There are gay people in the world. I know that is absolutely shocking and unacceptable to many people, but it's true. Also, no matter how often you ban gay marriage, shun the homosexual community, or beat your children for being so much as curious about the same sex, gay people will continue to exist.
There's really only two ways to go about this, people. One option is we round up everyone who has ever even so much has THOUGHT about touching another person of the same sex in a sexual manner and throw them all into a large pit of fire. The other option is to make it legal, and if you don't agree with it, don't engage in it.
I honestly don't understand why certain people in America are so set on making gay marriage illegal. The only thing anyone has been able to present as a reason for why it should be illegal is that it will damage the sanctity of marriage. However, sanctity is completely derived from religion, and marriage by the state (government) has no bearing on whether or not you were married through a religious ceremony, so I fail to see that point.
Another point that people love to use is that "First we let gay people marry, then people are going to start wanted to marry horses next!" That is what we call as straw man argument. Feel free to look it up, but it has no bearing or relevance to this issue, it only seeks to draw attention away from the original point and instead get people to focus on something else, usually a point that is easier to defend against. You know how to make someone who uses that argument sound REALLY dumb? Ask them at which point you think it makes sense to give animals the legal authority to sign a marriage document, as well as grant them a social security number, power of attorney, and next-of-kin rights. Really, I think anyone who uses that argument sounds like a colossal dickbag, mainly because they're putting gay people right next to bestiality. NOT. THE. SAME. THING.
I am 100% in support of gay marriage. However, the issue that we also have right now is that gay marriage and women's rights are two of the biggest points that are being used in our next presidential election. I have an issue with this because it will completely detract from any of the actual plans that each candidate has. Look, if Mitt Romney comes out and says that one of the first things he will do is ban gay marriage forever, but he also lays out a plan to fix the economy that everyone universally agrees will work... that puts me in an awkward position. Honestly, I don't believe in sacrificing your morals, principals, and dignity for the sake of fixing a problem. You can't tell me that we have to lose our humanity and civility in exchange for a future, because that future will end up looking more blonde haired and blue eyed once we start down that path.
Again, gay people aren't going anywhere. Isn't it time that we stop the pointless bickering, allow two human beings to marry each other, and start focusing on REAL issues?
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Aggressive Analysis - Battleship: The Movie: The Video Game (XBOX360)
Let's start off with the painfully obvious here. This is a video game, loosely based on a movie, loosely based on a board game, loosely based on strategic naval warfare. The premise is so loose that I'm surprised the words "BATTLESHIP" don't just fall right off the box art, leaving a blank, nondescript cover that would sum up the game quite nicely.
I've played movie-based games before, and they are rarely fun or enjoyable. Every once in a while you'll get a Spiderman 2 that tries to break the mold and actually be a good game, but for the most part, video games based on movies are so bad that you often find them buried at the bottom of a discount bin within the first month of it's release. There used to also be a standard during the last generation of games that movie based games would be cheaper, almost as if the publisher knew that it was a steaming turd just waiting to defile your console, but those days are long gone. Battleship: The Movie: The Video Game sells for the full priced $60. Wow.
Now, gaming is an expensive habit, so not only am I going to give this a traditional rating, allow me to introduce you to the patented Justin Heins Video Game Valuizer (can be abbreviated as JHVGV is you're an asshole.) How will this work? As we go through the review, starting at $0, I will give or take away value based on my gaming experience, which at the end will help us determine how much I would recommend you pay for a game such as this.
So, without further ado, let's get crackin'!
CONCEPT
When I say Battleship, you will probably either instinctively think of the board game, or of a large naval cruiser. I doubt you'll think of running around on an island with your gun, shooting up aliens, but that's what we have here. Yes, Battleship: The Movie: The Video Game is a FIRST-PERSON SHOOTER. If you were doubted the people that say FPS games are over-saturating the market, I present to you this game.
The concept for this game is that you fight the ground war against an invading alien army while coordinating naval strikes against their ships and against targets on land. This is an incredibly simple and barebones concept that somehow is thoroughly ruined by a number of design flaws, a lack of combat variation, elimination of actual strategy, bugs in the game, and graphics that just scream "we gave no fucks."
GRAPHICS
Nostalgia is a great thing. When we think back to the video games we played as kids, there was a certain charm to everything. People have often said that the current gaming generation has created more sterilized games that try to hard to be realistic and no longer have the magical spirit that once used to make us grin from ear to ear. Even back to the last generation, with the PS2, Xbox and Gamecube, had such fun and charming games as Kingdom Hearts, the original Ratchet and Clank games, Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath, and any of the many 1st party Nintendo games. Now, you're probably wondering why I bring all this up here. You know the one thing about the previous console generation I didn't miss? The graphics.
This game looks like it could probably run on the regular Xbox. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Halo 2 looked better than this game. The grass textures on the ground are flat clumps of green lines that look like they were randomly stapled to the ground. Trees are practically one-dimensional. The actual textures on the rocks, grass, sand, water, and metal (because that's ALL THERE IS TO LOOK AT) look like they were created in MS Paint and slapped on haphazardly.
Despite the lameness of the textures and cutscenes that are mostly wireframe images and never include people, the game lags whenever you respawn, it lags in menus, and it lags during cutscenes. I'd love to know how many memory leaks are in the game's code.
For the naval combat (we'll get to that), ships are fairly well designed, but even when you destroy an enemy ship, you don't actually see it get destroyed, you just get a bright flash of light and it's gone. I don't think they bothered to render damaged ship models, which is one of the laziest fucking things I've ever even thought of in my life.
Enemy design? The standard grunt enemy looks like Cobra Commander. I'm SO not joking. You spend most of the game shooting at Cobra Commander clones. Besides that, there is an Orange-colored Cobra Commander clone, and a large beast of an enemy that tries to claw your face off. If you shoot the helmet off the larger enemy, it looks like a cross between the Skaarj and the Kilrathi from the Wing Commander MOVIE. Great, this game now made me think of Freddie Prinze Jr. and Matthew Lillard. Great. I'll be right back after I scrub my brain with a brillo pad.
So, how do we rate the graphics? Well, we need to compare it to other games in its price range, so we're going to go 2/10 on the graphics. The ONLY reason I don't give it a 1 is because there is no texture pop-in (unsurprising, since I'd bet there is only 1 layer of textures for any of the models.)
Value wise, I'm knocking off $5 due to unoriginality in design and general lack of effort. So we're at -$5 now. Not a good sign.
SOUND
As I started to write this section I tried REALLY hard to think back and remember anything remotely interesting or memorable about the sound, and I just can't. There are the sounds of weapons firing, artillery, some occasional grunts from the Skaarjrathi enemies, but nothing else.
There are come occasional musical stings, mainly when you complete a major objective, when you finish a mission, or when you destroy an enemy ship, but they're all very short. I don't think any of the music lasts longer than 30 seconds, even during the CREDIT ROLL.
Voice acting is there, but the lines are all delivery so unenthusiastically that I had to luck up online and verify that there weren't just people the studio held at gunpoint and forced to read into the microphone. The sound is just so... lifeless and empty. There might as well not be any sound at all.
I guess I'll rate the sound as 4/10, since it's not horrible, it just doesn't really DO anything. No effect on the value, so we're still at -$5.
STORY
Ah, yes. Let's dive headlong into the stupid, shall we? You play as EOD (Explosive Ordinance Disposal) Officer Mathis, and that's the extend of your character development. Seriously, there are no other characters. The only other major roles in this story are the GODDAMN SHIPS. You will know the names of all your ships by the end of this because they NEVER STOP TALKING! They will talk to you even when you aren't fighting anything and all the enemy ships have been destroyed, just to let you know they're still there.
So, I said you're an EOD Officer, right? That means you are a military specialist who is there to either dispose or place explosives. That's what you do. However, in this game, for a reason that is never explained at all, you have to coordinate attacks, control the entire naval battle theater, and single-handidly fight off hundreds of enemies. Yes, despite being an EOD tech, you are also capable of dispensing death with several different weapons. Additionally, I guess the Navy just had enough of that stupid "rank" bullshit and just decided to let a fucking bomb tech run the show. You mean to tell me there is NO ONE ranked higher than you around? That can't be right, because you will fight alongside soldier occasionally, WHO ALL RANKED OVER YOU.
So, the enemy just decided to show up one day and start shooting people, right in the middle of your training drill. It is your job to travel across all the islands, secure them, and destroy their mother ship. Trust me, it sounds way more exciting than it actually is.
To sum up, the story exists, but has no substance and is riddled with logic holes. I give it a 3/10, and will have to take away another $5 due to poor writing, total lack of character development, and the fact that I've been more engaged by the nutritional facts on a pouch of Kool-Aid than this story. -$10, Battleship. Things aren't looking too good here.
GAMEPLAY
This should really be called "Plant C-4: The Game." Each mission you will no less than 4 times have to plant C-4 on something. Each plant requires you to hold the X button down for about 3-5 seconds, then get away, and watch it blow up in a very unconvincing and boring manner. This actually makes sense, because it's your job, but why is there no mechanic involving this? Why can't I use my infinite supply of semtex to take out enemy troops? Why is disarming ALIEN BOMBS as easy as planting C-4 on a reactor? These are all questions that really take you out of the game, not that you wanted to be in there anyways, mind you.
We have weapon variety, though! You start with a pistol in most levels, but usually can find a Carbine (no brand names on anything, I guess to keep costs down), or a Shotgun, or you can pick up the alien grunt's KRAW weapons, which are basically chainguns. However, completely defying conventional logic, physics, and HOW FUCKING GUNS WORK IN GENERAL, the longer you fire the KRAW, the more accurate it becomes. At first my wife hypothesized it works differently and maybe uses a targeting computer. That was, until we noticed that it OVERHEATS, plus it shakes all over the place as you shoot, meaning that this is just a dumb way the game is trying to pretend its different.
The only other weapon in the game is a Rail Gun, which, is not a rail gun. It just isn't. In initial testing of rail guns the bullet traveled over 7 km and punched clean through a 1/8 inch steel plate. This is not a rail gun, it's a charge-shot sniper rifle which is laughably weak against most enemies (but kills you in 2 shots). Additionally, it suffers from what I call Star Wars Jedi Knight Disruptor Rifle Syndrome (catchy, huh?) where you can only charge shot if you are aiming down the sights. Also, in a funny bit of realization, I have to assume that the Navy in the region I'm in only outfits officer with rifles, shotguns and handguns and has no specialized or heavy ordinance in the area, but they have INFINITE C-4.
Enemies? There are 3 types of enemies, as said earlier. That's it. I don't count the naval ships, because you really don't fight them, you destroy them. They might as well be giant targets. The first enemy is by far the one you'll see the most, which is the Cobra Commander ripoff. Next most common are the Skaarjrathi mentioned earlier, followed by Orange Cobra Commander, who is a sniper equipped with the not-a-railgun gun.
The enemies are very unremarkable, however whoever programmed their artificial intelligence is sure to be a VERY remarkable person. First off, it seems that if the enemy decides they're going to change positions, they will move to the new position before firing, which is odd. It seems they have to hit their mark on the ground before they can start firing again. This is especially funny when you decide to move up on an enemies position at the same time as they move up on you, and you watch as they run past you to take cover and continue aiming where you were at, then process to NOT TURN AROUND as you gun them down 1-by-1 from behind them. I took down 15 enemies with a pistol hiding behind a rock, and they did not turn to face me once.
Enemies also do not at any time throw grenades at you, nor do they make any effort to evade grenades you throw at them. Also, the Cobra Commander enemies do not melee, they just keep shooting at you while you are STANDING RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM. You can literally whack them in the head with your pistol 4 times, and they will just resume shooting you.
Hit detection and ranged weapons are broken. Headshots only count when they feel like it, and I don't think it has anything to do with hitting them in the head. I think you have a critical hit chance, like a goddamn RPG, since I've shot someone in the leg with my Carbine, only to see their facemask explode. So either I shot them SO HARD in the knee that their head exploded, or area damage is borked. Ranged weapons become neigh useless from ANY range. Your carbine will take over 15 bullets to kill one of the Cobra Commanders if you try shooting at them from more than 10 feet away. Within 5 feet you can drop them in 3-5 bullets.
The game tries to keep you on your toes by having the enemy ships bombard the islands with one of two attacks. One attack is called a "rolling ball of alloy." Basically it's the magnet mines from Half-Life 2, and they explode if they touch you. You see two kinds of this enemy: one that the ships shoot at you and another that is planted in the ground like a mine, except those are blue and take 4x the damage to destroy them.
The other form of artillery the enemy uses? PEGS. Dead serious, they will fire fucking pegs at you, which will either emit electricity (which doesn't hurt you and only slows you down) or will explode, killing you if you are too close. It's almost like someone realized this game was nothing like Battleship and said, "Hey, what can we add to make this seem more like Battleship?" and Jim from accounting said "What if the alien ships fired pegs! Pegs are in Battleship!" And instead of taking him down to the boiler room and beating him until he stops twitching, they decided to put it in the game, because why the fuck not? Another fun part about the enemy artillery, they can shoot this crap at you even if you've destroyed all enemy ships on the map. Fun, huh?
Finally, we have the naval combat, which is predictably boring and awful. In order to take control of the naval fleet, you press LB which brings up a map of the area. Here you can select your ships and tell them to move around or to engage the enemy. Additionally, you can use "Wild Cards" which are dropped by the aliens you kill on foot to power up your ships with things such as radar, improved armor, or missiles. Finally, you can utilized "Gold Cards" to either repair your ships, revive destroyed ships, or ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL of a ship.
Taking control of a ship means you will aim at the enemy ship you are engaged with and proceed to mash RT, LT, and RB until it explodes. You do not maneuver, you do not fight multiple ships, you just destroy. This becomes even more hilariously overpowered once you get the Missouri (a battle cruiser) in the fourth mission, which can engage any enemy on the map from practically any position and destroy them in a single salvo. This mode only manages to break up the ground action, but isn't interesting or engaging enough to actually warrant real strategy. It's a sloppily implemented feature only there to pad out the game.
So, got all that? I award this game a 1/10 for gameplay for being boring, plodding, buggy experience. I also deduct $10 from the the value, bringing us down to -$20.
REPLAYABILITY
Let's cut to the chase, there is no multiplayer and no additional modes. The only reason to play this game again is for achievements or trophies, and the single player campaign is ONLY FOUR FUCKING HOURS LONG. I again remind you that this is a full-priced retail game. There is no reason to ever replay this again, 0/10.
Now, one of the ways I like to judge the value of a game is how much time I put into it. Generally, I will rate my value at $2/hour of gameplay if I'm having fun, $1/hour if it's okay, and $.50/hour if it is horrendous. Now to be honest, I did have some fun from this game just laughing at how horrible it is, so we'll split the difference and go $1/hour for 4 hours, so this game recaptures $4, bringing it up to... -$16. Huh.
CONCLUSION
To sum this all up, the game is the worst example of a value FPS game in the modern console era. I guess I shouldn't be surprised since this is from the same development company (Double Helix) that brought us GI Joe: Rise of Cobra and Green Lantern: Rise of the Manhunters, but this is just offensive. I give this game a 1/10, because it is a perfect example of how NOT to make a movie tie in game, or a first-person shooter, or hell, anything really.
The final value for this game? I feel that you should be PAID to play this game. Don't buy it even if it does end up in the $5 discount bin unless you feel you need to be reminded just how bad games can get.
That's all for this edition of Aggressive Analysis, until next time.
-Justin
I've played movie-based games before, and they are rarely fun or enjoyable. Every once in a while you'll get a Spiderman 2 that tries to break the mold and actually be a good game, but for the most part, video games based on movies are so bad that you often find them buried at the bottom of a discount bin within the first month of it's release. There used to also be a standard during the last generation of games that movie based games would be cheaper, almost as if the publisher knew that it was a steaming turd just waiting to defile your console, but those days are long gone. Battleship: The Movie: The Video Game sells for the full priced $60. Wow.
Now, gaming is an expensive habit, so not only am I going to give this a traditional rating, allow me to introduce you to the patented Justin Heins Video Game Valuizer (can be abbreviated as JHVGV is you're an asshole.) How will this work? As we go through the review, starting at $0, I will give or take away value based on my gaming experience, which at the end will help us determine how much I would recommend you pay for a game such as this.
So, without further ado, let's get crackin'!
CONCEPT
When I say Battleship, you will probably either instinctively think of the board game, or of a large naval cruiser. I doubt you'll think of running around on an island with your gun, shooting up aliens, but that's what we have here. Yes, Battleship: The Movie: The Video Game is a FIRST-PERSON SHOOTER. If you were doubted the people that say FPS games are over-saturating the market, I present to you this game.
The concept for this game is that you fight the ground war against an invading alien army while coordinating naval strikes against their ships and against targets on land. This is an incredibly simple and barebones concept that somehow is thoroughly ruined by a number of design flaws, a lack of combat variation, elimination of actual strategy, bugs in the game, and graphics that just scream "we gave no fucks."
GRAPHICS
Nostalgia is a great thing. When we think back to the video games we played as kids, there was a certain charm to everything. People have often said that the current gaming generation has created more sterilized games that try to hard to be realistic and no longer have the magical spirit that once used to make us grin from ear to ear. Even back to the last generation, with the PS2, Xbox and Gamecube, had such fun and charming games as Kingdom Hearts, the original Ratchet and Clank games, Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath, and any of the many 1st party Nintendo games. Now, you're probably wondering why I bring all this up here. You know the one thing about the previous console generation I didn't miss? The graphics.
This game looks like it could probably run on the regular Xbox. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Halo 2 looked better than this game. The grass textures on the ground are flat clumps of green lines that look like they were randomly stapled to the ground. Trees are practically one-dimensional. The actual textures on the rocks, grass, sand, water, and metal (because that's ALL THERE IS TO LOOK AT) look like they were created in MS Paint and slapped on haphazardly.
Despite the lameness of the textures and cutscenes that are mostly wireframe images and never include people, the game lags whenever you respawn, it lags in menus, and it lags during cutscenes. I'd love to know how many memory leaks are in the game's code.
For the naval combat (we'll get to that), ships are fairly well designed, but even when you destroy an enemy ship, you don't actually see it get destroyed, you just get a bright flash of light and it's gone. I don't think they bothered to render damaged ship models, which is one of the laziest fucking things I've ever even thought of in my life.
Enemy design? The standard grunt enemy looks like Cobra Commander. I'm SO not joking. You spend most of the game shooting at Cobra Commander clones. Besides that, there is an Orange-colored Cobra Commander clone, and a large beast of an enemy that tries to claw your face off. If you shoot the helmet off the larger enemy, it looks like a cross between the Skaarj and the Kilrathi from the Wing Commander MOVIE. Great, this game now made me think of Freddie Prinze Jr. and Matthew Lillard. Great. I'll be right back after I scrub my brain with a brillo pad.
So, how do we rate the graphics? Well, we need to compare it to other games in its price range, so we're going to go 2/10 on the graphics. The ONLY reason I don't give it a 1 is because there is no texture pop-in (unsurprising, since I'd bet there is only 1 layer of textures for any of the models.)
Value wise, I'm knocking off $5 due to unoriginality in design and general lack of effort. So we're at -$5 now. Not a good sign.
SOUND
As I started to write this section I tried REALLY hard to think back and remember anything remotely interesting or memorable about the sound, and I just can't. There are the sounds of weapons firing, artillery, some occasional grunts from the Skaarjrathi enemies, but nothing else.
There are come occasional musical stings, mainly when you complete a major objective, when you finish a mission, or when you destroy an enemy ship, but they're all very short. I don't think any of the music lasts longer than 30 seconds, even during the CREDIT ROLL.
Voice acting is there, but the lines are all delivery so unenthusiastically that I had to luck up online and verify that there weren't just people the studio held at gunpoint and forced to read into the microphone. The sound is just so... lifeless and empty. There might as well not be any sound at all.
I guess I'll rate the sound as 4/10, since it's not horrible, it just doesn't really DO anything. No effect on the value, so we're still at -$5.
STORY
Ah, yes. Let's dive headlong into the stupid, shall we? You play as EOD (Explosive Ordinance Disposal) Officer Mathis, and that's the extend of your character development. Seriously, there are no other characters. The only other major roles in this story are the GODDAMN SHIPS. You will know the names of all your ships by the end of this because they NEVER STOP TALKING! They will talk to you even when you aren't fighting anything and all the enemy ships have been destroyed, just to let you know they're still there.
So, I said you're an EOD Officer, right? That means you are a military specialist who is there to either dispose or place explosives. That's what you do. However, in this game, for a reason that is never explained at all, you have to coordinate attacks, control the entire naval battle theater, and single-handidly fight off hundreds of enemies. Yes, despite being an EOD tech, you are also capable of dispensing death with several different weapons. Additionally, I guess the Navy just had enough of that stupid "rank" bullshit and just decided to let a fucking bomb tech run the show. You mean to tell me there is NO ONE ranked higher than you around? That can't be right, because you will fight alongside soldier occasionally, WHO ALL RANKED OVER YOU.
So, the enemy just decided to show up one day and start shooting people, right in the middle of your training drill. It is your job to travel across all the islands, secure them, and destroy their mother ship. Trust me, it sounds way more exciting than it actually is.
To sum up, the story exists, but has no substance and is riddled with logic holes. I give it a 3/10, and will have to take away another $5 due to poor writing, total lack of character development, and the fact that I've been more engaged by the nutritional facts on a pouch of Kool-Aid than this story. -$10, Battleship. Things aren't looking too good here.
GAMEPLAY
This should really be called "Plant C-4: The Game." Each mission you will no less than 4 times have to plant C-4 on something. Each plant requires you to hold the X button down for about 3-5 seconds, then get away, and watch it blow up in a very unconvincing and boring manner. This actually makes sense, because it's your job, but why is there no mechanic involving this? Why can't I use my infinite supply of semtex to take out enemy troops? Why is disarming ALIEN BOMBS as easy as planting C-4 on a reactor? These are all questions that really take you out of the game, not that you wanted to be in there anyways, mind you.
We have weapon variety, though! You start with a pistol in most levels, but usually can find a Carbine (no brand names on anything, I guess to keep costs down), or a Shotgun, or you can pick up the alien grunt's KRAW weapons, which are basically chainguns. However, completely defying conventional logic, physics, and HOW FUCKING GUNS WORK IN GENERAL, the longer you fire the KRAW, the more accurate it becomes. At first my wife hypothesized it works differently and maybe uses a targeting computer. That was, until we noticed that it OVERHEATS, plus it shakes all over the place as you shoot, meaning that this is just a dumb way the game is trying to pretend its different.
The only other weapon in the game is a Rail Gun, which, is not a rail gun. It just isn't. In initial testing of rail guns the bullet traveled over 7 km and punched clean through a 1/8 inch steel plate. This is not a rail gun, it's a charge-shot sniper rifle which is laughably weak against most enemies (but kills you in 2 shots). Additionally, it suffers from what I call Star Wars Jedi Knight Disruptor Rifle Syndrome (catchy, huh?) where you can only charge shot if you are aiming down the sights. Also, in a funny bit of realization, I have to assume that the Navy in the region I'm in only outfits officer with rifles, shotguns and handguns and has no specialized or heavy ordinance in the area, but they have INFINITE C-4.
Enemies? There are 3 types of enemies, as said earlier. That's it. I don't count the naval ships, because you really don't fight them, you destroy them. They might as well be giant targets. The first enemy is by far the one you'll see the most, which is the Cobra Commander ripoff. Next most common are the Skaarjrathi mentioned earlier, followed by Orange Cobra Commander, who is a sniper equipped with the not-a-railgun gun.
The enemies are very unremarkable, however whoever programmed their artificial intelligence is sure to be a VERY remarkable person. First off, it seems that if the enemy decides they're going to change positions, they will move to the new position before firing, which is odd. It seems they have to hit their mark on the ground before they can start firing again. This is especially funny when you decide to move up on an enemies position at the same time as they move up on you, and you watch as they run past you to take cover and continue aiming where you were at, then process to NOT TURN AROUND as you gun them down 1-by-1 from behind them. I took down 15 enemies with a pistol hiding behind a rock, and they did not turn to face me once.
Enemies also do not at any time throw grenades at you, nor do they make any effort to evade grenades you throw at them. Also, the Cobra Commander enemies do not melee, they just keep shooting at you while you are STANDING RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM. You can literally whack them in the head with your pistol 4 times, and they will just resume shooting you.
Hit detection and ranged weapons are broken. Headshots only count when they feel like it, and I don't think it has anything to do with hitting them in the head. I think you have a critical hit chance, like a goddamn RPG, since I've shot someone in the leg with my Carbine, only to see their facemask explode. So either I shot them SO HARD in the knee that their head exploded, or area damage is borked. Ranged weapons become neigh useless from ANY range. Your carbine will take over 15 bullets to kill one of the Cobra Commanders if you try shooting at them from more than 10 feet away. Within 5 feet you can drop them in 3-5 bullets.
The game tries to keep you on your toes by having the enemy ships bombard the islands with one of two attacks. One attack is called a "rolling ball of alloy." Basically it's the magnet mines from Half-Life 2, and they explode if they touch you. You see two kinds of this enemy: one that the ships shoot at you and another that is planted in the ground like a mine, except those are blue and take 4x the damage to destroy them.
The other form of artillery the enemy uses? PEGS. Dead serious, they will fire fucking pegs at you, which will either emit electricity (which doesn't hurt you and only slows you down) or will explode, killing you if you are too close. It's almost like someone realized this game was nothing like Battleship and said, "Hey, what can we add to make this seem more like Battleship?" and Jim from accounting said "What if the alien ships fired pegs! Pegs are in Battleship!" And instead of taking him down to the boiler room and beating him until he stops twitching, they decided to put it in the game, because why the fuck not? Another fun part about the enemy artillery, they can shoot this crap at you even if you've destroyed all enemy ships on the map. Fun, huh?
Finally, we have the naval combat, which is predictably boring and awful. In order to take control of the naval fleet, you press LB which brings up a map of the area. Here you can select your ships and tell them to move around or to engage the enemy. Additionally, you can use "Wild Cards" which are dropped by the aliens you kill on foot to power up your ships with things such as radar, improved armor, or missiles. Finally, you can utilized "Gold Cards" to either repair your ships, revive destroyed ships, or ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL of a ship.
Taking control of a ship means you will aim at the enemy ship you are engaged with and proceed to mash RT, LT, and RB until it explodes. You do not maneuver, you do not fight multiple ships, you just destroy. This becomes even more hilariously overpowered once you get the Missouri (a battle cruiser) in the fourth mission, which can engage any enemy on the map from practically any position and destroy them in a single salvo. This mode only manages to break up the ground action, but isn't interesting or engaging enough to actually warrant real strategy. It's a sloppily implemented feature only there to pad out the game.
So, got all that? I award this game a 1/10 for gameplay for being boring, plodding, buggy experience. I also deduct $10 from the the value, bringing us down to -$20.
REPLAYABILITY
Let's cut to the chase, there is no multiplayer and no additional modes. The only reason to play this game again is for achievements or trophies, and the single player campaign is ONLY FOUR FUCKING HOURS LONG. I again remind you that this is a full-priced retail game. There is no reason to ever replay this again, 0/10.
Now, one of the ways I like to judge the value of a game is how much time I put into it. Generally, I will rate my value at $2/hour of gameplay if I'm having fun, $1/hour if it's okay, and $.50/hour if it is horrendous. Now to be honest, I did have some fun from this game just laughing at how horrible it is, so we'll split the difference and go $1/hour for 4 hours, so this game recaptures $4, bringing it up to... -$16. Huh.
CONCLUSION
To sum this all up, the game is the worst example of a value FPS game in the modern console era. I guess I shouldn't be surprised since this is from the same development company (Double Helix) that brought us GI Joe: Rise of Cobra and Green Lantern: Rise of the Manhunters, but this is just offensive. I give this game a 1/10, because it is a perfect example of how NOT to make a movie tie in game, or a first-person shooter, or hell, anything really.
The final value for this game? I feel that you should be PAID to play this game. Don't buy it even if it does end up in the $5 discount bin unless you feel you need to be reminded just how bad games can get.
That's all for this edition of Aggressive Analysis, until next time.
-Justin
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Where Does Stuff Come From?
There's a title to chew on for awhile. Go ahead. Tastes kind of bitter, honestly. Needs some pepper.
Anyways, my wife and I have recently engaged in the ancient tradition of "spring cleaning." Since we recently found out we're going to be stuck in the apartment for at least a few more months, we've decided that wading through piles of miscellaneous papers, video game cases, magazines, and lost dishes was not the best way to maintain our sanity and motivation to exist. So, we decided to get rid of some stuff.
We've only done one room so far, our office, which previously was non-traversable. Even the cat would look into the room and you could almost hear her saying "fuck THAT noise," as she decided sleeping under the bed was a better idea than braving ground zero. However, in our efforts to make the room usable once more, we made an astonishing discovery: we have a lot of stuff.
We're not just talking about "oh, you bought a few things and don't have room for them" kind of stuff, I mean "what the hell is this and where did it come from" stuff. We literally found items that neither of us could recall having seen before. My immediate assumption was that some stranger had broken into our house and scattered miscellaneous shit all over the place, waiting for us to find it. Like some demented tooth fairy.
Well, in one room, which is maybe 80 square feet, we threw out 8 bags of stuff and a desk. A FUCKING DESK, which was taking up space in our OFFICE. How the shit does that even happen!? I really wish I had the forethought to take before and after pictures, but alas, I have no proof of the miraculous transformation that took place, so you'll have to take my word for it. We knew we had made good progress once we had found the floor.
Today we continue this journey into our bedroom closet, and I wonder what the Junk Fairy has decided to sprinkle around there. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
UPDATE: 4/19/2012 So, as it turns out, after two rooms, we've thrown out over 15 bags of trash, and donated around 8 to Salvation Army. Holy crap. At least we're at a good spot where if we can maintain, moving out of here should be much easier than it would have been.
Anyways, my wife and I have recently engaged in the ancient tradition of "spring cleaning." Since we recently found out we're going to be stuck in the apartment for at least a few more months, we've decided that wading through piles of miscellaneous papers, video game cases, magazines, and lost dishes was not the best way to maintain our sanity and motivation to exist. So, we decided to get rid of some stuff.
We've only done one room so far, our office, which previously was non-traversable. Even the cat would look into the room and you could almost hear her saying "fuck THAT noise," as she decided sleeping under the bed was a better idea than braving ground zero. However, in our efforts to make the room usable once more, we made an astonishing discovery: we have a lot of stuff.
We're not just talking about "oh, you bought a few things and don't have room for them" kind of stuff, I mean "what the hell is this and where did it come from" stuff. We literally found items that neither of us could recall having seen before. My immediate assumption was that some stranger had broken into our house and scattered miscellaneous shit all over the place, waiting for us to find it. Like some demented tooth fairy.
Well, in one room, which is maybe 80 square feet, we threw out 8 bags of stuff and a desk. A FUCKING DESK, which was taking up space in our OFFICE. How the shit does that even happen!? I really wish I had the forethought to take before and after pictures, but alas, I have no proof of the miraculous transformation that took place, so you'll have to take my word for it. We knew we had made good progress once we had found the floor.
Today we continue this journey into our bedroom closet, and I wonder what the Junk Fairy has decided to sprinkle around there. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
UPDATE: 4/19/2012 So, as it turns out, after two rooms, we've thrown out over 15 bags of trash, and donated around 8 to Salvation Army. Holy crap. At least we're at a good spot where if we can maintain, moving out of here should be much easier than it would have been.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Worst Company in America 2012 Winner
Finally, justice has been served! Every year we, as proud Americans, get together and let our voices be heard as we have selected who is truly the Worst Company in America. In the past, we've put some of the worst sorts of corporations on notice, that we Americans will not stand for this nonsense any longer, and they need to improve.
In 2006 we selected Halliburton, unquestionably an evil oil company led by such supervillians as Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney is one of the most heartless individuals out there, until recently that is.
In 2007, we chose the oft-despised RIAA, a company that recently tried to sue LimeWire for $75 trillion. That actually happened. The RIAA tried to sue a company that provides a free service for more than the GDP of the EARTH. Such douchebaggery shall not be tolerated on our watch!
2008 saw Countrywide Financial take the award, a company that decided that the best way to help people get into houses was screw them over in ways never before imagined. They were a major force behind the housing bubble crisis that is still plaguing many Americans today. They got their comeuppance, though, as they were purchased by Bank of America that same year.
AIG was tagged in 2009 for taking taxpayer money and essentially setting it on fire. They received over $170 billion in taxpayer bailout money from the government, then reported losses of $61.7 billion (record losses), then reported they were going to give out around $1.2 billion in bonuses. As it turns out, that made some people angry, and thus, the award was given.
In 2010, Comcast was plastered to the wall for basically being selective with customer's internet speeds, among other issues. Comcast is well known for treating their customers... let's just say poorly. To sum up, there's a reason why many Americans have turned the former catchphrase Comcastic into much more... appropriate term.
2011 had BP taking the illustrious reward for reasons that probably don't need to be explained. As it turns out, the rest of the world gets a little upset when a bunch of OIL ends up in the ocean. Go figure.
But that brings us to this year. Which company deserves the ire of our country the most? Looking at contenders, we had a couple of sure-fire finalists in Wal-Mart and Bank of America.
Wal-Mart is well known for it's sexism issues, poor wages, and poor customer service.
Meanwhile, Bank of America was busy doing such wonderful acts like illegally foreclosing on ACTIVE SERVICE MEMBER'S HOMES. That's just the tip of the iceberg, however, as Bank of America has introduced such practices as robo-signing to get foreclosures churned out faster and faster.
Wow, we've got a couple of Super Heavyweights ready to duke it out here! And I have the envelope here, folks! It looks like our winner is...
What. No. That can't be right. The votes must've had a margin of error issue or...
WHAT. 64-36 over Bank of America!? Are you fucking kidding me!?
Well, America. Seems we need to have a little chat. I don't think it's any secret at all why this happened. EA is the publisher for a major game that released this year, called Mass Effect 3. The game was the conclusion of a trilogy that was supposed to provide an ending to the story of the main character, Commander Shepherd. People weren't pleased with the ending.
Okay, I get that you're upset about the ending, and I get that the Consumerist Worst Company in America award is voted by people online. But some companies actually do take the award seriously. Comcast actually has been reported by people to have cleaned up their act a lot in the last couple of years, for example. BP really tried to clean up their image and fund some charitable organizations after the mess. But we really are saying that EA is worse than Bank of America or Wal-Mart? Perspective is a wonderful tool, and right now I think the issue is we had too many tools and not enough perspective voting for this award.
Actually, I'm going to briefly address the fan backlash on the ending to Mass Effect 3. I really don't get it. It's not from lack of trying, however. The Mass Effect franchise has probably been near my favorite game franchise from the last decade. I loved the story, I loved the character interactions, and I loved how each game clearly took large strides forward in every department. However, the amount of rage generated by the final 10 minutes of a 40+ hour game is quite insane, really. People weren't this upset by the ending to the Sopranos.
I'm not getting into spoilers here, but I will say that people who have portrayed EA and BioWare as this EVIL EMPIRE that has RUINED GAMES FOR EVERYONE really have lost their perspective. Look, you make it sound like the ending was bad and now the company is laughing at you for being invested, when their actions show just the opposite. They are giving you FREE DLC. FREE. F-R-E-E. They're doing it because everyone was upset and complained. They are going back into studio to do it. They've also announce they are giving you free Multiplayer DLC. I can probably count the number of full-retail games that gave free Multiplayer DLC on one hand or less. Yet, some people are still livid. Guys, get over it. They're doing the best they can given the situation, but ultimately the ending they wrote is the ending they wrote. It is their IP, they can do what they want with it. No, we don't have to be happy about it, and they such seem to be doing their best to address the outcry, but the level of enragement that is present is atrocious.
The fact is, while I can understand the frustration and anger to a certain extent, it really has gone overboard when this is causing people to say that EA is worse than a company that, I remind you, ILLEGALLY FORECLOSED ON ACTIVE SERVICE MEMBER'S HOMES. America, we have a voice that has some real power. Maybe we should try and use that power for good instead of for... whatever the hell this is. Oh well, I guess that means that Bank of America will just have to try harder next year. Yay.
In 2006 we selected Halliburton, unquestionably an evil oil company led by such supervillians as Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney is one of the most heartless individuals out there, until recently that is.
In 2007, we chose the oft-despised RIAA, a company that recently tried to sue LimeWire for $75 trillion. That actually happened. The RIAA tried to sue a company that provides a free service for more than the GDP of the EARTH. Such douchebaggery shall not be tolerated on our watch!
2008 saw Countrywide Financial take the award, a company that decided that the best way to help people get into houses was screw them over in ways never before imagined. They were a major force behind the housing bubble crisis that is still plaguing many Americans today. They got their comeuppance, though, as they were purchased by Bank of America that same year.
AIG was tagged in 2009 for taking taxpayer money and essentially setting it on fire. They received over $170 billion in taxpayer bailout money from the government, then reported losses of $61.7 billion (record losses), then reported they were going to give out around $1.2 billion in bonuses. As it turns out, that made some people angry, and thus, the award was given.
In 2010, Comcast was plastered to the wall for basically being selective with customer's internet speeds, among other issues. Comcast is well known for treating their customers... let's just say poorly. To sum up, there's a reason why many Americans have turned the former catchphrase Comcastic into much more... appropriate term.
2011 had BP taking the illustrious reward for reasons that probably don't need to be explained. As it turns out, the rest of the world gets a little upset when a bunch of OIL ends up in the ocean. Go figure.
But that brings us to this year. Which company deserves the ire of our country the most? Looking at contenders, we had a couple of sure-fire finalists in Wal-Mart and Bank of America.
Wal-Mart is well known for it's sexism issues, poor wages, and poor customer service.
Meanwhile, Bank of America was busy doing such wonderful acts like illegally foreclosing on ACTIVE SERVICE MEMBER'S HOMES. That's just the tip of the iceberg, however, as Bank of America has introduced such practices as robo-signing to get foreclosures churned out faster and faster.
Wow, we've got a couple of Super Heavyweights ready to duke it out here! And I have the envelope here, folks! It looks like our winner is...
What. No. That can't be right. The votes must've had a margin of error issue or...
WHAT. 64-36 over Bank of America!? Are you fucking kidding me!?
Well, America. Seems we need to have a little chat. I don't think it's any secret at all why this happened. EA is the publisher for a major game that released this year, called Mass Effect 3. The game was the conclusion of a trilogy that was supposed to provide an ending to the story of the main character, Commander Shepherd. People weren't pleased with the ending.
Okay, I get that you're upset about the ending, and I get that the Consumerist Worst Company in America award is voted by people online. But some companies actually do take the award seriously. Comcast actually has been reported by people to have cleaned up their act a lot in the last couple of years, for example. BP really tried to clean up their image and fund some charitable organizations after the mess. But we really are saying that EA is worse than Bank of America or Wal-Mart? Perspective is a wonderful tool, and right now I think the issue is we had too many tools and not enough perspective voting for this award.
Actually, I'm going to briefly address the fan backlash on the ending to Mass Effect 3. I really don't get it. It's not from lack of trying, however. The Mass Effect franchise has probably been near my favorite game franchise from the last decade. I loved the story, I loved the character interactions, and I loved how each game clearly took large strides forward in every department. However, the amount of rage generated by the final 10 minutes of a 40+ hour game is quite insane, really. People weren't this upset by the ending to the Sopranos.
I'm not getting into spoilers here, but I will say that people who have portrayed EA and BioWare as this EVIL EMPIRE that has RUINED GAMES FOR EVERYONE really have lost their perspective. Look, you make it sound like the ending was bad and now the company is laughing at you for being invested, when their actions show just the opposite. They are giving you FREE DLC. FREE. F-R-E-E. They're doing it because everyone was upset and complained. They are going back into studio to do it. They've also announce they are giving you free Multiplayer DLC. I can probably count the number of full-retail games that gave free Multiplayer DLC on one hand or less. Yet, some people are still livid. Guys, get over it. They're doing the best they can given the situation, but ultimately the ending they wrote is the ending they wrote. It is their IP, they can do what they want with it. No, we don't have to be happy about it, and they such seem to be doing their best to address the outcry, but the level of enragement that is present is atrocious.
The fact is, while I can understand the frustration and anger to a certain extent, it really has gone overboard when this is causing people to say that EA is worse than a company that, I remind you, ILLEGALLY FORECLOSED ON ACTIVE SERVICE MEMBER'S HOMES. America, we have a voice that has some real power. Maybe we should try and use that power for good instead of for... whatever the hell this is. Oh well, I guess that means that Bank of America will just have to try harder next year. Yay.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Why DLC Doesn't Suck
I love the internet. Back when I was a kid I could only imagine a place where I could go to find out everything about anything in minutes. I could only imagine a place where people could gather in droves to give their opinions on games, movies, or new tech. Forums, message boards, comments sections, Facebook, and others provide people a new voice that never existed before.
I hate the internet. I can't have a decent screaming argument about who's right and wrong anymore when one person can pull up their smartphone and prove the other wrong in seconds. I hate listening to other people whining about every little thing that fucking bothers them to people who don't give a rat's ass. Forums are full of politicians, message boards are dead, comments sections are glorified troll dens, Facebook friends judge everything you say and do, and I'm just sick of it all.
Now that I've established some of my issues with the internet, let's talk about something specific that's been bothering me as of late: people bitching about DLC (downloadable content) for video games. I'm amazed at the number of people who come out and say crap like "that should have been included on the disc" or "you should never have to pay for DLC." These people obviously don't know a goddamn thing about either game design or marketing, so let's go through some of the reasons why DLC is good, and how long it's actually been around.
Let's start with history: DLC has existed for decades as what we "old-school" PC gamers used to call "expansion packs." Back in the 90's, games would have expansions released for them that would add new campaign levels, new multiplayer maps, and other features. The fun thing about these packs is they could cost as much as a retail game. Diablo II Lord of Destruction cost $30 when it came out, and it added 2 new classes, 1 new act (which added about 5-6 hours to the game) and added new items. To compare, DLC packs for Fallout 3 cost around $15 a piece and each added new items, new areas, and between 4-6 hours to finish.
That's the one thing to keep in mind, people didn't complain when The Sims (the first one) released new expansion packs every three weeks for $10-$20, because it just made the game bigger, and you didn't have to buy them. It wasn't until The Sims 2 did the same thing that everyone and their mother started complaining bout how much additional content there was. The stupid thing about this complaint? These are the same people that complain when a company releases a $60 game that only had 8-12 hours of gameplay and then never expands it. Fuck off.
So, let's talk about price, then. People love to say that DLC should have either been included, or been provided at no cost because people already bought the game. First, game development costs money. Not just for the equipment and technology needed to actually design the game, but for the people who work on the game. Their time should be compensated for, don't you think? Would you want to spend 8 weeks working on a something for a client, only to have the client say it isn't worth anything?
Also, keep that 8 weeks in mind. Games have to be pretty much finished about a month before their release date, because you have to manufacture the product, then send it out to stores. So let's just say that after that month deadline goes by, they get back into the studio and create six new characters for your fighting game, then decide to release them as day one DLC for $20. You are not obligated to buy this, first of all, and no, it wouldn't have been done in time to get it on the disc, nor should it be free since they worked on it outside of the boundaries of the budget they had for development.
Let's now talk about console gaming, because that's really what the issue is. Console gamers never had to deal with expansion packs (or even game-correcting patches) before, so this is all new to them. Those are the people who are the most vocal about everything. Back in the "good old days" of the Nintendo and Super Nintendo, no matter how good your game was, you were never going to get more of it, unless they made a sequel. Then, that sequel would cost retail price (as it should.)
There was at least one exception to that rule I can recall. During the days of the Sega Genesis, they released an expansion pack-esque game, called Sonic & Knuckles. The selling point was that you buy Sonic 3 and Sonic & Knuckles together in order to get the full game experience. Additionally, Sonic & Knuckles would allow you to play Sonic 2 as Knuckles. This is really the only example I can think of during the cartridge console era that this was done. And you know what? People loved it. It sold very well and it was praised as a hugely innovative idea. Huh. Interesting, isn't it?
Now, I'm not going to claim that DLC is perfect. There are several instances where it's overpriced, for example. I don't like the idea of paying $15 for an extra level in Star Wars: The Force Unleashed that takes 1-2 hours on Hard mode to beat. Many people use Call of Duty map packs as an example of this. However, think about game time. If you end up spending a total of 20 hours playing those new maps (which if you are an avid player, you will), then aren't you getting your money's worth out of them?
So, what's the conclusion here? DLC allows game developers to expand their products without having to create a new sequel to a game. Gamers love to say that developers intentionally shorten games to release content as DLC, and that may be true, but they used to do it back in the day as well, knowing that they could just include the content in the sequel and you'll eat it up. So don't complain about it, because the alternative is even worse.
I hate the internet. I can't have a decent screaming argument about who's right and wrong anymore when one person can pull up their smartphone and prove the other wrong in seconds. I hate listening to other people whining about every little thing that fucking bothers them to people who don't give a rat's ass. Forums are full of politicians, message boards are dead, comments sections are glorified troll dens, Facebook friends judge everything you say and do, and I'm just sick of it all.
Now that I've established some of my issues with the internet, let's talk about something specific that's been bothering me as of late: people bitching about DLC (downloadable content) for video games. I'm amazed at the number of people who come out and say crap like "that should have been included on the disc" or "you should never have to pay for DLC." These people obviously don't know a goddamn thing about either game design or marketing, so let's go through some of the reasons why DLC is good, and how long it's actually been around.
Let's start with history: DLC has existed for decades as what we "old-school" PC gamers used to call "expansion packs." Back in the 90's, games would have expansions released for them that would add new campaign levels, new multiplayer maps, and other features. The fun thing about these packs is they could cost as much as a retail game. Diablo II Lord of Destruction cost $30 when it came out, and it added 2 new classes, 1 new act (which added about 5-6 hours to the game) and added new items. To compare, DLC packs for Fallout 3 cost around $15 a piece and each added new items, new areas, and between 4-6 hours to finish.
That's the one thing to keep in mind, people didn't complain when The Sims (the first one) released new expansion packs every three weeks for $10-$20, because it just made the game bigger, and you didn't have to buy them. It wasn't until The Sims 2 did the same thing that everyone and their mother started complaining bout how much additional content there was. The stupid thing about this complaint? These are the same people that complain when a company releases a $60 game that only had 8-12 hours of gameplay and then never expands it. Fuck off.
So, let's talk about price, then. People love to say that DLC should have either been included, or been provided at no cost because people already bought the game. First, game development costs money. Not just for the equipment and technology needed to actually design the game, but for the people who work on the game. Their time should be compensated for, don't you think? Would you want to spend 8 weeks working on a something for a client, only to have the client say it isn't worth anything?
Also, keep that 8 weeks in mind. Games have to be pretty much finished about a month before their release date, because you have to manufacture the product, then send it out to stores. So let's just say that after that month deadline goes by, they get back into the studio and create six new characters for your fighting game, then decide to release them as day one DLC for $20. You are not obligated to buy this, first of all, and no, it wouldn't have been done in time to get it on the disc, nor should it be free since they worked on it outside of the boundaries of the budget they had for development.
Let's now talk about console gaming, because that's really what the issue is. Console gamers never had to deal with expansion packs (or even game-correcting patches) before, so this is all new to them. Those are the people who are the most vocal about everything. Back in the "good old days" of the Nintendo and Super Nintendo, no matter how good your game was, you were never going to get more of it, unless they made a sequel. Then, that sequel would cost retail price (as it should.)
There was at least one exception to that rule I can recall. During the days of the Sega Genesis, they released an expansion pack-esque game, called Sonic & Knuckles. The selling point was that you buy Sonic 3 and Sonic & Knuckles together in order to get the full game experience. Additionally, Sonic & Knuckles would allow you to play Sonic 2 as Knuckles. This is really the only example I can think of during the cartridge console era that this was done. And you know what? People loved it. It sold very well and it was praised as a hugely innovative idea. Huh. Interesting, isn't it?
Now, I'm not going to claim that DLC is perfect. There are several instances where it's overpriced, for example. I don't like the idea of paying $15 for an extra level in Star Wars: The Force Unleashed that takes 1-2 hours on Hard mode to beat. Many people use Call of Duty map packs as an example of this. However, think about game time. If you end up spending a total of 20 hours playing those new maps (which if you are an avid player, you will), then aren't you getting your money's worth out of them?
So, what's the conclusion here? DLC allows game developers to expand their products without having to create a new sequel to a game. Gamers love to say that developers intentionally shorten games to release content as DLC, and that may be true, but they used to do it back in the day as well, knowing that they could just include the content in the sequel and you'll eat it up. So don't complain about it, because the alternative is even worse.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Let's Play - Totally Rad (Conclusion)
Hey, everyone! Told you new content was on the way. Got my new headset working for recording footage, and it made finishing these Let's Plays a cinch. So, without further ado, here is the exciting conclusion to my Let's Play of Totally Rad! Bodacious!
Friday, December 9, 2011
Christianity vs. Dungeons and Dragons
Well, sometimes it is amazing what you stumble upon on the internet. My dad recently told me to check out a new cartoon called "Your Dungeon, My Dragon". In an effort to do so, I popped over to good old Google and typed in "Your Dungeon, My Dragon". While I do see several articles pertaining to the topic I searched for, what do I see nestled down at the #7 spot? A 2001 article written by William Schnoebelen titled "Should a Christian Play Dungeons & Dragons". First off, that must be a pretty popular article to hold the #7 spot in a search for a cartoon that is only months old. That would indicate that if you searched for "Your Dungeon, My Dragon" three months before today (and for about 10 years before that, based on the article's placement), this would've come up first.
Now, what we basically have here is yet another person who decided that Dungeons & Dragons is chipping away at the moral fabric of our youth, derp herp derp. The argument is obviously much older than 2001, considering Mazes and Monsters (starring Tom Hanks, mind you) came out back in 1982. I'd speak about that movie, but I think that you'll find a much more comprehensive and entertaining review of it by going here.
So, we know that Mazes and Monsters (both the book and the movie) had an overblown super-paranoid psycho-Christian agenda, so I'm sure I can expect much better from this article... oh wait, what's this at the bottom of the page?
Wow. Just...wow. So, a lot of this article was inspired by a book called "Exposing and Confronting Satan and Associates." I can tell this is going to be a fun-filled romp through an enchanted forest! Well, may be not an "enchanted" forest, because that would be Hell, according to these people.
Now, we're obviously not going to take on the entire article, as that could prove to be fatal to my sanity, but we are going to go over a few rather wonderful quotes that are nestled in the loving embrace of this article. One such example lies in the third paragraph of this article.
Now I'm not saying that calling "Dungeons & Dragons" a spectacular movie throws everything else you say into question... wait. Yes I am. Even children were offended by how horrible that movie was. In fact, the only remotely enjoyable part of that movie is watching Jeremy Irons chew apart the landscape for an hour and half. He still may have bits of the Empire of Izmer stuck between his teeth (yeah, I know I'm a nerd. Lay off.) Also, "the pop culture"? You don't get out much, do you? Even back in 2001 no one used the definite article when referring to pop culture (grammar joke, ftw!).
Okay, sure. Bring Harry Potter into this. Look, one of the big deals back in the early part of the millennium was "Is Harry Potter evil?" This still, to this day, remains one of the dumbest arguments made by Christianity in the entire existence of the universe. Why is it dumb? Because it's freaking Harry Potter! Do you really think that J.K. Rowling was during her best Montgomery Burns impression, rubbing her hands together while saying "Excellent, everything is going according to plan... soon, all the children will be turned to the blissful arms of Satan!" Actually, that's a pretty funny image.
*ahem* No! She wasn't saying that! She was writing a children's book about magic and wonder. Why the hell are you attacking her? I don't see Christianity getting all up-in-arms over Disney movies, do you? Okay, maybe you do sometimes, but still...
Huh? I get the martial arts expertise, because, y'know, Monk. But what "occult expertise" is she referring to? The fact that the D&D Monk is based on the Asian monks? That's pretty flimsy to say the least. Sounds more like just another way to throw the word "occult" around. By the way, "occult" is often time used as the Christian translation for "don't understand it".
By the way, the word "occult" (or some variation of it) is used 31 times in this article. Damn. And in total, there are 44 references to the world "cult"! Wowzers!
The irony of this paragraph is palpable.
Also, as Christians, we do not teach our children about people like Julius Caesar, who would fit the bill of Lawful Evil pretty well. As would Hitler, it could be argued. So, we don't want our children to be immersed in history?
I agree! The simple fact that you're expecting a Christian to justify the fact that he plays "Dungeons & Dragons" I think may speak more to the underlying issue with the very existence of this article, however. But, if you are a Christian, and your sole argument in favor of D&D is that you play a Cleric, then I do think your moral compass may be spinning the wrong way. More on this later.
Well, you see...
Okay, but what you're missing is...
Whoa! Stop it! I'm laughing so hard that I'm unable to respond to all the crazy that you're spewing at me! First, you are making the assumption that Dungeons & Dragons players are so stupid that you think they will start to believe that they can cast down fire upon people through prayer? Uh... here's a news flash. If the person was able to understand the complexities of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (which is what was prominent in 2001), they are smart enough to know that the Christian religion does not work the same way.
Also, I love how at they end they threw in "Christians may take small comfort in the fact that divine spells are better than arcane spells for reviving the dead." Huh? Why!? You're whole argument is that this system is inherently evil and that no Christian should ever play it! Why would any of your target audience take comfort in that!? You are made of stupid! Oh, and leave Star Wars out of this! What did Yoda ever do to you?
But, hold on to your hats, ladies and gents! We're about to hop on board the CRAZY TRAIN!
Uh... yes. Yes it has. The game actually intentionally started to try and distance itself from all the major occult-like stuff that existed back in AD&D and before. Also your "dozens of hours talking with players and DMs" from back in "the 1970's-80's" I'm sure makes you a friggin' expert in the field today!
First, Call of Cthulu has nothing to do with Dungeons & Dragons. Also, by bringing up the existence of other role-playing games, you are basically admitting that you know that there are other games out there, and are simple shuffling everything under the D&D banner. Additionally if you really wanted to get into creepy occult stuff, you'd be best suited with something like Vampire: the Masquerade, instead of D&D. Also, I know it's not really what the author meant, but I love that he said that the Necronomicon and Cthulu (credit to Leslie!) are real.
That statement is so baseless that it could earn a reward. Here is where the downward spiral truly begins.
Oh, come on now. You're not even trying anymore. First, that is a terrible simile (more grammar!). Second, that statement can lead down all kinds of dark paths. Basically, if you were playing a role-playing game where you all played as holy man in the name of Jesus, that would be morally better for you, even if in that game you were also all KKK members? Remember that, everyone. If you play a D&D campaign where your goal is to save a kingdom from an army of evil undead, you're going to Hell immediately. But, playing Grand Theft Auto and running over prostitutes constantly is a way better option, since you're character said "Jesus Christ" once. This part of the article earns the always-popular, double facepalm!
Read that again. Seriously, read it again, and tell me you didn't laugh at that! If you didn't imagine it was being said by a priest. There you go. I just love that last line, "the devil would sure like that." What!? Actually, I think the devil actually loves the fact that you're so focused on D&D and not the people playing Russian Roulette! World hunger is small-fry, we've got to stop these damned D&D players!
I... I can't keep this up. The stupid just keep rolling in. First, playing "chicken" in traffic is actually very challenging, on a physical, emotional, and intellectual level! You have to be able to judge when the car is going to go by, be fast enough to get out of the way, and be able to cry when Billy doesn't make it by the tanker truck! Which are you more likely to cry about, a good friend hitting the wrong chamber in Russian Roulette, or Fizby the elf getting impaled by a spike trap? Also, I am forever referring to any D&D campaign I play in as "the devil's millstone of hate" from now on.
You apparently weren't at any of my Saturday sessions back in the early and mid-2000s. Xavier the Brave helped save many people from evil creatures during that time. Hell, the entire kingdom of Quintella is still in his debt to this day.
Oh trust me, we all already knew you had a sheltered life.
Okay, you're stretching. You've already established that you had very limited experience with D&D back in the 70's and 80's, citing dozens of hours of contact. Considering the average D&D session is 6 hours and there are usually 6-12 sessions in a full campaign, you really have no basis of knowledge.
Now I'm not saying that you playing D&D is going to turn you into slavering maniac who vomits pea soup but...
Oh. Well, so much for that joke.
Of course it was going to come back to that, wasn't it. The "claims" of William Dear can be found in the book The Dungeon Master. That isn't wild claim or speculation, it was a true story. What the article's author is basically saying is that he doesn't believe us, which by elimination means that he's sticking with Mazes and Monsters. Leave it to a psycho-Christian to throw away all the proof and fact in the world to support their argument.
A lot of the rest of the articles deals with the author's sad attempts at disassembling other people's articles and statements, so if you really want to read the insanity, go ahead. I encourage it, because the author starts to sound like a raving idiot during some area's like...
Article in contention:
Anti-D&D response:
Do I really need to get into how far off our author is here? Firstly, what in the hell qualifies you as a "cult expert"? Do you have a certificate? Did you pass an examination? Can you point out a satanic cultist in a police line-up? Also, several times during his argument, he calls out Jeff Freeman, the author of the article being contested, called Concerns Christians Should Have About Dungeons & Dragons, for not citing his sources. You will notice that our author's statement of "the number of people involved in various occult practices are rising higher and higher each year" also doesn't cite anything. Impressive hypocrisy, Mr. Schnoebelen. Well done, indeed. Also, Jeff Freeman's article makes some good points, it's worth a read
Also in this article, our author lists 11 different deaths that are "linked to D&D", although there are a few that seem flimsy, and a couple involving people who seemed like they already had serious psychological issues. But, they played D&D once, so, evil.
Meanwhile, here's the counter argument to "D&D can teach you good things too!"
Take a breath, people. Bask in the glory. Okay, first, while I understand the point about teamwork, when you start complaining about the reading, listening, and memory content... you do realize that children are going to learn history, right? Plus, they usually read some form of literature, which could very well be dark and disturbing. I'm guessing our author also hates Shakespeare? Second, yes, I see what you did. You wanted to act like you know more than you do about D&D and picked one of the most bizarre spells in the game. Personally, I'm more partial to Bigby's Crushing Hand, but to each their own. The thing (well, amongst all the other things) that you're missing is that that you don't actually have to memorize a bunch of runes or other crap to cast spells in D&D. You have a character sheet with your spells written down, and you cast them. Seriously, you're harping on a point that literally does not exist. Finally, you intentionally used eldritch instead of weird because you are trying to pour on the occult stuff. We get it, D&D is Satan.
*sigh* No. I suppose he wouldn't. But since your argument is that all role-playing games are evil, does this point really prove anything? Face it, you wanted to roll porn into this as well for pure shock factor. No, that doesn't make you clever.
If the content of your article is a good example of the BS they are facing on a daily basis, they would probably play it just to get the hell away for a little while.
Okay, seriously, people. This article is a doozy. And unless you are a super-Christian fundamentalist (and if you are, how the hell did you end up this far into my blog post?), you'll find plenty of entertainment in this article. For the record, although I'm an atheist (and therefore, definitely not part of the target demographic of this article), I spent plenty of time within the Christian religion and I do not believe this article accurately represents them. I do believe, however, there are plenty of people within Christianity that do go this far in their beliefs, and that scares the crap out of me. Just look at Rick Perry if you don't believe me. Also, if your kids are playing D&D and you are truly worried about them, try talking to them. It's amazing what an effect that can have on you.
I hope that I provided some to you, and until next time, take care!
-Justin
Now, what we basically have here is yet another person who decided that Dungeons & Dragons is chipping away at the moral fabric of our youth, derp herp derp. The argument is obviously much older than 2001, considering Mazes and Monsters (starring Tom Hanks, mind you) came out back in 1982. I'd speak about that movie, but I think that you'll find a much more comprehensive and entertaining review of it by going here.
So, we know that Mazes and Monsters (both the book and the movie) had an overblown super-paranoid psycho-Christian agenda, so I'm sure I can expect much better from this article... oh wait, what's this at the bottom of the page?
A special note of thanks to Wendell Amstutz, Steve Lansing, Ph.D., and Richard Noe for their excellent work on D&D in their masterful book, EXPOSING AND CONFRONTING SATAN AND ASSOCIATES.
Wow. Just...wow. So, a lot of this article was inspired by a book called "Exposing and Confronting Satan and Associates." I can tell this is going to be a fun-filled romp through an enchanted forest! Well, may be not an "enchanted" forest, because that would be Hell, according to these people.
Now, we're obviously not going to take on the entire article, as that could prove to be fatal to my sanity, but we are going to go over a few rather wonderful quotes that are nestled in the loving embrace of this article. One such example lies in the third paragraph of this article.
Just a quick survey shows the cultural impact of D&D and its offspring. Just recently, a spectacular movie called Dungeons and Dragons was released. Additionally, the pop culture is virtually drowning in sorcery and occult related topics.
Now I'm not saying that calling "Dungeons & Dragons" a spectacular movie throws everything else you say into question... wait. Yes I am. Even children were offended by how horrible that movie was. In fact, the only remotely enjoyable part of that movie is watching Jeremy Irons chew apart the landscape for an hour and half. He still may have bits of the Empire of Izmer stuck between his teeth (yeah, I know I'm a nerd. Lay off.) Also, "the pop culture"? You don't get out much, do you? Even back in 2001 no one used the definite article when referring to pop culture (grammar joke, ftw!).
...in the 1970's, it was one of the major cultural phenomena that planted the seeds that have sprouted into Harry Potter and all the occult books and movies.
Okay, sure. Bring Harry Potter into this. Look, one of the big deals back in the early part of the millennium was "Is Harry Potter evil?" This still, to this day, remains one of the dumbest arguments made by Christianity in the entire existence of the universe. Why is it dumb? Because it's freaking Harry Potter! Do you really think that J.K. Rowling was during her best Montgomery Burns impression, rubbing her hands together while saying "Excellent, everything is going according to plan... soon, all the children will be turned to the blissful arms of Satan!" Actually, that's a pretty funny image.
*ahem* No! She wasn't saying that! She was writing a children's book about magic and wonder. Why the hell are you attacking her? I don't see Christianity getting all up-in-arms over Disney movies, do you? Okay, maybe you do sometimes, but still...
...the [monk] does not appear to be any sort "Catholic monk," but rather a monk from more eastern religions, with high levels of martial arts and occult expertise.
Huh? I get the martial arts expertise, because, y'know, Monk. But what "occult expertise" is she referring to? The fact that the D&D Monk is based on the Asian monks? That's pretty flimsy to say the least. Sounds more like just another way to throw the word "occult" around. By the way, "occult" is often time used as the Christian translation for "don't understand it".
By the way, the word "occult" (or some variation of it) is used 31 times in this article. Damn. And in total, there are 44 references to the world "cult"! Wowzers!
One other issue needs to be raised about alignment. The morality expressed in D&D is fuzzy at best, and is certainly NOT the morality of the Bible. The same handbook tells us "…that goodness has no absolute values. Although many things are commonly accepted as good (helping those in need, protecting the weak) different cultures impose their own interpretations on what is good and what is evil."
The irony of this paragraph is palpable.
For example, you can have a "lawful evil" character. A handbook states that: "A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard to whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty and order, but not about freedom, dignity or life." Talk about a mish-mash of moral ambiguity. Our young people are having enough trouble getting their values straight without being immersed in this sort of material!
Also, as Christians, we do not teach our children about people like Julius Caesar, who would fit the bill of Lawful Evil pretty well. As would Hitler, it could be argued. So, we don't want our children to be immersed in history?
Anyone who would attempt to equate [the Cleric] with a Christian clergyman is obviously woefully ignorant of both the Bible and Christianity. Yet, amazingly, Christian D&D players write me and claim that this makes the game alright. Obviously, no true Christian would use spells as their main tool. Also, the first sentence is very telling. The cleric is a generic religionist of "any myth." In other words, religions are myths. Christianity is a myth; Judaism is a myth, etc. This makes the D&D cleric align with the theology of Freemasonry, where the Great Architect is generic and any old god (or goddess if you please) would do... ...Any Christian who thinks that the cleric is an example of a Christian man of God is deluding themselves.
I agree! The simple fact that you're expecting a Christian to justify the fact that he plays "Dungeons & Dragons" I think may speak more to the underlying issue with the very existence of this article, however. But, if you are a Christian, and your sole argument in favor of D&D is that you play a Cleric, then I do think your moral compass may be spinning the wrong way. More on this later.
...in the "universe" of Dungeons and Dragons magic is neutral, and can be used by "good guys" or by "bad guys." It is like "The Force" in Star Wars. This magical morality pervades D&D, and it is utterly in opposition to the Word of God.
Well, you see...
So-called "divine spells" draw their power from a divine source (i.e., a god). On the other hand, wizards, sorcerers and bards cast "arcane spells" and this involves the direct manipulation of "mystical energies." This further confuses the issues raised above and makes prayer sound like magic; and makes magic sound like it can come from a "divine source." Obviously, the God of the Bible is not the source of magic, in any form.
Okay, but what you're missing is...
Believe it or not, some spells can even revive the dead, mimicking the power of the Messiah Himself. Christians may take small comfort in the fact that divine spells are better than arcane spells for reviving the dead.
Whoa! Stop it! I'm laughing so hard that I'm unable to respond to all the crazy that you're spewing at me! First, you are making the assumption that Dungeons & Dragons players are so stupid that you think they will start to believe that they can cast down fire upon people through prayer? Uh... here's a news flash. If the person was able to understand the complexities of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (which is what was prominent in 2001), they are smart enough to know that the Christian religion does not work the same way.
Also, I love how at they end they threw in "Christians may take small comfort in the fact that divine spells are better than arcane spells for reviving the dead." Huh? Why!? You're whole argument is that this system is inherently evil and that no Christian should ever play it! Why would any of your target audience take comfort in that!? You are made of stupid! Oh, and leave Star Wars out of this! What did Yoda ever do to you?
But, hold on to your hats, ladies and gents! We're about to hop on board the CRAZY TRAIN!
I have played D&D a few times and spent dozens of hours talking with players and Dungeon Masters (DMs). Admittedly, my first hand experienced with D&D is from the 1970's-80's, but I would think it still counts for something. Has the game changed that much?
Uh... yes. Yes it has. The game actually intentionally started to try and distance itself from all the major occult-like stuff that existed back in AD&D and before. Also your "dozens of hours talking with players and DMs" from back in "the 1970's-80's" I'm sure makes you a friggin' expert in the field today!
For example, there is now a whole line of materials based on the hellish H.P. Lovecraft Cthulhu mythos, a form of magic that we practiced in the darkest days of our satanic career - a system of magic prominently featured in THE SATANIC RITUALS by Anton LaVey! Contrary to the ramblings of D&D defenders like Michael Stackpole, the Necronomicon and the Cthulhu mythos are quite real.
First, Call of Cthulu has nothing to do with Dungeons & Dragons. Also, by bringing up the existence of other role-playing games, you are basically admitting that you know that there are other games out there, and are simple shuffling everything under the D&D banner. Additionally if you really wanted to get into creepy occult stuff, you'd be best suited with something like Vampire: the Masquerade, instead of D&D. Also, I know it's not really what the author meant, but I love that he said that the Necronomicon and Cthulu (credit to Leslie!) are real.
However, let us look at the broader issue for a moment. Perhaps D&D has gotten more politically correct over the years. No more naked girls strapped to demonic altars, etc. Perhaps Hitler and rape are no longer praised.
That statement is so baseless that it could earn a reward. Here is where the downward spiral truly begins.
The total absence of Jesus Christ the Lord as sovereign from D&D and almost all FRPGs is what makes them so spiritually dangerous - not talking about Hitler or having girl characters dressed provocatively. Cleaning up that part of the game and leaving Jesus, the true God, out of what is essentially a SPIRITUAL quest is like rearranging the lawn chairs in hell - especially when you consider there isn't very much grass in the inferno!
Oh, come on now. You're not even trying anymore. First, that is a terrible simile (more grammar!). Second, that statement can lead down all kinds of dark paths. Basically, if you were playing a role-playing game where you all played as holy man in the name of Jesus, that would be morally better for you, even if in that game you were also all KKK members? Remember that, everyone. If you play a D&D campaign where your goal is to save a kingdom from an army of evil undead, you're going to Hell immediately. But, playing Grand Theft Auto and running over prostitutes constantly is a way better option, since you're character said "Jesus Christ" once. This part of the article earns the always-popular, double facepalm!
Defenders of D&D often complain that it is only a game. Playing chicken with cars is "only a game" until someone gets killed. So is Russian roulette! I am frequently told to "get a life" or write about something more important than D&D, like social justice or world hunger. The devil would sure like that.
Read that again. Seriously, read it again, and tell me you didn't laugh at that! If you didn't imagine it was being said by a priest. There you go. I just love that last line, "the devil would sure like that." What!? Actually, I think the devil actually loves the fact that you're so focused on D&D and not the people playing Russian Roulette! World hunger is small-fry, we've got to stop these damned D&D players!
Additionally, unlike Russian roulette or chicken, D&D is an extremely challenging game intellectually and emotionally. It truly involves its players in ways few games do, because it does demand a high level of imagination and creative engagement. Playing "chicken" demands neither. It is very like the devil to engineer a pastime which draws on the best of young people and then grind their minds and souls under the millstone of his hate.
I... I can't keep this up. The stupid just keep rolling in. First, playing "chicken" in traffic is actually very challenging, on a physical, emotional, and intellectual level! You have to be able to judge when the car is going to go by, be fast enough to get out of the way, and be able to cry when Billy doesn't make it by the tanker truck! Which are you more likely to cry about, a good friend hitting the wrong chamber in Russian Roulette, or Fizby the elf getting impaled by a spike trap? Also, I am forever referring to any D&D campaign I play in as "the devil's millstone of hate" from now on.
Down through the ages, no institution has done more to help the poor, the orphans and the starving than has the church of Jesus Christ. I would just ask them where are the rescue missions and orphanages started by D&D gamers?
You apparently weren't at any of my Saturday sessions back in the early and mid-2000s. Xavier the Brave helped save many people from evil creatures during that time. Hell, the entire kingdom of Quintella is still in his debt to this day.
Let me illustrate. I was raised in a devout Catholic home where I never, ever heard bad language.
Oh trust me, we all already knew you had a sheltered life.
When you spend the large amount of time required to play [Dungeons & Dragons] seriously, your mind begins to become "re-wired" by its immersion into a world where demons, magic and spells are almost real. This is all the more true because of the high level of intellectual and emotional engagement involved.
Okay, you're stretching. You've already established that you had very limited experience with D&D back in the 70's and 80's, citing dozens of hours of contact. Considering the average D&D session is 6 hours and there are usually 6-12 sessions in a full campaign, you really have no basis of knowledge.
Now this is not to say that every serious D&D gamer is going to become a Satanist or demonized. But the odds are good that they might.
Now I'm not saying that you playing D&D is going to turn you into slavering maniac who vomits pea soup but...
Please realize that to be demonized does not mean you become a slavering maniac who vomits pea soup.
Oh. Well, so much for that joke.
He subsequently dismisses the disappearance of Dallas Egbert (the first youngster to draw attention to D&D's possible psychological peril) into the steam tunnels of his university. He claims - again without footnotes or documentation - that a private eye named William Dear revealed five years later that the young man "hadn't played much D&D at all, let alone any sort of live-action D&D in the steam tunnels." How are we to know or trust this information?
Of course it was going to come back to that, wasn't it. The "claims" of William Dear can be found in the book The Dungeon Master. That isn't wild claim or speculation, it was a true story. What the article's author is basically saying is that he doesn't believe us, which by elimination means that he's sticking with Mazes and Monsters. Leave it to a psycho-Christian to throw away all the proof and fact in the world to support their argument.
A lot of the rest of the articles deals with the author's sad attempts at disassembling other people's articles and statements, so if you really want to read the insanity, go ahead. I encourage it, because the author starts to sound like a raving idiot during some area's like...
Article in contention:
"Clearly, role-playing games are huge. If they were luring kids into cults, one would expect a mighty lot of cults. A large number of cults, meanwhile, would leave a lot of evidence of cult-activity. What evidence is there?"
Anti-D&D response:
One is more tempted to ask, what evidence ISN'T there? As one who has been regarded for about 15 years as a "cult expert," I can say that the evidence mentioned at the beginning of this article: the vast proliferation of books, movies, video games and TV shows about the occult, witchcraft and sorcery is compelling. Additionally, the numbers of people involved in various occult practices are rising higher and higher each year, if book sales and the spread of related magazines and websites is any indication. There are witch covens in every major city and in many minor ones! This was not the case 30 years ago.
Do I really need to get into how far off our author is here? Firstly, what in the hell qualifies you as a "cult expert"? Do you have a certificate? Did you pass an examination? Can you point out a satanic cultist in a police line-up? Also, several times during his argument, he calls out Jeff Freeman, the author of the article being contested, called Concerns Christians Should Have About Dungeons & Dragons, for not citing his sources. You will notice that our author's statement of "the number of people involved in various occult practices are rising higher and higher each year" also doesn't cite anything. Impressive hypocrisy, Mr. Schnoebelen. Well done, indeed. Also, Jeff Freeman's article makes some good points, it's worth a read
Also in this article, our author lists 11 different deaths that are "linked to D&D", although there are a few that seem flimsy, and a couple involving people who seemed like they already had serious psychological issues. But, they played D&D once, so, evil.
Meanwhile, here's the counter argument to "D&D can teach you good things too!"
As anyone who has looked at the D&D manuals will confess, this stuff IS complex. It is certainly acknowledged that reading and memory skills would be needed to successfully play the game and interact well with peers in the game. That is all well and good.
However, we really need to look at the content of what is being read, memorized, etc.
- Teamwork - the gamers are working together to kill, destroy, steal or take whatever they want;
- Reading - they are reading about immensely complicated worlds of magic, spells and violence;
- Listening - listening to magic and violence being repeatedly acted out in the game;
- Memory - what on earth are they putting into their minds?
Here is the point. For a Christian youth (or adult) to fill their minds with all this occult (and pseudo-occult) gibberish is an insult to the God Who made that mind. How can they take every thought captive in obedience to Christ (see above) when they have to memorize "Phezult's Sleep of Ages" spell? Most peoples' minds can only hold so much detail. Sooner or later, all of this complicated eldritch verbiage is going to crowd out the scripture verses and Sunday school lessons these young people may have absorbed.
Take a breath, people. Bask in the glory. Okay, first, while I understand the point about teamwork, when you start complaining about the reading, listening, and memory content... you do realize that children are going to learn history, right? Plus, they usually read some form of literature, which could very well be dark and disturbing. I'm guessing our author also hates Shakespeare? Second, yes, I see what you did. You wanted to act like you know more than you do about D&D and picked one of the most bizarre spells in the game. Personally, I'm more partial to Bigby's Crushing Hand, but to each their own. The thing (well, amongst all the other things) that you're missing is that that you don't actually have to memorize a bunch of runes or other crap to cast spells in D&D. You have a character sheet with your spells written down, and you cast them. Seriously, you're harping on a point that literally does not exist. Finally, you intentionally used eldritch instead of weird because you are trying to pour on the occult stuff. We get it, D&D is Satan.
I used the metaphor of a porn role-playing game, where the participates play acted in various forms of sexual sin such as fornication, adultery or homosexuality. There was no actual sexual touching involved among the players, nor any nudity required. It was all in the mind. Would Jesus be pleased with that?
*sigh* No. I suppose he wouldn't. But since your argument is that all role-playing games are evil, does this point really prove anything? Face it, you wanted to roll porn into this as well for pure shock factor. No, that doesn't make you clever.
The question still stands. Why would a Christian wish to involve themselves in such a game?
If the content of your article is a good example of the BS they are facing on a daily basis, they would probably play it just to get the hell away for a little while.
Okay, seriously, people. This article is a doozy. And unless you are a super-Christian fundamentalist (and if you are, how the hell did you end up this far into my blog post?), you'll find plenty of entertainment in this article. For the record, although I'm an atheist (and therefore, definitely not part of the target demographic of this article), I spent plenty of time within the Christian religion and I do not believe this article accurately represents them. I do believe, however, there are plenty of people within Christianity that do go this far in their beliefs, and that scares the crap out of me. Just look at Rick Perry if you don't believe me. Also, if your kids are playing D&D and you are truly worried about them, try talking to them. It's amazing what an effect that can have on you.
I hope that I provided some to you, and until next time, take care!
-Justin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)