-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Christ Centered Gamer ? This made my day.
Score Breakdown:
Game Score - 70%
Gameplay - 15/20
Graphics - 7/10
Sound - 8/10
Stability - 0/5
Controls -/5
Morality Score - 63%
Violence - 6/10
Language - 10/10
Sexual Content - 7/10
Occult/Supernatural - 0/10
Cultural/Moral/Ethical - 8.5/10
Seriously... I can't stop laughing.
"With these stability and moral issues in mind, I cannot recommend this game at this time. *I would wait for a sale or for more patches before buying this game."
true story bro. . .
7 week after release, still unplayable for Win32. . .pfffffffff
true story bro. . .
7 week after release, still unplayable for Win32. . .pfffffffff
Christ Centered Gamer ? This made my day.
Score Breakdown:
Game Score - 70%
Gameplay - 15/20
Graphics - 7/10
Sound - 8/10
Stability - 0/5
Controls -/5
Morality Score - 63%
Violence - 6/10
Language - 10/10
Sexual Content - 7/10
Occult/Supernatural - 0/10
Cultural/Moral/Ethical - 8.5/10
Seriously... I can't stop laughing.
Why is this so amusing in your eyes? You do realize that some of these values are quite important to a lot of people, right? And that many of those people also enjoy playing video games? I'm sure you have your own system by which you judge the merits and flaws of games. Not sure I understand why someone incorporating an ethical value system into the calculator is so side-splitting for you.
I don't personally agree with this reviewer as regards stability issues (I haven't had many problems in that regard), but I appreciate the standpoint from which he stages his reviews. And even if I did not, I wouldn't really feel the need to come and mock him for it in a public forum.
Words of wisdom. It's the "Everyone thinks like me, right?" -syndrome that turns the internet into a hateful and intolerant enviroment. That and age that usually teaches us how to treat one another.
I can't obviously speak for anybody else, but when I read this:
I have to ask myself, how many of these people that issue a malus to games with more violence also protest wars led by their own nation's leaders against other nations? How many of them picket their state legislatures and demand an end to the placement of first time minor offenders with "lifers" in prisons, or that collectors ? Where does it say in their holy text that swearing, as opposed to taking the name of their deity in vain, is negative, and a reason for taking points off a game's score? Where does it state in that book that it is wrong for people of either sex to be seen sleeping in their underwear, which is also cause in some of their reviews apparently for negatives to the scores?
I could go on, but that's of no interest. I'm not about to laugh at these folks, as there isn't anyone who can laugh at others without having his/her image in the mirror laugh back when they look, if they were honest with themselves. But there seems to me to be an inconsistency both within their views towards certain subjects such as violence, and their profession of values (body images, swearing) supposedly based on a specific religion that are not to be found in their holy book.
I have to ask myself, how many of these people that issue a malus to games with more violence also protest wars led by their own nation's leaders against other nations? How many of them picket their state legislatures and demand an end to the placement of first time minor offenders with "lifers" in prisons, or that collectors ? Where does it say in their holy text that swearing, as opposed to taking the name of their deity in vain, is negative, and a reason for taking points off a game's score? Where does it state in that book that it is wrong for people of either sex to be seen sleeping in their underwear, which is also cause in some of their reviews apparently for negatives to the scores?
I could go on, but that's of no interest. I'm not about to laugh at these folks, as there isn't anyone who can laugh at others without having his/her image in the mirror laugh back when they look, if they were honest with themselves. But there seems to me to be an inconsistency both within their views towards certain subjects such as violence, and their profession of values (body images, swearing) supposedly based on a specific religion that are not to be found in their holy book.
Last edited:
Wait.... people still used 32 bit windows? I am surprised game companies even support 32 bit windows anymore.
The whole purpose of the reviews are to point out what's in a game and let the reader decide if that's what they want to purchase or not. If they don't like swearing, they'll see how it scored on the language aspect and make the call for themselves. The moral breakdown is not much different than the ESRB system when you think about it. ESRB does not include religious references in their rating system though.
Anybody can point out objectively what's in a game. I would suggest that the purpose of a review is to convince a reader that the particular reactions of a critic to a product (of any sort) are correct, and that the reader should adopt the conclusions of that critic regarding the product's purchase. I'm not claiming this is wrong or right, only that a review is there to convince.
And the methodology which claims to be Christian in these reviews is decidedly curious, as I mentioned above. Since in at least a few cases I mentioned above it has nothing to do with either standard game factors, or Christianity. This would seem to imply that the site owners aren't interested in just games, nor in just communicating their feeling about Christianity within a game, but in getting across their own non-Christian agenda regarding swearing, body imagery, etc.
It's a nice site, and the reviews I read after finding this thread have less abrasive attitude and better editing than I've seen on some pretty large gaming sites. But their actual agenda, and the point of reference they're coming from, is never stated. "Christianity" isn't it, since there are many, many diverse voices in Christendom, so they can't speak for the rest. Plus, some areas they think important are simply not even considered in their holy text one way or the other, though they are placed within a review context as if they were. Curious, like I wrote.
Last edited:
Here's the link to the agenda
http://www.christcenteredgamer.com/index.php/faqs/13-ccgr/15-what-is-ccgr
http://www.christcenteredgamer.com/index.php/faqs/13-ccgr/15-what-is-ccgr
With respect, that's a general statement of purpose. It does not touch on any of the points I raised above. I refer you back for a comparison between each of these specifically, and the link you provided.
Last edited:
Here's what the Bible says on some of the issues you mention and covered in the reviews:
swearing - Ephesians 4:29 "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen."
modesty - 1 Tim 2:9 "likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire"
sex outside of marriage - Hebrews 13:4 "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge."
Respecting authority - 1 Peter 2:13 "Submit yourself to every ordinance of man to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors."
violence - Romans 12:17-21 "Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. "But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
swearing - Ephesians 4:29 "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen."
modesty - 1 Tim 2:9 "likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire"
sex outside of marriage - Hebrews 13:4 "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge."
Respecting authority - 1 Peter 2:13 "Submit yourself to every ordinance of man to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors."
violence - Romans 12:17-21 "Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. "But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
"Unwholesome talk" in the original refers not to swearing, but to cutting people down, as can even be seen in English by the context ("unwholesome" vs "building other us according to their needs"). There is nothing in a sentence like "Intercourse, I just had to tunnel my way up through a steaming pile of excrement at work, today" (with good Anglo-Saxon words included) that would disagree with Paul's own biblical statement. So the anti-swearing bit would appear to be non-biblical.
Paul (or Pseudo-Paul) has advice regarding extremely rich attire as worn by people, not animated pixels in a game walking around in underwear. The word for modesty refers to the gaudy display of wealth.
This has nothing to do with what I remarked upon.
Not applicable to anything I discussed, and clearly meant to be situational advice, since at other times biblical figures are held up as moral examples for doing the opposite. This also applies to some of the more bloodthirsty and insurgent of biblical prophets.
Then it is interesting that their review of Bibleman, a game in which a "Christian" superhero physically fights and kills enemies, in no way takes points off for this. But that's allowed, as the reviewer states, because he only returns gunfire. Only--how does that square with "Never pay back evil for evil to anyone"? Never. Evil for evil. Anyone. Seems pretty clear. Violence, it would seem, is completely and utterly evil, even in defense, except when it's our violence in defense. That's if anything, going very much against the spirit and letter of the passage you quote. Which once again gets back to the idea of a specific non-biblical agenda.
But to reiterate, there is nothing about swearing or characters in underwear in the bible that would cause points to be taken off of a review rating. There are modern sub-cultures within several countries that have social agendas which include the points raised in these reviews, but they aren't biblical, however often this is stated.
Are you affiliated in any fashion with the group or their site, ccgr? I'm curious, because you seem to be really going out of your way repeatedly to explain and defend the unclear reasons for their critical methodology.
That should by all accounts be something they do--hence my question to you. I think they're right not to be interested in such a discussion, however, as that would descend into a lot of wrangling over issues of little interest to most people who play games.
Last edited:
For what it's worth I'm the founder of the site. Videogames were not around when the Bible was written so you're not going to find clean cut examples on what if right and proper to do in games. Christians vary in their convictions and some things bother some that don't bother others so that's why we just point out what we see and let them decide for themselves. I personally haven't seen or read the Harry Potter movies and books but I have nothing against those that have. The same goes for video games, I personally won't play GTA games but I know Christians that do. That's between them and God, I stay out of it...but many parents find the site helpful when considering purchasing games for their kids or grandkids etc. I didn't write the Bibleman review so I'm not aware of the game's content, sorry.
Over the years we have tried various review formats and rating systems..up until a couple of years ago we had one score that averaged between the moral and secular score, we have gotten complaints and there was too much confusion so we separated the two. I'll be the first to admit that our rating system is not perfect but it seems to suffice. A game won't get a low score if it has only violence or only swearing but if it have many issues it gets docked accordingly. We pretty much cover the same areas as the ESRB with the addition of games pushing non-Christian beliefs. I try not to consider ourselves as pushing an agenda but instead providing an informative review that offers a unique (and hopefully helpful!) perspective.
Thanks for your civil responses, they're much appreciated.
Over the years we have tried various review formats and rating systems..up until a couple of years ago we had one score that averaged between the moral and secular score, we have gotten complaints and there was too much confusion so we separated the two. I'll be the first to admit that our rating system is not perfect but it seems to suffice. A game won't get a low score if it has only violence or only swearing but if it have many issues it gets docked accordingly. We pretty much cover the same areas as the ESRB with the addition of games pushing non-Christian beliefs. I try not to consider ourselves as pushing an agenda but instead providing an informative review that offers a unique (and hopefully helpful!) perspective.
Thanks for your civil responses, they're much appreciated.
From a Christian standpoint, these are all very easily answered. First off, in the Christian bible it does say that cursing is essentially a no-no: Colosians 3:8, Matthew 12:34-36, Matthew 15:11, and Matthew 15:17-20 all show this to be true. We're also taught not to be vulgar: Ephesians 5:4.
On to wars, Christians are taught to not support wars on a personal level *unless* they are completely just. I don't want to get into a debate about the wars in the United States, but setting that aside, Christians are taught not to oppose the government unless absolutely necessary: Romans 13:1-4, 1 Peter 2:17 and quite a few more point to this. So while we probably shouldn't support certain wars, we are taught not to go against our governing authority unless it is necessary.
Note that I'm a big time gamer, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. You're just not thinking of it quite right. Christians don't live a lifestyle *only* following what their "holy book" says, they live a life style based on the principles of their "holy book". It's more of a style of life, to attempt to be clean in all things (perhaps to the point of extremism). But judging by the principals Christians are taught by the bible, they judge each case based on what they think Jesus or God would want them to do. As such, these things are open to interpretation. When dealing with Christianity, it's good to remember, instead of *just* focusing on the Bible (which doesn't cover everything) we take these teachings, and develop a mindset based upon it. With that mindset, we judge each case on an individual basis.
I'm not saying theists right but... it's not wrong for someone to write a review based on his views. If you're calling out hypocrisy, you could do so *anywhere* you see *anyone* critique a video game from a moral standpoint -- religion or no.
Last edited:
No, they really aren't, because if they were, there would be no debate upon these matters, and universal acceptance within the commune-ity of Christians of a standard. From my own perspective, I would suggest that your quotes are not applicable: they involve either specific situations, or mistranslations of words, or anachronisms, the placement of modern linguistic usages and interpretations on ancient terms where they don't apply. I've already dealt with several of these, above. As the editor of the site in question and myself settled the matter amicably, I do not see it as necessary to go through yet more biblical content being asserted to present one point of view.
Your statement implies I'm not Christian. Now, this is not something you know, nor is it something I will discuss with you; but I would suggest that you should look in your heart before declaring what hundreds of millions of Christians think and feel. This is something no other Christian can claim. I say that without bearing you any anger--but this is something you should seriously consider.
The point I was making wasn't "what Christians think," but what would appear to be culturally inspired and not biblically derived. I trust you aren't going to deny that individual cultures exercise a great deal of distinctive influence on Christians nominally of the same sect, be it Roman Catholics, or Anglicans, or Lutherans, or Baptists, or Eastern Orthodox--or even Nestorians. This goes all the way back, after all, to the Greeks and Habiru in the early formative days of "Judeo-Christianity," if we can call it that. And that these cultural differences do show up in a variety of ways that can and do lead to differences in biblical interpretation. Some prefer Augustine, but others go with Basil, and the cultures where they prevail had something to do with that.
I hope my comments do not seem harsh, but I admit--being one highly limited individual--that I don't take it well when someone, anyone, decides to lecture me about something I've studied very seriously for more than 30 years. That's despite considering myself still a novice on such matters, and knowing this fact to be true far more so than when I first started. Let it go at that, please.
Last edited:
Well, that is your choice to make. However, dismissing these quotes with general statements such as them all fitting into certain categories is a somewhat odd thing to do. You may claim that they're incorrect, but I suggest to you, that merely claiming that is not enough. If you don't wish to discuss this, that is fair. But you made a general statement on a forum which invited criticism. If you post something online (which I'm sure you're well aware) judging people, you'd best be prepared for someone to respond to it. I am that someone (as are others) in this case, and I find your general statements quite disagreeable. As a Christian, I feel no ill will towards you. That does not mean, however, that I won't defend my beliefs, and try to clarify any misunderstandings others may have about them. You asked questions (that I believe were mostly statements posed as if they were questions) that I answered, because you were either confused or lacking in knowledge on some of them.
You and I seem to have a misunderstanding, I'm speaking from a Christian standpoint -- that does not mean I'm speaking from *the* Christian standpoint. Generally, when someone refers to a "Christian" in the United States of America, they're referring to Evangelical Christians. This does not mean that Catholics, Orthodox, or mainstream Protestants aren't Christians, but have you ever noticed how people call the U.S.A "America"? It's because it -- essentially -- represents and dominated the whole of North America and even South America. It is unquestionably the dominant political, economical, and military entity in both continents (there isn't even a contender, except for brazil a hundred years from now... maybe). In "America" (the U.S.A) Evangelical Christians are the largest Christian denomination (28%), with Catholics second (24%), and mainstream protestants third (13%). I am answering your questions from an Evangelical (Pentecostal to be precise) standpoint. From one denomination to another, you may find there are disagreements. But I'm answering these questions from a mainstream Evangelical viewpoint. I'm not claiming to represent *every* Christian, I'm claiming to represent the mainstream Christians in the U.S.A (that's why I said, "from a Christian standpoint" and not, "from *THE* Christian standpoint"). I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Though I may be incorrect, and perhaps the mainstream do not share my views, I am confident they do. I am confident that mainstream conservative Americans oppose abortion, and that mainstream liberal Americans support Gay Marriage. I believe I'm qualified to say that both do, and I also believe I'm qualified to speak for the mainstream American Christian.
Also, I never "implied" you weren't a Christian, I spoke to you as if you weren't. It was a working assumption; either you are a Christian and you may not know how other Christians view certain subjects, or you're not a Christian. Your statements (I don't mean to sound rude) prove that (if you meant them) you're unaware of certain facts. This does not mean I was actually implying that you weren't a Christian. It means that I was -- for pragmatic reasons -- choosing to speak as if you weren't. This is like referring to someone as a "he" when you're unaware of their gender. While you're not assuming they are in fact a "he" you're calling them a "he" to make it easier on yourself to talk about them.
You say, "I have to ask myself, how many of these people that issue a malus to games with more violence also protest wars led by their own nation's leaders against other nations?" and I'm sorry (I don't want to be rude) but this statement already shows that you're unaware of certain facts (or that you're ignoring them) as it is explicitly stated that we're not supposed to oppose our ruling authorities. So opposing violence in a video game, and protesting a war are not contradictory things. While true, it may not say we should lower a game's overall rating (and I don't believe we should, I believe moral ratings and quality ratings should be separate) based on violence; using the mindset we gain from reading the bible and attempting to understand what Jesus would do, we can judge that he would likely oppose violent things in any form and as such the rating should be lowered (in some people's opinions).
You also say, "Where does it say in their holy text that swearing, as opposed to taking the name of their deity in vain, is negative" which I supplied 4 verses for (and an additional one dealing with vulgarity) and I could have supplied more. The point I'm trying to make is, you shouldn't paint things with a general brush. Certain religions may not have specific objections to swearing in their holy book, certain Christian denominations *do* and even if it's an error translation, it's still there and the people believe it is correct. I responded to your statement with 4 verses (using the KJV, as it's the most "accurate" commonly available translation, even though I recognize it's still not very accurate) that all give you an answer to your question. There *are* "holy books" that claim swearing -- as opposed to taking the name of a deity in vain -- is innaproriate and is in fact a negative. Regardless of if it's a mistranslation, it's still said in commonly used "holy books" and as such there are "holy books" that *do* refer to swearing/cursing as a negative. This also isn't even dealing with the vulgarity of most swear words, which is very, very clearly denounced in *most* Christian bibles of any denomination, culture, and translation.
I do agree with you on this, and I'm glad to see you are a knowledgeable person in regards to this subject. But, while I agree that culture does have a strong influence on a lot of beliefs for each religion, it does not therefore follow that every belief is soley based on the influence of the prevailing culture of the region. While maybe your point overall was correct, certain points you made were wholly incorrect when referring to all religions.
I apologize if it came across as lecturing, you stated your opinion and I felt that it was my right (and not offensive) to state my opinion in response to that. You made claims (at the very least, questions that seem to be statements in actuality) about my religion (in a general way) that were simply incorrect, as such, I felt that I should respond. I won't respond to anything further out of respect for your wishes. But as a limited human being, I feel the need to defend my beleifs, and clarify them whenever someone asks questions about them, or makes statements about them.
eatssteak3, are you affiliated with the publication in any respect? Or know someone at the site who suggested you check this thread out?
Last edited: