Talk:Left Behind: Eternal Forces/Archive 1

Racism
Should we also mention that you only kill non-whites/christians in this game?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.75.190 (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why should we mention something that is a falsehood on every point? 67.135.49.42 (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Protection
I've protected the page for now. Please work out differences through discussion on the talk page and not through revert wars. jaco ♫ plane 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried. I posted in the Discussion page several times. It appears that those have been deleted. I was banned for reverting, though people changing it to the "convert or kill" false description of the game were not. This is very close to, if not outright, slander and vandalism, which I undrestood to be exceptions to the revert rule. I have emailed the admin who banned me, but he refuses to respond. This reflects very poorly on Wikipedia that such blatantly and provably false statements can be "protected" while those who try and fix it are banned. Banning one side of a revert war, and the only one who tried to discuss the topic on the discussion board, is hardly fair. (Normally, CPRice).
 * Ahh yes, I see now that there were some comments deleted from the talk page, I'm adding them again below. jaco ♫ plane  18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Any chance on getting CPRice unbanned? And since no one else is commenting or offering facts to contradict mine, can we revert the page back to the last version that claries that the Christians in the game are not murdering Jews, gays, Catholics, etc?  12.150.161.10 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to the last comment made by the anonymous poster (possibly CPRice): The "banned" user in question was blocked from editing for 24 hours because the person violated the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Ibaranoff24 23:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC))


 * As I pointed out, there are exceptions to the three revert rule. You also broke the rule.  And you  have still NOT offered a defense of your false descriptions of the game. (CPRice).


 * Since you obviously do not understand what you have done, let me explain the three-revert rule once more: YOU MAY ONLY REVERT A ARTICLE TO A PREVIOUS VERSION THREE TIMES. IF YOU REVERT MORE THAN THREE TIMES, YOU WILL BE BLOCKED. Also, you still haven't offered a defense of YOUR false description of the game. (Ibaranoff24 16:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC))


 * If you will look below, I am the only one who has justified his position. You are claiming that the Left Behind folks are advocating genocide in their game. You have offered not one source from anyone who has actually played the game.  I have offered several reviews from people who have played the game.


 * Also, there are exceptions to the three revert rule and my actions were within those exceptions. You, however, reverted much more than three times and did not get banned and are not yelling at yourself in bold.


 * So, justify your position by giving credible sources that Left Behind is a game of genocide. Layman 18:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I only reverted three times. You reverted four times. (Ibaranoff24 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

Accuracy
It is inaccurate, untrue, not factual, to say the game calls for people to "convert or kill." That's simply anti-Christian propoganda. I've read several secular reviews of the game, as well as an LA Times article and an ABC News special, none of them back of the version you keep reverting to. Layman 21:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm an evangelical Christian. Layman, why on earth are you talking about anti-Christian propaganda? This game itself is anti-Christian propaganda. It has absolutely nothing remotely in common with Christianity. There is no resemblance between this game and the spirit behind the teachings of Jesus. It is destructive to God, to children, to Christianity and to Christians and non-Christians alike. The fact that non Christians are criticizing it has nothing to do with being anti-Christian. It's got everything to do with the fact that this game is disgrace for everyone, Christians and non-Christians, who are both united by the fact that they all have children they love. Neither party needs this sewage corrupting the minds of their children. You alone seem to be the champion of this evil rubbish. What on earth posessed you? The fact that children aren't *supposed* to kill people is irrelevant. They can, and they will, because they're children and that's what children do. Has it occurred to you that lots of children are going to buy this game simply *so that* they can join the army of the antichrist and kill Christians? Huh? Are you being paid by the manufacturers? Do you work for them? You certainly don't represent the church, that's for certain. Please don't speak for us - Paul

So now you not only revert back to an false description of the game, but you remove any links disputing the description of the game. How open minded and fair. Layman 15:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, how about PROVIDING VALID SOURCES TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIM THAT THE CURRENT DESCRIPTION IS FALSE? And this does not include Christian blogs. (Ibaranoff24 19:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC))


 * The Christian blog refers to secular reviews of the game. Follow the links and read them for yourself.  I have excerpted them below.


 * It is revealing that you think that a Christian blog cannot be trusted but you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker an anti-Christian-right blog's opinion of a Christian right game.


 * Finally, more than 15 blogs and websites have retracted or corrected their descriptions of the games after reading both the Talk2Action erroneous blog and the reviews I link to. You can see for yourself here. Layman 20:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In a December 14, 2006 BBC News story on the Left Behind: Eternal Forces game controversy, Left Behind Games President Jeffrey Frichner appeared to admit (see quote below) that the "convert or die" characterization of his video game was accurate. Frichner blamed that situation on "the antichrist":

"Jeffrey S Frichner, a co-founder of Left Behind Games, utterly rejects that characterisation of his game.

None of the missions in the game has a 'convert-or-die' objective, he insists.

'It's the anti-Christ that desires you to convert or die, and you are defending yourself against that on the good side,' he says."

- Bruce Wilson, Co-Founder, Talk2action. December 16, 2006

The convert or die aspect is performed by the computer AI as the antichrist's army. If the player attempts to do this in the single player game, they will lose. Therefore, once and for all, there is no "convert or die" coming from the good side in this game.

Three Sources?
Three sources confirming the point of the game is to kill anyone who does not convert to Christianity? List them. And prove they know what they are talking about. The secular reviews by people who have played the game completely contradict the nonsense espoused by Talk2Action. Check them out here:

Some quotes from gamers who have played the game:


 * Players aren't competing to kill the enemy army -- rather, they're trying to save them, and each person killed represents a failure rather than a success. "We found that adhering closely to Biblical philosophies made the game more interesting rather than less," Lyndon said. "One of the key elements of that is to make sure that the player sees that every life is important and precious."


 * As you'd expect, you'll be encouraged to do good while playing the game, but you may also do evil, as well. Like many real-time strategy games, Eternal Forces features a variety of resources that you need to accumulate to build units. One of these resources is your spiritual rating, which measures how good or evil you are. If your troops kill civilians and innocents, your spiritual rating drops, and if it drops too much, you may see your units defect (each unit has his or her own spiritual rating), and if drops too far, demons will show up.


 * Killing civilians will definitely make you a friend of the devil.


 * The forces of evil mirror the forces of good, with the notable difference that the abilities of evil will decrease spirit, while those of good raise spirit (except for killing, which lowers spirit, no matter what).

Clearly the descriptions about killing are erroneous and should be dropped from this entry. Layman 15:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

gamerankings.com
The gamerankings.com website provides no useful information. The articles it links to are blank. Please, don't embarrass yourself by attempting to defend this propagandic trash video game. (Ibaranoff24 19:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC))


 * They are NOT blank. That is where I got the quotes from.  Perhaps you should try a different web browser, though they work on Explorer and Firefox. The references are valid and accessible by anyone interested in the truth.  12.150.161.10 20:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, more than 15 websites have retracted or corrected their articles on the game after reading my blog and the reviews I post to. Apparently, they did not have the same problem you have about reading the reviews.  See here.  Why are you the only one who can't read the truth? Layman 20:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Mission Controversy
The player is is not given missions to "kill" gays, catholics, etc. and are penalized if they resort to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.234.46 (talk • contribs)
 * The information is not erroneous. It is from three valid sources which confirm that this is exactly what the game is about. Provide some real information next time, CPRice, and stop trying to defend this game by lying about it's content. (Ibaranoff24 19:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

Incorrect, Ibaranoff, no missions have an objective to kill. Most have an objective not to kill.


 * So what? After you kill someone, you just press the pray button and your score or level or health or whatever goes right back up. This is not a game, its a way of being a total racist, anti-semitist, and anti-LGBT-ist.


 * Just FYI, I am not CPRice. (I am 69.232.234.46 )

This causes major micromanagement issues. Also, if you kill you get penalized 5 spirit points. If you have 64 spirit points, you go to 59 and turn neutral. You can't command that unit to pray as it is no longer on your side. If the unit was at 80 and killed, it would go to 75 and Praying only gives 3 back - so it is a net loss of 2. Of course you can pray again, but in the meantime, you are in a battle. As you can see, you lose when you kill.


 * All of your sources supporting your claim that the purpose of the game is to "convert or kill" goes back to Talk2Action. None of the newspapers you cite support this desription of the game.  You have not cited from any reputable news source or anyone who has played the game to support your claim that the game is about killing people who resist conversion.  Moreover, I have shown -- based on secular reviews of the game -- that this statement is false.  You are penalized for killing people who do not convert, though there is warfare and killing between the Tribulation Force and the army of the anti-Christ.  Layman 20:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Referring to the FAQ on Left Behind Games' site, which I would assume is the first source we should refer to on matters of the game: "Are guns used by Christians against non-Christians? Why or why not?  The storyline in the game begins just after the Rapture has occurred – when all adult Christians, all infants, and many children were instantly swept home to Heaven and off the Earth by God. The remaining population – those who were left behind – are then poised to make a decision at some point. They cannot remain neutral. Their choice is to either join the AntiChrist – which is an imposturous one world government seeking peace for all of mankind, or they may join the Tribulation Force – which seeks to expose the truth and defend themselves against the forces of the AntiChrist." I'm afraid that this does, in fact, constitute a reference to killing non-Christians, but we'll walk through it for form's sake. If you, the player, represent the Christian paramilitary group Tribulation force, while I the computer bit represent a non-Christian civilian and there is no neutrality in the game, it stands to reason that I the non-Christian must either be on your side or on the Anti-Christ's. According to game play and the above quote, the default position is with the Anti-Christ. Yes, when you shoot me, your Spirit goes down, but it also goes down when you shoot an obvious demon. In other words, killing civilian me is no different from killing a demon. This is a game avowedly about killing the enemy, which is deemed self-defense whether or not I'm armed in the game world. In light of the fact that the individuals marketing and producing this game genuinely believe this end of the world scenario is coming, I'm surprised you don't find this disturbing. In more immediate terms, it promotes an irresponsibly terroristic mindset of us vs. them, where killing "them" is justified whether or not they are an active threat, and unknowns are default "them." Such concerns cannot be dismissed on the grounds that this is a game and therefore fantasy because we are talking about actual religions and are carefully simulating real world civilians and settings. Since this is grade school logic, I sincerely wonder why there is so much opposition to what the manufacturers themselves have already stated. Furthermore, this Wikipedia article is incomplete until these concerns are objectively expressed, which I've attempted to do in a balanced manner at the risk of downplaying the concern. I must insist that there is no room in an encyclopedia for religious tribalism, defending a game purely on the grounds that it's ostensibly Christian in the face of such dubious factors as the game encouraging violence against others who are no threat to you. Now no one has admitted that their defense of or opposition to the game might stem from religious viewpoints, but it's the elephant in the room and no one is fooling anyone about their biases. Considering the inherently anti-Christian message of this game, I would think those currently defending the game would be willing to allow a treatment of these concerns on the article page. How do you propose we proceed from here? NaylaOliver 19:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)NaylaOliver

Reliable sources, assuming good faith
The most important question here is whether the talk2action is a reliable source, as is required by Verifiability. Ibaranoff24, you claim this is not just a blog, but that this is somehow a notable news site. I haven't seen much evidence for this, it rather looks like a blog to me. Also Ibaranoff24, you need to assume good faith when it comes to other contributors. Making statements like "It was added by an anonymous IP address with only two edits to its credit, both of which are to this page. I have no other reason to believe that it wasn't you" is clearly not assuming good faith. Since I'm the adminsitrator who protected this page I do not wish to get involved in the content dispute, I have asked for feedback on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games since I think we should get feedback from more editors on this issue. jaco ♫ plane 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Your source of reference is a blog. That is not a valid source of information." by Ibaranoff
 * "Last November, we launched Talk to Action as a national, interactive blog site on the religious right." by talk2action
 * "Remove the blog links" -Hahnch e  n 03:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk2action is a self-described partisan activist blog (see http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/6/7/215525/9009 ) and therefore not a reliable source according to Wikipedia's rules. Several of the points made in the talk2action articles by Jonathan Hutson are in dispute in the blogosphere. Hutson's attempts to connect Rick Warren (author of "The Purpose Driven Life") to the game appear to be unfounded. For these reasons talk2action should not be cited and links should be removed from the page.      Cpreston 02:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)=Cpreston

As a point of fact, Jonathan Hutson did not allege that Rick Warren was in any way personally connected with the apparent attempt to leverage his "Purpose Driven" brand name to market the "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" video game. Given Warren's prominence such an inaccurate allegation by Hutson could well have prompted a lawsuit from Warren, but Hutson did not make that charge. - Bruce Wilson, Talk2Action Co-Founder, December 16, 2006
 * Talk2Action may be a self-described partisan activist blog, but they are now influencing the outcome of events related to Left Behind: Eternal Forces, making them "newsworthy" as it were. You may disagree with their linking of Rick Warren to the game, but Talk2Action's articles prompted Rick Warren to issue statements that he was decidedly not endorsing the game, mentioning the site explicitly.  If players in this situation are taking Talk2Action seriously, then they are reasonable to include information about.  I would advocate including the articles of rebuttals of Talk2Action's statements, particularly if they are in any way influencing events concerning this game.  This is the reason I restored the links in question. NaylaOliver 14:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)NaylaOliver


 * It's not just about notability, it's about accuracy. Blogs may be very widely read, especially partisan ones, but they are not accountable. If this blog says 'such and such a person is endorsing this game' and that person denies it (and there is not additional evidence to make us believe they are endorsing it) then I say we dump the blog as a source since it doesn't seem to be reliable.

However, as noted above, Talk To Action contributor Jonathan Hutson did not make such an allegation and - indeed - the criticism above is currently an unsupported allegation in this discussion. Hutson did not allege a Warren endorsement of the game ( see link, above ) - Bruce Wilson

This would be far from the first time that some source has made wild accusations against some organisation in the hope that it will simply generate enough heat to severely cripple whatever it is they are attacking before the truth becomes clear. It's called Swiftboating I believe. Anything where a blog is the only source should be removed from the article. DJ Clayworth 19:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, have you read the blog in question? A blog in and of itself is simply a web publishing platform, as is a wiki, neither of which implies anything about the content it publishes. Before tossing "blog" around like it's a dirty word academically, we should consider that nothing but citing our sources lends what we write for Wikipedia any credibility. On that notes, Talk2Action cites all its source rather than simply making accusations, hence why I asked. For instance, Talk2Action did not simply assert Rick Warren was endorsing the game, they quoted him and cited their sources. Mr. Warren himself has neither refuted the quotes, he has cut ties with the company and denied endorsing that he's endorsing them after that fact. Further, he took issue with the publishing of the quotes on the net, although I'm uncertain why he would. If you'd excuse the comparison, Dobson attempted a similar manuever when he denied involvement with Abramoff's scandals following Defcon's public indictment, yet the virtual paper trail remains on his own site and for the googling that he was endorsing Abramoff, just as Warren's now severed ties to Left Behind Games are there for review. He does not deny that he had those ties, after all, only that those ties meant he was endorsing the game, which I'd say is a matter of opinion. What do you call it when someone has ties to a company with only one product on deck and arrangements to sell their product in your "stores?" All of which is to say, if a blog did the homework and cites their sources, they're legitimate to link to. If we do not link to their information, on what criteria are we working? Only the AP wire? NaylaOliver 19:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)NaylaOliver

Please add these links
Please add these gaming site links: Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 02:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * GameStats page
 * GameSpot
 * IGN

Protection Removed
In light of the comments above (with the exception of Ibaranoff who cannot justify his position), I have reverted the article to the last version that excludes the unfounded claim that the game puts the player on a mission to kill Jews, gays, Catholics, and anyone who resists becoming a Christian. I am sure the present version can be improved, but the "mission to kill" should have no part in future versions. Layman 12:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But that's what the game is about! (Ibaranoff24 02:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

Catholics = Christians, for your information.

More facts
How about a few more facts about this game and a few less concerns about 'Dominionistic overtones'. DJ Clayworth 18:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Numerous Wikipedia articles see fit to include overviews of the various perspectives on their subject. In the case of this particular game, the controversies arising around it are of greater social significance than the game play quality (which does look to be high). Particularly now, when the game has not yet been published, but these complaints are running high, writing about the controversies involved is the bulk of the story we have. Besides, facts such as have been stated on the website itself have been deleted (admittedly, the wording was inflammatory), so what would you like us to cover? NaylaOliver 19:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)NaylaOliver


 * How about a basic plot of the game, if one is known? What kinds of units are involved? Is it resource based or tactical? FPS? Is there really "violence is often aimed at unarmed and civilian populations within a highly realistic New York City environment"? Do the game makers themselves imply that, or is this some other organisation claiming it?

We should also source some statements. The above is a really good example, but we should also do more to sort fact from accusation. Remember all the stuff about Grand Theft Auto that was said and turned out not to be true? DJ Clayworth 21:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree we should source and cite more facts and quotes. For instance, the quote from Left Behind Games' FAQ about using violence against non-Christians, as I mentioned elsewhere. Also, there were some game reviews that we can cite describing gameplay, including the controversial aspect of shooting unarmed nurses. (As I said below, nurses are considered illegitimate military targets so attacking them is considered a terrorist act, like attacking civilians, yet it appears the shooting of nurses is treated no differently from shooting other enemy combatants, or even civilians.) Out of curiosity, since we're writing this Wikipedia article, do you think we could persuade makers of the game to do an interview with us, perhaps posting it on their site so we can cite it? Ditto other educated personnel. I know a Rutgers University professor who's high up in the field of researching religious terrorism. If this game is suspected, or accused anywhere, of promoting religious violence, why not ask him to answer some questions for us and post it on the official Rutgers' religion pages so we can cite it? If too little information exists, we can always agitate for more, right? I'll start a section here for getting potential interview questions together. NaylaOliver 15:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)NaylaOliver

NPOV
All the quotes about the game from actual relevent news sites have been removed from the article. They have been replaced with an attack on the game for its alleged dominionistic overtones which were probably sourced purely from some stupid blog. I literally don't care if they remain in the article unless you can give me a decent source for it. I removed the links to the blog for the reasons I mentioned above. I have read the news articles linked, and took a look at game rankings too. If the only source of the "controversy" issues come from talk2action, then they should be removed. - Hahnch e  n 06:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, I accidentally deleted rather than archived some things from the Discussion page, I apologize for that. Secondly, as I mentioned above, the actual information leading to the controversies is coming from the Left Behind Games site. The site itself describes the game as a) using guns/violence on non-Christians, b) taking place in a highly realistic reproduction of NYC, and c) converting non-Christians. All of which are objectionable.  I tend to take the manufacturer's site at it's word, I've also submitted it for archiving at archive.org so we can check back if it's ever altered at a later date for comparison purposes.  Unfortunately, I don't believe there will be an archive for us to review until six months have passed, but at least we'll have that resource to draw on.  Secondly, game reviews have mentioned the shooting of unarmed "enemy units," which happen now and then to be civilian and non-Christian, or nurses.  Nurses, for the record, are considered illegitimate targets for military action, therefore shooting them would be considered a terrorist act.  That's why there's a controversy, people are objecting to this material beyond the violent aspect. (Violence-wise, I think we can all agree this is tame compared to other games.) NaylaOliver 15:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)NaylaOliver

I don't think that repeatedly deleting the talk2action articles is respecting a neutral point of view. The articles portray a valid opinion, and real facts about the game. Yet, "somebody" (he knows whom he is) keeps deleting these articles, and claiming that the URLs are for a "blog." (Ibaranoff24 01:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

The only reason that I can see barring links to Talk to Action in this article is Wikipedia's External Links Policy: Links to normally avoid §12 which states "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard." Talk to Action identifies itself as a blog, however the site claims that it has a unique editorial framework and a standard that it holds all of its articles to. Talk to Action is linked to by two other Wikipedia articles, Dominionism (where it is referenced as an organization, not as a source) and Chick-fil-A (with two articles about indirectly related topics, one on Bill Bright and the other on Dominionism); however, the Chick-fil-A links links do not appear to have been scrutinized under Wikipedia policy (i.e. both sets of links were added in without discussion or evaluation), are indirectly related and appear as sources in a NPOV debated section. Since I'm not a regular reader of the blog, I cannot attest to its level of standards. If we can establish that it is a "website is of particularly high standard" in accordance to policy, then we can keep the links. Otherwise, they must go. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 02:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't edit religious articles, they don't interest me. From a European perspective, the entire Left Behind series and Christian "Assassinate the Venezuelan president in the name of God" Evangelicalism is just ridiculous.  I actually once watched a news report on how the latest Left Behind book was sweeping America quite a while back, the only conclusion I drew from it, was that America is home to a lot of inbred retards, especially the woman who was interviewed and ask why she liked it so much and her answer was "because it's what I believe".


 * I came across this article when someone cried flamewar at WP:CVG and it was under protection. Ibraranoff was removing links to blogs that disagreed with his view, and yet inserting links to the t2a blog that agreed with his view.  I'm all for removing all blog links anyway, in my contributuion tree you'll see that I remove many links to webcomics, blogs, newgrounds bullshit etc.  I was even more inclined to remove this one because of Ibaranoff's strange compelling cries that it wasn't a blog regardless of what t2a said.  And there's another problem with t2a's article, it's so biased it's like watching Fox News.  They obviously know nothing about computer games whatsoever.  Literally nothing.  It's pasted together from excerpts by writers who also know nothing about computer games.


 * (Note: I was not removing links that disagreed with my POV. This is just unwarranted slander.) - Ibaranoff24 18:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh well, it was just confusing why you'd remove links to one blog, and yet insert links to another blog with the opposite opinion. I know you ended up inserting all the blogs at the end, but they're just not good sources of information, especially in this case.  Slander's probably a bit strong. - Hahnch  e  n 21:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, talk2action is NOT a blog. Secondly, I do not remember deleting any links to any websites with an opposing viewpoint. If I did, that was not my intention. - Ibaranoff24 01:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's funny; I just took a look at Talk2Action's FAQ and Guidelines pages, and it plainly states that it is a blog. Granted, a blog with higher standards than most, but still not immune to disinformation.--C.Logan 14:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It claims that you explicitly murder gays and members of other faiths who don't convert. I've not played the game and haven't been following its development for obvious reasons (it's crap), but I would bet Satan on the fact that gays and hindus are not modelled in game.  They'll be like GTA, faceless identity-less masses, which is probably why Jack Thompson doesn't like it as it desensitivises violence.  Claiming that you're actively seeking out to punish gays is like claiming that the fact that you can shoot people in the GTA gay district is promoting homophobia.  Or that the ability to play as Germany in Civilisation is an endorsement of fascism.  The game has already got the "killing innocents" point by employing a sith like "with or against" view.  You're not killing innocents, you're killing the forces of Hell.  You can also control the forces of Hell in their campaign and unite the world for the anti-christ, surely this balances some of the claims of dominionism thrown upon it.  What would an anti Christian right blog have against a game which promotes 2 wholly different views?


 * Do Talk2Action actually agree with Jack Thompson? That it's a game that'll make us all go crazy and slaughter Christians in the name of the Anti-Christ?  This is what Jack Thompson ACTUALLY THINKS.  By siding with JT on this stupid point, they are endorsing his position that computer games are the source of every murder that has ever taken place since the invention of the calculator.  This is what Jack Thompson ACTUALLY THINKS.  I'm pretty sure that an anti-Christian right blog would disagree with Jack Thompson's comments on everything, yet has somehow joined in with the computer games are the work of satan cry just because it's convenient.


 * And it barely covers any of the game in any real detail accurately. It's just using the computer game to rubbish the Christian right, yet also loses itself in the hypocrisy and poor sensationalist journalistic ethics that it tries to point out.  Talk2action should go play Requiem: Avenging Angel, you play as angel doing the work of God, at points you do get to kill GENUINE INNOCENT NURSES WHO AREN'T WORKING FOR SATAN with shotguns.  They'd probably cream themselves over that one, and unlike this, it's a damn fine game. - Hahnch  e  n 10:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Research
We're fully capable of instigating the creation or release of new information on this topic, some suggested avenues follow.

Interviews We Can Request
With Left Behind Games: Please post possible interview questions here, when we have at least ten I'll request they post an addendum to their FAQ or something similar with answers to our questions. We can then cite their answers and use them to improve our article. Since Wikipedia is fairly respectable and widely used, they'll probably be motivated to assist us.


 * How does the game differentiate between shooting legitimate and illegitimate military targets? How are legitimate and illegitimate military targets determined?

Enemies only can be targeted. Neutrals can not. Physical Violence, as stated in the manual and on almost every reviewer's website is penalized and only used as a last resort. Yes, you can pray to get some spirit points back, but you can't get them all back right away and micro managing your units in this manner can cause game failure quite easily.

With experts in the field of religious terrorism: If the indictment hitting the blogosphere is that this game promotes domestic terrorism, people will come to the wikipedia article for reliable information on it. Having reputable papers from professors in the field would give us more than just hearsay to go on. Once we have more in-depth information from Left Behind Games, and maybe more game reviews, let's forward the information to cooperative experts for their response, to be posted on their university pages along with any specific questions. (Although specific questions to professorial types might be pointless, they'll likely just give their own response which is informative enough.)

More game reviews: Let's organize game review links, including the infamous talk2action articles, here. We can comment on them here rather than posting and reverting ad nauseum on the main page, then select some enlightening quotes. I'm not a big RTS gamer, so I'll leave the link hunting up to you guys. NaylaOliver 15:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)NaylaOliver

Please Be Alert
We shouldn't have to worry about this here, but please be alert for "netvocates," people employed by any of several internet marketing companies such as Rendon Group and Netvocates, for the purpose of defending or plugging client corporations in blogs, on forums, and very likely on Wikipedia as well. Clients can, apparently, be anyone from a company to an independent organization to government programs (which Rendon group specializes in, I'm not sure how that's legal or what backdoor they go through). This seems to be a new phenomenon and there's no real protections against the practice yet. Since I've heard about them, I'm attempting to alert wikipedia, though I'm sure they've already heard. You might want to keep your eye out on other articles you edit, too. NaylaOliver 15:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)NaylaOliver

Timeline
The game takes place 18 months after the Rapture towards the end of the second book "Tribulation Force"

Edit Timeline
Regarding the deletion of the "Controversial Elements" sections, which appear at first glance to be a driveby editing at any rate, it's unfortunate, but the controversies are the greatest body of information we have about the game just yet. We can always pursue further research by interviewing the company or other prominent figures. Considering that well-regarded wikipedia articles often include opposing views to the subject of the article, this seems accepted practice and a wholecloth deletion of the section does not seem good faith. That said, we could easily improve section balance, or at least clarify, by further breaking down each element into a "pro-controversy" paragraph and a response to it. It's hard to balance wording of a paragraph meant to describe a certain biased view (and both for and against the game constitute biases), but it's pretty easy to balance an argument and response. Perhaps this would be a better approach than simply deleting whatever we don't like? After all, we have to share the editorial power at some point. NaylaOliver 02:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)NaylaOliver

Paragraph slashing
A large amount of material was simply cut. If there is a problem with NPOV we need to solve this by rewriting, not deleting. All of the issues listed in the paragraphs that were cut are issues that the gaming commuinity are currently facing with this game (and issues of representation of religious terrorism is a -big- issue that the major academics in the field, such as Dr. James W. Jones, are actively dealing with). אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 01:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk to Action
There is a lot of argument over whether or not Talk to Action should be included as a valid source. In this section I would like us to deliberate (in a civil fashion) whether or not to include it. Please refrain from typing in all caps, insults, ad hominem and other things that are against Wikipedia Policy, and be sure to sign all comments with ~. :-)

As I noted earlier on the talk page, broken down into points:


 * Wikipedia's External Links Policy: Links to normally avoid §12 states "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard."


 * Talk to Action identifies itself as a blog  and appears to use blog software to publish its articles, however the site claims that it has a unique editorial framework and a high standard that it holds all of its articles to.


 * Talk to Action is linked to by two (2) other Wikipedia articles, Dominionism (where it is referenced as an organization, not as a source, therefore a non issue for this discussion) and Chick-fil-A (with two articles about indirectly related topics, one on Bill Bright and the other on Dominionism); however, the Chick-fil-A links do not appear to have been scrutinized under Wikipedia policy (i.e. the links were added in without discussion or evaluation), are indirectly related and appear as sources in a NPOV debated section.


 * If we can establish that it is a "website is of particularly high standard" in accordance to policy, then we can keep the links. Otherwise, they must go.

So, what can be said about the level of standards of Talk to Action? אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 14:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, see WP:RS (specifically WP:RS and WP:RS) for other reasons it is not wise to include blogs in articles.
 * I would also like to mention the Jack Thompson (attorney) article as well. When that was overhauled to its current state, which was helped largely by admins, they were not able to include news articles from Gamepolitics.com because that was a blog and it also had the tendency to be biased. This seems to be the same area that Talk 2 Action is in. -- MOE .RON  talk  18:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, taking a closer look at both Wikipedia pages, WP:RS and WP:EL are both guidelines and not policies. Given the nature of this particular article, getting religious viewpoints is more than appropriate (how many many people are there that are going to write about this game without a partisian viewpoint? :-) ), provided that we do not give one or more positions too much clout and violate NPOV (which is a policy). However, it might be most appropriate overall, if we were to include Talk to Action as a single link to a main article on the subject in an External Links section, rather than every single page they have on the subject listed an Articles section. Does this sound like a workable compromise? :-) אמר Steve Caruso <b style="color:#000000;">(poll)</b> 19:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * For official policies, then see WP:V and WP:V (which make reference to the guidelines for further details).
 * As for putting a link in the external links section, placing it there might be problem since the site and its content are not verifiable because it is a blog. (for an example of a discussion similar to this, see Talk:Jack Thompson (attorney)/archive10). -- <font color="darkblue" size="-9" face="Constantia">MOE <font color="darkblue" size="" face="Constantia">.RON  talk  19:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Further, Talk 2 Action does not base itself around this game, but rather has had some bitting commentary on it. If the whole blog itself was dedicated to the game (like an anti-game fan site, I guess), then I would have no objection by just adding a link to Talk 2 Action. -- <font color="darkblue" size="-9" face="Constantia">MOE <font color="darkblue" size="" face="Constantia">.RON  talk  19:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag
I tagged this article as being in need of cleanup, because a number of statements seem to be original research with regards to the criticism of this game. The "Dominionist overtones" section specifically seems to be analyzing the game rather than reporting on analysis already provided in verfiable sources. Also, are the sources by Jones, Juergensmeyer and Kimball talking directly about this game, or about religious terrorism in general? If it's the former, it should be made clear in the article what was specifically said about the Left Behind game. 01:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I think it is an NPOV issue, not an OR. See . Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 10:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sexism and sex
Female friends can be trained to be nurses, medics, doctors, musicians, praisers, worship leaders, pop stars, rock stars, diciples, followers, evanglists, missionaries, activists, secularists and prayer warriors.

Also, Michaelangelo's David has some boxers on. --65.101.133.160 22:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Reviews
Alright, some reviews are beginning to come out. You can check every now and then for more reviews. Someone can possibly put up a Reviews/Reactions in the next week, time willing. Keero 05:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actual reviews of gameplay have averaged a 7. There are many reviews below this in the 3.5-5 range, but they are very light on gameplay and are mainly tirades against religion, Christianity in general, and those reviewing the non-updated verison of the game.

Security issues?
"The game has been set within a highly realistic New York City environment which The Left Behind Games company created by photographing, in great detail, hundreds of blocks of New York City." Religious zealots training to kill nonbelievers in a photo-realistic NYC, didn't this raise any red flags with Homeland Security? Шизомби 20:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would that cause any such issues? A terrorist can obtain pictures easier than from such a game. This is like saying Google Earth is a fat security issue (which it very well may be).66.87.166.247 08:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviews
I think that some in the Christian and evangelical press are behind it very solidly. I do not think that all reviews were universally bad.--Filll 13:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The blog I've co-founded, Talk To Action, has been at the forefront of publishing venues critical of this game, and I'd have to second this. I haven't tried to quantify it in any way, but positive reviews of the game exist, not all in from self identified Christian or evangelical reviewers. - Bruce Wilson 20 December 2006

Several of the positive reviews are from the Focus on the Family which I gather might have some financial stake in the game succeeding (they don't), and from others who have a vested financial interest in the game. I do not know about others. I have not researched it carefully but I know it is not all negative.--Filll 00:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the Christian and evangelical press. However, I know about the videogame press, and they hate this game. Just check out Metacritic. It has ratings for 1521 PC games, and only 35 have lower aggregate scores than Left Behind. I have no doubt that the game has received positive reviews, but I highly doubt that m'any of them are from mainstream (i.e. not religiously affiliated) sources. -- Kicking222 01:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, here's one highly positive review. I've never heard of this site, and it doesn't have a WP article (putting its notability into question), but that doesn't necessarily make their opinions any more valid. Thus, I amend my previous statement. -- Kicking222 01:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's something from a Christian review site that might be useful. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 13:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section
This section seriously needs a rewriting. All of the actual content could probably be squeezed into a section with about half the bulk of the current one. The first two subsections could probably be merged into one easily enough.--Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 19:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole controversy section is badly POV; it definitely needs a re-write by someone who is familiar with the game. // Josh Kagan Jrkagan 09:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but then that then leads to the danger of having POV the other way. In fact, that's one of the reasons I haven't tried to address the section myself. I'm still learning how to avoid POV. Jinxmchue 14:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm in the process of collecting RS material for the section. My thoughts are that the new section will be maybe 2 or 3 paragraphs with no separations about "Dominionism" or anything. Jinxmchue 03:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Christians" killing Non-Christians is in no way Christianity. -Yancyfry 04:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The game and the game manual agree with that. It specifically tells you not to kill if you are playing as the Tribulation Force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.38.181 (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Left Behind Games' recent legal actions
Blogs are not acceptable reliable sources, particularly when they are grossly biased against LBG. Furthermore, the legal action was about false or misleading information in "reviews," not just negative reviews in general. Jinxmchue 16:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've re-added the information about the legal letters, this time with a non-blog source. I disagree that a bad rating of a game means the raters are "grossly biased" against the publisher. Since the lawyer never identified what information he wanted removed, there's no way to evaluate whether the information really was false or misleading. Furthermore, the letters are not specific to reviews, they just say they want this information removed from "your website" and specifically include comments left by others, rather than the original review. eaolson 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I never stated a bad rating means the raters are grossly biased. That some reviewers are grossly biased is self-evident from their comments regarding Christian "End Times" theology as it is presented in the game. I've seen a lot of reviews that are more of a review about that than of the game play. There is a way to know what information is being targeted: check out reviews from neutral sources. A lot of those reviews mention that the reports of "convert or kill" in the game are untrue. Furthermore, ignorance of wrongdoing is no defense that any court in America will accept. Finally, people who control websites are responsible for the comments they allow. (This truism can be seen in action on websites like DailyKos or Democrat Underground, which often remove comments from people who wish harm or death upon President Bush.) Jinxmchue 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know about that closing sentence for the section. Doesn't seem right for some reason. Seems borderline POV or maybe SYNTH. Additionally, I think it could easily give a false impression that ignorance of wrongdoing is a valid defense against being charged with it. Jinxmchue 18:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Some blogs were removed - this is a FACT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.145.232.226 (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

'Convert or die' is the object of the game
Please do not alter the article to confer with propaganda. There are reputable sources to back up the undeniable fact that the game's message is "convert or die".



I cannot believe anyone would defend this bigoted trash.


 * Uh, you just altered the article to confer with propaganda. The articles you cited are based upon the false propaganda of the Talk To Action people. There are more reputable sources (i.e. people who've actually picked up the game and played it) who refute everything you added. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally and on the off chance that you'll pop up again, do you have any connection to the Talk To Action website? 67.135.49.211 (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * EXCUSE ME, but this is WIKIPEDIA. You do not get to remove FACTS because they are ugly to you, HATE-MONGER. This game was made by bigots and is hateful as you are for defending it and LYING about its contents. These are facts. Do not deny the truth. (72.153.118.167 (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC))
 * Please do not make personal attacks. eaolson (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice. Your "facts" are disputed by many sources, as it stated in the article. Tell me, is IGN lying about its contents? How about Ars Technica? GameSpy? Best yet, is the non-evangelical-friendly Anti-Defamation League (which criticized the game for being religiously exclusionary, but denied that the game promotes or rewards violence) lying? 67.135.49.211 (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FACT - Independant reviewers say there is no convert or die. The makers of the game state no convert or die. The articles referred to all point to the same origin - Talk 2 action which had a bunch of blogs 5-6 months before the game released. Once the game released, the independant reviews showed they were incorrect. In addition, the article you mention (SF Chronicle) has these lies in it:

"Players can choose to join the Antichrist's team, but of course they can never win on Carpathia's side." What? Of course they can.

"The enemy team includes fictional rock stars and folks with Muslim-sounding names". Incorrect - CAIR was the group that said this and when the president of CAIR was on Fox, he stated the names were "Secularist" and "Pontifex Maximus"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.145.232.226 (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Mixed" vs. "generally negative"
"Generally negative" is a POV phrase. It is making a judgment based upon your personal views. Let the people reading the article judge for themselves. "Mixed" is not POV because it neutrally describes the various ratings the game got: from 80% down to whatever (not looking at it right now). 67.135.49.211 (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All adjectives are POV at some level. Look at the GameRankings list . There are 26 reviews there, of which I'd consider 2 favorable and the rest unfavorable. Avoiding a POV doesn't mean we can't use any reasonable editorial judgement. If anything "mixed" is more POV, because it implies that there was significant disagreement in the press, when it's pretty clear that the general opinion of this game was negative with only a few exceptions. eaolson (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've come up with something else, MOSTLY NEGATIVE which is true and not POV. Many articles say mostly negative or positive in their reception sections. Stabby Joe (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it still is POV. Who is defining what is or is not "negative?" You are, of course. Why not let the reader decide what is or is not negative? 67.135.49.211 (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "of which I'd consider 2 favorable and the rest unfavorable" Exactly.  YOU are the one making the judgment as to what readers must view as positive or negative, thus it is POV. "Mixed" doesn't imply anything other than there being a wide range of deviation in the reviews, which there was, and it leaves readers open to determining for themselves if they will view them as "[mostly] negative" or not. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, don't bring the discussion to my talk page. Secondly, if you look a most film, music and game articles you'll see that anything above 70s is considered good, less than 70s to 50s mixed and below that negative. Now if we go to the page at Game Rankings it has 20 reviews. 4 positive, and not even that positive. 4 mixed and 14 negative. You can even see that they colour coded it to show how negative they are. Now lets look at Metacritic, same amount of reviews yet not the same BUT its average IS EVEN LOWER and is called "Generally Negative", sound familiar? You can clearly see its not my POV. If you had to label it and in the same light as all the other articles, many of them featured you'd go with mostly negative. For example, Mass Effect got 1 negative review out of over 60 reviews, would that make it "mixed"? And to be fair all reviews are mixed, a mix of 8 and 9s for a good game for example. The game got MOSTLY negative, its not my POV, I'm not being biased, thats the case. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's a movie article: The Golden Compass (film). The film did horribly among critics and at the box office, yet the article describes the reception as "mixed." I dare you to go and try to change that. Go ahead. Try. Let's see what happens. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, its correct because thats the case on Metacritic and RT's Cream of the Crop as stated. Plus I fail to see why you're making direct personal comments, go complain at Metacritic and Game Rankings, not me, I'm just refferencing. Stabby Joe (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, of course it's "correct." No surprise there. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Of course". YES! You can try and make an issue of it but on Metacritic it says generally negative while your example for that film doesn't. I'm begining to think you're taking this whole issue personally. I'm happy to hear you out and even say LB:EF was mixed but you're not helping with your current attitude. Stabby Joe (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, if you get a 5.9 from IGN, a B+ from UGO and a 3.4 from Gamespot - IT'S MIXED! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.145.232.226 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 1 February 2008


 * Now another anonymous editor is pushing this issue. Again: Metacritic describes its meta-rating of the game as "generally negative", meaning it got between 20 and 39%. "Mixed" would require 50-74%. I hope we can settle this issue once and for all and not keep rehashing this. eaolson (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Metacritic does not include the 70%+ reviews, skewing it lower. When a game gets many reviews 70% or over, and many reviews 3 or under, it's mixed. End of discussion.


 * First, please sign your comments and secondly no its not "end of discussion" because you have failed to show how its "mixed". In theory ALL games are mixed, even if its mostly positive hence why we say negative, mixed and positive. Basically, lower than 5 on ALL ratings is negative and thats what the average is and its even called negative on Metacritic. PLUS if you look at GR, most reviews are lower than 5 (11 out of 19) if you don't like MC plus if MC did include the few positive, the average would still be in the red. Unless you can supply a link that outright says mixed then we COULD call it that but so far people have just given their pure opinion. If this was on the Project page, we would have been done back in Jan. Stabby Joe (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One source that cherry-picks reviews and subjectively assigns scores to unscored reviews does not prove your case. The consensus over "mixed" being NPOV has stood for months.  Please stop edit warring. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Stood for months? Looking back it was negative and was brought back briefly without arguments given no one replied due to low traffic. Plus it would be POV given that MC is used ALOT on wiki and is considered a credible source not to mention other articles that will tell you below 50 is negative on GR. And edit warring is the LAST thing I want so don't imply such nor encourage. And of course it wasn't settled, not to mention the lack of arguments and counter. I'm going to bring this up on te project page so we can settle this properly, whether the outcme is mixed or negative because thats how wiki works. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've brought it up here: because a one on one argument never gets settled on wiki and neither of us want that do we? Keep in mind I'm not arguing for the sake of it and am perfectly happy to expand on why this game should be "mixed" and even call it that, but so far I'm not convinced. Hope you will come and explain your views to others without turning it into flaming. In the mean time I'll put it "negative to mixed" until one is met. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If the aggregation sites call that score range "negative", that should be enough to justify the same word being used in the article. The article's representation of differing viewpoints must be in line with the proportion of those viewpoints -- WP:UNDUE. If the game's overall reception was viewed as negative, the article's discussion of critical reception must relay a similar impression. Whether there are some positive reviews is largely irrelevant. Even the worst of games can have a positive review somewhere, but that does not make them "mixed", that makes them still quite bad. Statistically, the game was received poorly, poorly enough to be called "generally negative" by at least one review aggregator. Unless other good sources call the reception "mixed", there is no justification to use this wording in the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:VG/A Assessment
Hello, everyone. I saw this article up on the articles for review as part of WikiProject Video Games, and so I'm here on behalf of the project to review the article. I will rerank the class of the article and rate its importance.

First off, let me compliment a couple things that are done well in the article:


 * Lots of Citations I really like how many citations have been found here.  34 is a good number for an article that is currently Stub-class.
 * Thoroughness The sections of the article are well elaborated and cite many sources, with the exception of one.

Now, let me say what can be improved:


 * Citations for Gameplay Although there are plenty of citations, there's none to be found in the Gameplay Section.  This suggests original research, and it would be more useful to have at least one source in the section.
 * Division of sections I don't see a plot summary, and although it should not be a major part of the article, a section on it would be helpful.  I see that it is integrated with Gameplay, and I recommend that it should be separated from the plot summary.
 * Opening paragraph The opening to the article seems a little shallow. It should summarize more about the main ideas in a more flowing manner.
 * Criticisms/Reactions These sections seem a little too similar to have separate topics. I recommend you either merge them or make them more distinct from each other.

That said, it certainly is more well written than Stub-class. Much as I'd say this is borderline Start/B class, I'm going to go ahead and assign this article a B-class, low importance. I don't recommend that the article should be sent in for GA status yet, but with some more modification, maybe. If you have any questions or comments, send something to my talk page, because that's about the only place I'll catch it. Redphoenix526 (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

POV thoroughly broken
After a couple of paragraphs describing some critics negative reaction, the article switches to the defensive, talking about LBG "having to wage constant battle against misinformation being fed to the public", and goes on to supply quote after quote of defensive responses from various religious and family groups, as well as the maker, in a manner that suggests the author strongly agrees with them. Achromatic (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)