Difference between revisions of "Talk:Left Behind: Eternal Forces"

Revision as of 14:51, March 16, 2008

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)