Talk:Left Behind: Eternal Forces/Archive1

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Uhhh... criticism of issues within the game isn't allowed? Barikada 13:32, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Sure it is, but snarky, unsourced (love the hypocrisy of that) edits like yours aren't. Jinxmchue 13:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)
I think I may have misinterpreted that statement, but... Sir, are you accusing me of making nothing but snarky, hypocritcal edits? For that matter, how is it hypocritical? Barikada 13:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)
That edit was snarky and hypocritical, yes. It is snarky because it was made simply to be obnoxious and hypocritical because you questioned unsourced material in the Video game article. Jinxmchue 13:48, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Ah. Gotcha. Sorry for misinterpreting what you said, then. I shall read more carefully next time. Barikada 13:49, 23 January 2008 (EST)
There is a large and well referenced section on controversy and criticism. All you added was unreferenced parody. Learn together 13:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)
All of which focuses on claims made before the game came out. It wasn't parody. Barikada 13:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Wait, what am I talking about? The last sentence was. Barikada 13:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)
So you freely admit you learned nothing from your recent block and are continuing to edit disruptively? Jinxmchue 13:50, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I've edited the 'controversy and criticism' section to be a bit more accurate. With the exception of Max Blumenthal's blog, the cited sources do not, in fact, criticise the game - they report others criticising the game, and also give quotes from Left Behind Games refuting that criticism. Urushnor 16:46, 6 March 2008 (EST)


Jinxmchue, I do not know why you keep reverting my edit. You seem to be trying to say that all of the complaints have been addressed by patches. This is simply not the case. You provided a URL that would allow me to purchase an add-on CD that would update the game with the Tribulation Forces expansion. Well, that's a paid-for expansion, not a free patch. If you were directing me to the patchnotes for the various patches to the base game underneath that, if you compare that with the complaints voiced in the various sources in the article, this simply proves that not all the complaints have been addressed. Urushnor 15:28, 7 March 2008 (EST)

"Many" and "most" also mean "more than one and less than all of them." Why not use those words (which actually would be more accurate since there are very few issues left (if any) regarding the original criticisms)? My link in my summary was to provide an idea of the number of issues Left Behind Games has addressed with their upgrades. The list is dozens of items long. How many more issues do you think are left to address? And despite what you erroneously think, saying "Left Behind Games subsequently issued several patches to address the complaints" does not automatically imply all the issues have been addressed. Jinxmchue 15:53, 7 March 2008 (EST)
Well, if you were saying that 'many' or 'most' is more accurate, why did YOU not change it to that, instead of reverting it to remove any word that suggested not all the complaints had been addressed? I would actually say that 'some' is more accurate anyway, as whilst quite a few of the complaints have been addressed, it seems to be some of the ones that aren't are actually the most severe ('lousy controls' and the poor graphics for two examples). As to your statement, 'despite what you erroneously think, saying "Left Behind Games subsequently issued several patches to address the complaints" does not automatically imply all the issues have been addressed', sorry, but yes, it does. Urushnor 08:37, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Complaints vs. patches

I intend to write up something (for Talk at least) comparing the complaints about the game to the various issues that were covered by the patches. Jinxmchue 10:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Already done that.
This is the list of complaints in the various reviews in the article:
  1. Lousy Controls
  2. Too much micromanagement
  3. Bad AI
  4. Poor graphics and art design
  5. Lack of single-player skirmish mode
  6. Slow multiplayer
  7. Watered-down storyline
  8. All the units look the same
  9. Repetitive gameplay
  10. Misogynistic 50s-style sexism
  11. Borderline racism (quite a number of the 'bad guys' have Arab, Indian, African, etc, names and appearances, but mysteriously lose this when they're 'recruited' and become Caucasian)
  12. Bad level design (sections of the city blocked off for no good reason, for example)
  13. Frequent crashes and lock-ups
  14. Seems to give a mixed message (the subject matter and tone of the game is very righteous, but then lets you play as the Antichrist in multiplayer)
  15. Poor quality of voice-acting
  16. Too much advertising in the game

Complaints addressed in the patches:

  1. Too much micromanagement (eased but not fully addressed)
  2. Bad AI (unclear whether all isuues were addressed or not)
  3. Poor graphics and art design (partially addressed by improving the shadows on 'high end systems')
  4. Slow multiplayer
  5. Frequent crashes and lock-ups (not clear whether completely fixed)

Complaints remaining unaddressed:

  1. Lousy controls
  2. Lack of single-player skirmish mode
  3. Watered-down storyline
  4. All the units look the same
  5. Repetitive gameplay
  6. Misogynistic 50s-style sexism
  7. Borderline racism
  8. Bad level design
  9. Seems to give a mixed message
  10. Poor quality of voice-acting
  11. Too much advertising in the game

Issues fixed in the patches NOT mentioned in the reviews:

  1. Multiplayer Chat tab enabled. You can now chat with players online before you join a game.
  2. Female Recruiters added.
  3. Mission 2 - Teddy can now visit the finish zone at any time without issues.
  4. Mission 4 - Teddy can now speak to Mary.
  5. Mission 6 - The first 7 friends can be trained and the mission will now end upon bringing the final 10 friends to the Chapel (provided they are still all on your side).
  6. Mission 8 - An extra building is available to be acquired.
  7. Demons can withstand heavy physical attacks. Attack them with good spiritual warfare.
  8. Various playbalancing and fixes including sound transitions and multiplayer server list.
  9. Multiplayer Buddy List enabled.
  10. Enhanced join server screen with game parameters listed.
  11. GameSpy profile integration. Create a profile or use an existing one to create your buddy list.
  12. 3 New Multiplayer Maps including upgraded units at the start of the game for quick skirmish action.
  13. Vocal Warnings for events.
  14. Improved Sound System compatibility and sound playback.
  15. Improved LGBHelp system for better support to our users, including an auto-config based on system specs.
  16. Various mission playbalancing and fixes.
  17. When logged in with a GameSpy Profile ID, Gold and Silver users will have auto buddy list requests and their buddy’s multiplayer games will be listed first.
  18. Buddy List graphical enhancements.
  19. Winning point limit (if applicable) is shown during a multiplayer game.
  20. Improved navigation for multiplayer game creation.
  21. Demons are now displayed in a dark grey color.
  22. 4X4 Skirmish map timer fixed.
  23. Improved support for multiplayer hosting – UPnP support added.
  24. Chat filter implemented.
  25. Added more stats to the end of a multiplayer game, including an overall summary of all players.
  26. Allied units display as such when clicked in multiplayer.
  27. Multiplayer skirmish maps are easier to find on the map selection screen.
  28. Voice of God and Angels implemented for evil actions.
  29. Mission 4 - The Chapel is pinged when Mary is active.
  30. Mission 19 - Defending time shortened.
  31. Mission 23 - Phantom enemy vehicles removed.
  32. Mission 32 – Buck can get his disguise upon mission start.
  33. Mission 36 - Defending time shortened.
  34. Mission 37 – GCP Camp now pinged.
  35. Many other text revisions and mission improvements
  36. AUTO recruit improved even further – Evil units that turn neutral are now auto recruited as well.
  37. Building Icons added to the game screen for easier ID of user’s buildings.
  38. Right mouse to follow a friendly unit implemented (Alt-Right Click still works too).
  39. Multiple Helicopter spawning issue fixed.
  40. Replay Load VO overlap fixed.
  41. The Scroll description has been revised.
  42. Spiritual influence now does two times damage to demons.
  43. Alt-Tab Camera issue fixed.
  44. No longer able to attempt to follow enemy or neutral vehicles.
  45. Event noise modified.
  46. Menu enhancements providing more intuitive feedback to the user.
  47. A military unit must be in a military vehicle in order for the vehicle to fire.
  48. Sat-Com special ability has been enhanced, now a triangle will display in the minimap and H will display the type of building in the main screen.
  49. Firearm range increased slightly.
  50. Maximum number of items in inventory for each type is now 2.
  51. Minor gameplay tweaks and unit balances.
  52. Tutorial 2 - Allows for different combination of units to make the camp available.
  53. Tutorial 3 - Fixed intermittant crash after Musician was trained.
  54. Fixed crash on start occurring with the mutltiplayer enhancement pack version for some older machines.
  55. Tutorial 2 – Auto recruit is taught instead of manual recruit taking advantage of the auto recruit improvements for ease of use.
  56. Additional auto-configuration based on system specs for Intel based graphic adapters (Note: these adapters are not officially supported, but may work).
  57. Forfeit button added for multiplayer games.
  58. Gamespy buddy authorization pop-up reminder added.
  59. Multiplayer hints describing functionality of each menu button including expanded buddy list explanations.
  60. Minimap building filters. Icons are now on the minimap that will ping the type of building when activated. Make finding types of building much easier.
  61. Owned buildings now display in the players color at all times for easy recognition.
  62. Evil Hero revision to Enigma Leader.
  63. Chat window multiple selection from menu fixed.
  64. Gamespy creation or login will display a not valid warning if it has a space in the name.
  65. Password protected multiplayer games are now displayed with a lock on the join screen.
  66. Version number of server’s game is now displayed on the join screen when a game is selected.
  67. Multiplayer skirmish maps have been rebalanced to be even at the start of the game. Evil used to have 1 extra unit.
  68. New clue music.
  69. Incorrect VO not playing anymore on level 4 load screen.
  70. Mouse handedness is taken from system mouse settings and is no longer clickable from options menu. If you want to change it, use the Windows Control Panel/Mouse.
  71. Gamespy profile file no longer displays password for added protection.
  72. Screen flickering fixed when leaving a multiplayer game someone quit out of early.
  73. Lengthy email address truncating fixed on Gamespy create window.
  74. Point limit and time limit now display on multiplayer replays.
  75. Correct message now appears to the server when the client quits the game early in a 2 player game.
  76. VO pauses when the pause key is pressed.
  77. Gamespy Voice Chat muting options. Players can be muted in the game lobby and with the Chat options screen from the in-game menu. Note: Enemy players will be muted upon starting the game. Note: Port 31322 UDP must be opened to enjoy voice chatting.
  78. Microphone Volume control and testing capability within the Audio tab of the Options window.
  79. Major UI overhaul - new graphical enhancements and improvements.
  80. Collision improvements between neutral units and vehicles.
  81. Multiplayer hint toggle is now in the Game tab of the Options window.
  82. Minimap unit filters. Icons are now on the minimap that will ping the type of unit when activated. It makes finding a type of unit much easier.
  83. Unit and Building selection icons. One click selection of a unit type and one click goto building type functionality added to the interface.
  84. Units inside building displayed. When you mouse over a building with units inside, the unit icons will display on screen.
  85. Recruiting fix for fast walking neutrals - the unit will now stop to be recruited.
  86. To/From voice chat options included. Now you have the ability to choose who hears your voice chat.
  87. Text chat muting. You can now mute text chat from specific players in game.
  88. Fixed loud noise upon start on some machines.
  89. Various mission scripting enhancements for additional audio sequences.
  90. Revised Tutorial 1 by adding a neutral unit and an evil unit as visual aids.
  91. Revised Left Handed VO and text in the tutorials to be more clear.
  92. Revised missions 22, 31, and 35 to decrease difficulty.
  93. National and International Banks now have sound when clicked.
  94. A Friend was added to the start of Mission 27.
  95. Revised missions 17, 20, 23, and 30 to decrease difficulty.

Urushnor 10:44, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Not quite. Thanks for trying to beat me to the punch, though, in order to push your own agenda against this game. Oh, and I particularly liked the inclusion of "Misogynistic 50s-style sexism" and "Borderline racism." The only patch that's going to address those complaints is the one that works on the software between the complainers' ears. Jinxmchue 17:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
Well, actually, I can think of a couple of ways the developers can patch in something to address those complaints, but that's pretty much irrelevant - you were originally saying ALL the complaints had been addressed by the patches, which simply isn't the case. As for your comment about 'pushing my own agenda', does this mean you are claiming the above points listed as not being in the reviews aren't in the patchnotes? Or are you saying that those points are, in fact, mentioned in the reviews? Urushnor 18:30, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

I will give DanH a chance to explain how he thinks the above information 'vindicates' Jinxmchue, so I will leave the article in it's current form. If I receive no answer, however, I will alter it to be accurate to what the above seems to indicate - that the patches fix dozens of issues, including some of the issues raised by the complaints in the reviews. Urushnor 11:07, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Threats now? I would really reconsider that if I were you. Jinxmchue 17:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
No, statement of intent. DanH has now seemingly understood what I was saying, so I've redone the edit. The relevant passage, in it's old form, seemed to say that all the fixes in the patches, without exception, were as a direct result of the complaints in the reviews, which, in light of the above, seems blindingly obvious is simply not the case. Urushnor 18:30, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, yet again, you edit the article, inserting incorrect comments. If you remove the 'non-technical' complaints from the list above, that is still 5 addressed (and not even all of those completely) out of 12. That is not 'most'. As for the perceived racism and sexism, the developers could patch it so that both sides have units with African, Arabic, Indian, etc names and appearances (or, at the very least, the units which do have these features don't mysteriously become Caucasian when they're 'recruited'), and that the units are known by the same title whether they be male or female, instead of it being a 'Recruiter', for example, if they're male, and a 'Female Recruiter' if they're female, as if this is somehow something different. As such, your statement that this cannot be patched is blatently your own opinion, or simply wrong, or both. Take your pick. As for complaints about the game's 'theology', as far as I can see, there were none. The closest that came to this was one review said that the game gave mixed messages by being very righteous in tone and content, but then lets you play as the Antichrist. Urushnor 21:47, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

It is your personal opinion that is being used as a source to defend the use of "some." But the point is moot now as I have just added a reference which states that the game is fully patched (the version included with "Tribulation Forces" is the same version as the latest update for the original game). End of discussion. Point. Set. Match. Jinxmchue 14:53, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
Erm, relevant section from your source:
What is included in this expansion?
Besides getting a fully patched version of Eternal Forces, you get five new story line missions for the second chapter, Tribulation Forces. There is a new single and multiplayer game mode call skirmish. In this mode you choose a map, what team you want to play, and how many allies or enemies you want. To win you have to earn and maintain a certain number of points. To gain points you have to win over neutrals to your side and build up your forces.
There is a new group you can play, The American Militia. This is an army that is neutral spiritual wise and they are allies with the Tribulation Forces and combat the Anti-Christ’s army. With the American Militia there is no peaceful way to neutralize the enemy. Fortunately, when you do kill them, there is no blood.
This does not say there are no issues remaining - it means the version of Eternal Forces you get has all the patches so far released already applied. Try reading and understanding your own sources. Urushnor 15:23, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
I should add - I think your accusation of 'my opinion being used to defend the use of some' is particularly ironic, given that it appears very clear that you have been trying to impose your opinion that this game is absolutely excellent and cannot have any valid complaints levelled against it on this article. Urushnor 15:27, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
Oh, please. "Fully patched" means "fully patched." You are applying unprovable standards to that phrase which cannot be verified. Continue to try to push your disproven agenda and you actions will be reported. Jinxmchue 15:36, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
Do a Google search for 'fully patched'. You'll get hits like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. That's just a few samples from the first 2 or 3 pages that most effectively prove my point - which is that you are utterly and completely wrong. 'Fully patched' does not mean 'no issues left', it means 'all patches so far applied'. Urushnor 15:46, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
I've done a compromise (again) - I've kept your edit, but altered it to be accurate, in light of the above, and moved your source to a more appropriate place. Urushnor 15:55, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Reviews

I believe this section could be better. Aspects that are said to be poor by some reviews are said to be superior by other reviews below. We want to make it easy for our readers to get a feel as to how the game plays. It's best to just record information that is agreed upon. Also, the line that indicates the product suffered from "bugs... crashes" is misleading. Virutally all new products suffer from bugs and crashes. The question is what makes the game different, and, of course, what is it like after its patches?

Going by a couple of the reviews, this game suffered more than most from bugs and crashes. Gamespot, for example, reported that, 'Crashes are such a frequent occurrence that it seems like you've got maybe 50/50 odds between a level or a save loading properly and the game freezing up with a sound loop. Sometimes it also hard locks Windows in these circumstances, forcing a system reboot. This was even a problem for us during automatic restarts after changing the in-game resolution. The only way we could change any of the default visual settings was to manually shut down and restart the game, because letting it restart on its own always locked up our system and necessitated a reboot.' As to what extent the patches fixed thing like this, that isn't clear. Urushnor 00:30, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I would also suggest using the opportunity of the article protection to reach wording that both of you can agree with instead of reverting. Your differences appeared to be minor, and there was no reason to force Dan to intervene and lock the article over a small difference that you should have been able to solve in other ways. Learn together 21:33, 13 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...'. 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! Jinxmchue 11:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Oh, by the way, this is CONSERVApedia, not WIKIpedia, so get used to the articles having bias against your point of view. Either that or leave. Jinxmchue 11:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Jinx, do I need to tell you to play nice again? Anyone is allowed to edit conservapedia, and you are in no position to tell people to leave. Please behave! HelpJazz 12:50, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
I wasn't telling him to leave. I was saying that he'd better get used to Conservapedia's conservative slant (duh!) being against his point of view and if he doesn't, then he should (not must) leave. I was suggesting a course of action, not making a demand. In fact, I didn't even need to suggest that option because he probably would find himself unwittingly made to leave. Jinxmchue 13:42, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Jinx, for your claim of 'fully patched', see the section immediately above this. 'Fully patched' does not mean what you obviously think it means. As for what I base the idea that not all issues have been addressed, again, that is clearly laid out in the section above. So far, all you have done is assert that you are right and I am wrong, nothing more. Conversely, I am putting what the cited references in the article say, not my own personal opinion, and I didn't even put those references in, so how you can say that it is ME pushing an agenda, is, quite frankly, a total mystery. Urushnor 12:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
So... "Fully patched" doesn't actually mean "fully patched," but "not fully/only partially patched?" Because YOU (and only you) say so? And does "black" mean "white" and "up" mean "down," too? Jinxmchue 13:42, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Jinx, did you, as I said, actually do a Google search for the term? Here, I've 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. Urushnor 13:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, I read your arguments about what "fully patched" means and dismissed them as utterly ridiculous. How exactly does the fact that some hackers found a new way past Windows security reflect at all on either the term "fully patched" or "Eternal Forces?" The issues are so completely dissimilar that I find it difficult to believe that even you cannot see it. Windows was fully patched until the hackers worked to find another exploit. So Microsoft will issue a patch for that and the program will once again be fully patched. That they did not have a patch for this new issue before it happened (that'd be one heck of a trick if they did!) does not mean it wasn't fully patched. "Fully patched" continues to mean "fully patched." Jinxmchue 15:33, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Yes, and what you're seemingly totally blind to is that those articles are talking about an exploit/bug/whatever that was known at the time the article was written, but still using the term 'fully patched' to describe Windows XP/Internet Explorer/whatever other software it was talking about. Indeed, if you look at some of the hits that I didn't point out, what do you get? Things like ones talking about World of Warcraft 'fully patched' to version 2.3. If you read the patch notes for the upcoming 2.4 patch, you see several fixes, and I can tell you some of those are issues that have been known about for a while. Urushnor 21:10, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Again, that this new exploit came out does not change the fact that the program was fully patched. And this issue is completely unlike "Eternal Forces." There are no hackers working to break into the "Eternal Forces" program. If there was no exploit created for Windows, what then? You wouldn't have a leg to stand on with this argument. Jinxmchue 14:51, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
No, according to YOUR definition of 'fully patched', at the time the articles were written, the various bits of software they are talking about were NOT 'fully patched', yet the articles still call them 'fully patched'. Face it, Jinx, you are simply wrong. Urushnor 15:57, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
"My" definition of "fully patched" is taken from basic, straight-forward usage of the English language. Whatever weird definition you are using (in which "fully patched" means "not fully patched") is not going to be understood by the general public. And it was ONE article written RECENTLY (January) which calls the version of "Eternal Forces" which is included with its sequel (and is the same version as the original game with all patches) "fully patched." You're the one who is wrong and I'm tired of your idiotic, senseless arguments. Jinxmchue 23:42, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
You have provided ONE article where the term 'fully patched' is used in reference to Eternal Forces, as supposed proof that Eternal Forces has no issues remaining with it. To back that up, all you have done is assert that 'fully patched' means that 'there are no issues remaining', and repeated that 'fully patched means fully patched', like it's some kind of mantra. In comparison, I have provided multiple articles where the term 'fully patched' is being used to refer to software that clearly does have issues remaining, and, indeed, asked you to simply do a Google search for the term (and even done one for you, and linked it) and count how many times the term is clearly used in the way you claim. You appear to simply refuse to do that. As for your definition of 'fully patched' being taken from 'basic, straight-forward usage of the English language', well, let's just put it this way - I fail to see how the definition of 'the full range of available patches have been applied' does not. Urushnor 10:51, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
I should also point out that you keep repeating 'fully patched means fully patched', like that actually means something. Sorry, it doesn't. If you have fundamentally misunderstood what 'fully patched' actually means, and are therefore trying to apply it incorrectly, then all you're doing is misusing a phrase twice. Urushnor 21:41, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
It does mean something despite your desire for it to mean something else or nothing. You are trying to argue that "fully patched" doesn't mean "fully patched," which is nonsensical. Jinxmchue 14:51, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
How clear do I have to say it? If you are getting the meaning of 'fully patched' wrong, then simply repeating the phrase twice is, indeed, meaningless. If I claimed that 'religion' meant 'a particular way of passing wind', then tried to back that up by simply repeating 'religion means religion' several times, you'd view my argument as non-existant and stupid (and quite rightly so). That, basically, is what you're doing. Urushnor 15:57, 15 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. 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 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. Urushnor 13:29, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Quoting you:
"Now, this seems to imply that all the negative reviews were down to 'religious bias' rather than anything else[.]"
Nuh-uh! Nuh-uh! I used the word "some" just like you! Quoting me:
"Some of the reviews were more about the reviewers' personal bias against religion in general or evangelical Christianity specifically."
See? Some, not all. SOME, not ALL. Man, you have a serious problem with what does or does not imply something or other, don't you? Jinxmchue 13:42, 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. Urushnor 13:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Honestly, your arguments getting more and more stupid. Does it really need to be "some of the negative reviews" instead of "some of the reviews?" The latter is not incorrect or inaccurate despite what you erroneously think.
....except in the way it implies that the 'some' of the reviews it's talking about is the negative ones. Urushnor 21:06, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Besides, how do we know that those who gave positive reviews don't have personal biases against religion which they simply did not put into the reviews? We don't. Adding the word "negative" to the sentence is unnecessary and ridiculous, and in fact would introduce bias against the negative reviews. I thought were supposedly against bias. Jinxmchue 15:33, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
So, what you're saying is that you're free to make any ridiculous assertation you like, and it is up to me to provide evidence you're wrong, rather than you actually providing evidence you're correct? Sorry, doesn't work that way - if you make a claim, you have to prove it. Urushnor 21:06, 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? Learn together 13:38, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Go to my user page, find my "shameless plug for my blog," and scroll about a quarter of the way down my blog to my latest post about the game (including links to my previous posts). Jinxmchue 13:48, 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. Urushnor 13:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
It does no such thing and you know it. The only thing I'm pushing is the truth, which you are rejecting based upon your own pushing of your opinion. Jinxmchue 15:33, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Well, just ask yourself this - who is it that's disagreeing with the cited sources in the article, even the ones he put in himself? Who is it that's actually providing evidence to back up what he's saying, rather than merely asserting that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong? I'll give you a hint - the answer to the first question is NOT 'Urushnor', and the answer to the second is NOT 'Jinxmchue'. Urushnor 21:06, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
I wish to reiterate again that whatever form the article ultimately takes, that there are no winners or losers here. You have both provided valuable information that has improved the article beyond what it could have been had you not contributed and both of you are held in high regard for your work and insights. Learn together 02:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Edit war

Can someone explain, in simple, non-ad hominem terms, what this edit war is about? It looks to me like you are moving one citation back and forth between paragraphs. HelpJazz 16:11, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree gentlemen that this seems silly. You both could be using the effort that you put towards this small difference to instead be creating constructive edits across Conservapedia. I really wish you would help us by looking at the bigger picture. Learn together 17:18, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

The issue is about what "fully patched" (from the second paragraph of this reference) means in regards to the game. I have taken the plain, straight-forward English position (which the vast majority of average readers will understand) that "fully patched" means "fully patched" while Urushie apparently thinks (and I've never seen him say otherwise) that "fully patched" means "not fully patched." He has tried to argue that since hackers created a security breach in a fully patched version of Windows that means that "fully patched" doesn't mean "fully patched" in all instances, and ignoring the painfully obvious and insurmountable difference between people deliberately hacking Windows to create problems and a game which people aren't trying to hack into. Jinxmchue 17:40, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I am suggesting a rewrite of the reviews section. I also notice that information in the reviews section about the game is not included elsewhere, such as using actual images and logos from New York City. Factual information about the game should never first appear under the reviews area.

The reviews are pertinent, but we have references for them if people want to check them up. It is understood that initial versions will have bugs that need to be addressed, but that should not be the focus. The focus should be on how the game plays after the fixes. On a different note, fully patched does not mean that all greivances ever brought up about the game have been solved. The developers of the game would not even have any way of knowing all of those greivances. It does mean that playability issues as presented in the patch documentation have been resolved. It should also be pointed out that some of the greivances raised against the game are ideological or differences of opinion in what makes a fun game. People who want a shoot 'em up will not be happy with Left Behind: Eternal Forces, nor should an effort be made to make them happy. Our article should report about the game and what it is as the focus. Learn together 17:57, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, actually, Jinx, what you would have realised, had you bothered to read what I have written, is that 'fully patched' means 'all available patches have been applied', as I have stated several times. According to you, however, it means 'any and all issues of any kind have been addressed by patches'. As I have also stated above, saying that 'fully patched means fully patched' means nothing if you are not giving the proper meaning of 'fully patched' in the first place. At no time have I said 'fully patched does not mean fully patched', I have said, repeatedly, that what you have claimed 'fully patched' actually means is simply wrong. The idea that the links I provided are people 'creating problems' with Windows (and, in fact, the different links I supplied referred to several bits of software, not just Windows, so try reading them) shows you are ignorant of fairly basic facts on the subject. Hackers and crackers don't 'create' problems with Windows, etc, they FIND them. The malware they create are only designed to take advantage of existing problems, of one kind or another. Thus, the links I provided disprove your definition of 'fully patched' (that any and all issues are fixed). If that weren't enough try simply doing a Google search for the phrase, and count how many times the phrase is clearly used to mean what you claim it means. I have already asked you to do this twice, and you apparantly simply refuse. To date, you have utterly failed to actually provide any evidence, bar your own assertion, that you are correct, but, instead, have repeatedly tried to arbritrarily insert the idea that all issues, of any kind, raised by the reviews have been addressed by patches, based, apparantly, entirely on your own opinion that the game is fantastic, and therefore cannot be legitimately criticised in any way, backed up by one sentence that uses the phrase 'fully patched' in one article and your own faulty understanding of what 'fully patched' actually means. As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to rewrite the section so that no reference is made to this issue at all (or, indeed, simply remove the sentence in question) I have no objection. What I do have an objection to is Jinx perpetrating a factual inaccuracy based purely on his own opinion, and in face of the evidence. Urushnor 18:48, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Learn Together here. It's silly to argue the definition of "fully patched" and really, I'm not sure how it's entirely relevant to the issue at hand. Why don't we focus on making the entire article better and, as Learn Together said, address what the issues with the current game are, not what issues may or may not have been fixed. We are spending way to much time talking about game patches, when the article is not about game patches. HelpJazz 19:10, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
PS: Jinx, you say the "plain, straight-forward" definition is that fully patched means nothing left is wrong, and I would disagree. Fully patched means, especially in this context, that all of the current patches have been applied, not that there are no more holes which need a patch. The hacking analogy might be erroneous (and I'm not saying that it is), but this doesn't mean necesessarily that his conclusion is erronious. I'm afraid I still don't see how this fits in to the entire article, though. HelpJazz 19:10, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
In short, it's a very minor point in the article, which is why I have zero objections to it being removed entirely. I have been trying to bring some balance to the 'Reviews' section (as, in it's original form, it seemed to imply that all the negative reviews were down to 'religious bias'), and Jinx has been very grudgingly giving ground when he's been more or less forced to. For some reason, though, he has dug his heels firmly in, and refuses to budge on this, and wants to claim that there are no issues or complaints raised by the reviews that haven't been patched, despite simply looking at the reviews referenced within the article and comparing that with the list of fixes in the patchnotes (also referenced within the article) indicates this is simply not the case. Urushnor 20:52, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't think either helpjazz or myself wants to imply that we taking sides in your discussion in such a way as to denigrate either of you. You both have strong passions and feel strongly about certain aspects of how the article should be presented. Both of you can be valued contributors to the site and we hope both of you will be in the future. Any solution we reach here is not meant to be a 'right' or 'wrong' solution, but rather one that incorporates all of the information that both of you have given in such a form that the article is fair and upholds Conservapedia standards. Learn together 02:29, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
I have an article from January 2008 that states the game is fully patched to back up my position. You have reviews from almost a year and a half ago to back up your's. Who do you think has a more reliable source for the current version of the game? Jinxmchue 11:15, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
And you're still completely and utterly missing the point, even though I have said it, multiple times, in as clear language as I can. What you obviously think 'fully patched' means is not what 'fully patched' actually means. Got it? Urushnor 16:13, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
No, I'm not missing the point. You think "fully patched" means "not fully patched" because some hacker yahoos created a new breach in ONE FLIPPING PROGRAM OUT OF THOUSAND AND THOUSANDS. Jinxmchue 14:12, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
Well, that statement is yet further evidence that you are missing the point, and, basically, haven't even read what I have written on here (or, indeed, even read all the links you're referring to). What more can I say? Urushnor 14:54, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
Tell me, O keeper of what basic English phrases actually mean, if hackers had not "found" (created) this new exploit of Windows, what leg would you have thought you had to stand on? Jinxmchue 17:49, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
Well, you're providing yet more evidence you're missing the point, plus providing more evidence you didn't actually read all the links I provided. Try going back and reading over everything I have said here, actually reading the links I provided, doing the Google search I asked you to do three times, which you still apparantly haven't actually done, and making sure you actually understand all the information I have directed you towards (feel free to ask for clarification on anything you don't), and maybe we can have a discussion on the matter at hand, instead of rehashing things already covered. Urushnor 21:46, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
Do you actually have anything worthwhile to add, or are you just going to repeat "you're missing the point" ad nauseum and lying that I didn't read all the links? Jinxmchue 23:42, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
Well, your last couple of statements are a pretty clear indication you are, indeed, missing the point, and, if you had read all the links, you would realise that certain details in your last couple of statements are simply wrong, so you're making those statements either through ignorance or an attempt at deliberate deception. I chose 'ignorance', as it leaves you in a better light. Was I wrong to do that? If you require a hint as to what, exactly, is wrong with your statements, well, that's something that is also already covered - try the fifth sentence in this edit of mine. Urushnor 00:02, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
It's obvious that the two of you will never agree on this issue and it's also obvious that this is about to degenerate (again) into personal attacks. Is the distinction between "fully patched" and "has a full allotment of patches" really so important to the article? Can we just write a version of the article that you both agree on (perhaps by deleting the statement entirely), since you will never be able to convince the other of their position? Please? HelpJazz 00:09, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
Yes. PLEASE, yes. Anything - ANYTHING - to cease the stupid, inane, inaccurate, ridiculously nonsensical arguments I'm seeing here. Jinxmchue 01:19, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
Well, I've already stated that I have no objections to the relevant sentence being deleted entirely, and now Jinx has finally said the same thing, so feel free. Strangely enough, Jinx's statement above is a pretty accurate echo of my thoughts. Urushnor 19:31, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
So... the latter, then. Jinxmchue 01:19, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

As a professional computer programmer, I can assure you that software releases tend to be buggy, especially when there is publication pressure. Computer game developers are usually under tremendous pressure to grab market share, but a "pressured programmer" is a sloppy programmer. It takes time to get things right.

I'm sure there are many software bugs in "Left Behind". How fast these are being fixed, I have no idea. Whether free patches or service packs are being given to customers, I also have no idea.

I suggest we divide the commentary on the game into two sections:

  1. the story line of the game
  2. technical issues

Various groups will have ideological reactions to the game's themes of tribulation and rapture. It's astonishing that a Jewish group would apparently defend a fundamentalist Christian idea, but if ADL says it's not anti-Semitic I got to go along with that: they set the bar very high.

I don't think we need to list all the technical issues, but I wouldn't mind a spinoff article called Technical issues in Left Behind or Technical issues in Eternal Forces.

No need to fight over whether the patches are sufficient; just quote the various sources, perhaps in chronological order. --Ed Poor Talk 11:31, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

I really don't see a need for any spinoff articles beyond one for the sequel. Jinxmchue 15:52, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
Well, what I was actually somewhat surprised at was that, with the exception of Talk To Action, plus one or two other who seemingly believed Talk To Action's lies, the reaction to the general concept of the game was very positive. Even the negative reviews referred to in the article basically summarise the game as 'good concept, but badly executed'. This even includes the supposedly 'religiously biased' Game Revolution review that said it 'wastes a good premise'. I agree that we don't need to list all the technical issues (and I would even go further and say there is no pressing need to refer to reviews at all), but, if we are going to refer to reviews, we need to make sure that the general thrust of those reviews is accurately reflected, whether we agree with them or not. Urushnor 16:13, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Alright, I think I have fixed it so that everybody is happy. If I messed up please correct me. I'm glad we could finally come to an agreement. Now kiss and make up :p HelpJazz 19:39, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

So... how is the wording of your fix different from what I wanted? Jinxmchue 11:27, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
I didn't intend to pick one side or the other. I thought the argument was over "fully patched means that all the holes were fixed" or "fully patched means that all of the patches have been applied, but not all holes have been fixed", and now the argument simply says "dozens of issues" were fixed, rather than "all issues" (as you wanted) or "not all issues" (as Urushnor wanted). My edit isn't final, so if I didn't do it correctly please fix it (with Urushnor's agreement, of course). HelpJazz 13:04, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Well, I'm expecting no agreement from him since he's under the impression that if it doesn't explicitly say "some," then it implies "all." Jinxmchue 15:48, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
If that's what he actually thinks (and I'll let Urushnor speak for himself) then take away the whole thing. I'm just trying to help here. HelpJazz 18:23, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Jinx, the whole purpose of doing this edit was that, according to you, you had found proof that no issues were remaining, in the link you added. If you read what you have written on DanH's talk page, the various comments you put in edit summaries, plus what you have written here on this Talk page, that is completely clear. In fact, your link is no such thing, which is why, in the spirit of compromise, as it appeared to be important to you to have that source in the article (even though it doesn't actually prove what you think it proves) I moved it to a more appropriate place in this edit, and put in the word 'some' as there is no way to determine how many of the issues fixed in patches are down to complaints, and how many are down to something else (internal testing, getting around to fixes that didn't make it in pre-release development, etc). You had been continually reverting my edits, and continued to do so, based purely on the idea that your link DID prove this, as can be seen from your edit comments, so don't try now saying otherwise. HelpJazz's version makes no reference to how many issues were or were not fixed due to complaints, or whether or not there are any remaining, and has left the source in the appropriate place. In essence, he has done my edit in a slightly different way, so, as far as I'm concerned, that's fine. Urushnor 21:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
I never said no issues were remaining. Of course issues remain which no patch can fix, namely bigoted complaints about the religious aspects of the game and people's lies about the game promoting killing gays and non-Christians. To raise such complaints in regards to issues remaining to be patched is, well, just plain stupid.
On the issue of use of the word "some," it was an unnecessary addition as there was absolutely no implication without it that all issues had been fixed.
To my knowledge, only one website reviewed (re-reviewed, actually) the game after some patches had been made available, and their rating for the game improved quite a bit. Every other criticism that is cited is based upon months-old reviews of the pre-patched game. These reviews are not representative of what the game is like now and drawing upon them to judge what issues remain is really rather weak.
"Fully patched" continues to mean "fully patched" and your faulty use of the Windows security hack issue doesn't change that. If that security hack had never happened, there would have been no outstanding issues and the program would've remained fully patched.
Finally, there is very little difference between what my earlier edit was and what HelpJazz's current edit is. See the difference to my edit here compared to your edit here. Jinxmchue 22:12, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
Stop now. You both said you were happy with the article, as is. Please don't use your agreement as a new basis for arguing! HelpJazz 22:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
I will make one final comment and then stop - Jinx, if you 'have never claimed that no issues were remaining', as you now say, you would have no reason to revert my edits. In addition, if you have never claimed there are no issues remaining, you put the source claiming the game was 'fully patched' in a location that has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the source, and have been reverting me moving it to an appropriate location. In short, your prior actions indicate what you now say is incorrect. Urushnor 14:38, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
I'm not going to stoop to the level of continuing this nonsense. Jinxmchue 21:31, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Left_Behind:_Eternal_Forces/Archive1&oldid=683540"