Saturday, June 24, 2006

I'm about to lose my lunch again

Apparently there is a violent video game for Christians, courtesy of the Left Behind people.

4 comments:

Jason said...

Check out the running debate at christiancadre.blogspot.com. The game has been rather drastically misrepresented by talk2action in some regards.

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/06/press-release-from-left-behind.html#comments

Keep in mind I have major theological problems with the soteriology of the series (among other things); which problems do seem to be included (as would be expected) in the game's design. But unless LBG is simply lying about the game's content and design, the Talk2Action crew owes them a vast mea culpa.

jhutson said...

Christian Cadre's Layman has been exposed. He's been going all over the Internet, making false accusations and smearing people who point out the facts. Layman dreamed up a great bigger Whopper and then falsely accused Talk to Action of serving it up. Result? Layman has been forced to eat his own big, greasy Whopper. See for yourself that Talk to Action's essays are accurate, and nothing is misrepresented. Read the six-part series for yourself, and check the links. And have fun reading this one: Christian Cadre's Layman: 'A Whopper of Being Wrong'. URL: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/6/9/32014/83270

Jason said...

Actually, that link led to nothing on the Talk2Action site.

The server may be down briefly. I'll check back again later.

Jason said...

Having poked around a bit on the six-part series of articles, here is what I've found:

1.) The "Whopper of Being Wrong" is part 4 of 6 in the series. (JHuston's address seems correct, btw, though when I copy-pasted it, it led to a dead page on the T2A site. I have no idea why. Fortunately, the link provided by Layman to that article works just fine.)

2.) The author of the six part series is Jonathan Huston. (Same as JHuston?)

3.) That part _was_ answered, at length, by Layman, one message _before_ the link I gave. (JHuston forgot to mention this.) Layman's defense is given a (Part 1) label, perhaps anticipating that there will be further attempts by Jonathan Huston.

4.) Parts 5 and 6 have nothing in the least to do (so far as I've been able to find yet) with addressing Layman's reply to their criticism of him or certain portions of the game. Neither (so far as I've been able to find yet) do they have anything to do with LBG's own press release replying to T2A's criticisms of the game. (Which can be found at the address I gave above.)

Possibly there are subsequent articles since June 21st which do address these. It would have been helpful for JHuston to reference those, though.

5.) Layman is hardly criticising _everything_ JH has written about the game. (ex: using spyware to put ads in the game.) Only portions which (according to data from LBG itself) misrepresent the content.

6.) The subsequent parts 5 and 6, insofar as they refer to the content of Layman's charges at all, continue to misrepresent the game content exactly along the line he said: the impression given is that the point of the game is to convert neutrals with threat of lethal force.

Actually, the point of the game (if one is playing as the TribForce) is to _protect_ neutrals from the Peacekeepers while seeking to convert them. If a neutral chooses to convert to the opposing side, they specifically have to sign up in loyalty to the leader Carpathia; whose goal (in the game) is to attack Christians. At that point the neutrals are no longer neutral, and instead have become explicitly and pro-actively hostile (with lethal intensity) to the specific side represented by the TribForce.

Neither subsequent article in the series by JH mentions that players on the TribForce side are actually _PENALIZED_ for using lethal force against the Peacekeepers (the nominal hostile antagonists of the game). Put simply (assuming LBG is telling the truth about the game content), shoot too many Peacekeepers, and you actually _LOSE_ the game (or at best can't win).

The setup could be analogized in another fantasy trope, paladins vs. vampires. (With the innovation that if the paladins concentrate too much on doing violence to the vampires, they can't win.)


A search on the site for 'Layman' turned up no references later than parts 5 and 6 (and then only because his name is part of the title for part 4.) No updates along this line have been posted on the original Part 4 page, either, as of 6/27/06, 8:45 Memphis time. But there may be further replies elsewhere on the site.

Jason