, which I've talked about above, and one thing I left out is that one of the reasons it actually marks the game down for is that it 'wastes a good premise'.  That hardly sounds like 'religious bias' to me).  What's the next diff?  Me clarifying there was more than religious reasons for criticising the game.  The one after that?  You reverting my edit, claiming that my point has nothing to do with the subject, even though that section is called 'Reviews', and I'm quoting directly from the same review. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:29, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I should also add that your claim of the article 'presenting both sides from the start' is questionable to say the least. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Left_Behind:_Eternal_Forces&direction=next&oldid=393348#Reviews Here] is the relevant section before I started editing it.  Now, this seems to imply that all the negative reviews were down to 'religious bias' rather than anything else (even though if you actually read the one [http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/left_behind review] actually quoted there, well, that's the Game Revolution review, which I've talked about above, and one thing I left out is that one of the reasons it actually marks the game down for is that it 'wastes a good premise'.  That hardly sounds like 'religious bias' to me).  What's the next diff?  Me clarifying there was more than religious reasons for criticising the game.  The one after that?  You reverting my edit, claiming that my point has nothing to do with the subject, even though that section is called 'Reviews', and I'm quoting directly from the same review. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:29, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Yes, some of the reviews. Not all the reviews gave a low rating. Now, if you had said, 'some of the negative reviews', you might have a point. But you didn't. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Yes, some of the reviews. Not all the reviews gave a low rating. Now, if you had said, 'some of the negative reviews', you might have a point. But you didn't. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, have any of you played the game?  Reviews are interesting, but I wouldn't mind some firsthand knowledge either.  How does it really play?  For instance the first Age of Empires could also go slow during huge battle scenes, but it was still an excellent game.  And, I would be interested in how it plays after patches more than problems it had at first.  While initial shortcomings can be mentioned as a footnote, what our readership will really want to know is what could they expect if they played it themselves in the present? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:38, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, have any of you played the game?  Reviews are interesting, but I wouldn't mind some firsthand knowledge either.  How does it really play?  For instance the first Age of Empires could also go slow during huge battle scenes, but it was still an excellent game.  And, I would be interested in how it plays after patches more than problems it had at first.  While initial shortcomings can be mentioned as a footnote, what our readership will really want to know is what could they expect if they played it themselves in the present? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:38, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::Interesting reading. Thing is, it seems to confirm that you are pushing your opinion of the game, instead of relying on objective facts. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::Interesting reading. Thing is, it seems to confirm that you are pushing your opinion of the game, instead of relying on objective facts. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)