Yay Christians!

[aerb]

I have to say, I'm terribly curious.

Comments

[aerb]

That's because it was made by a christian gaming company for chritian people. I think that the concept would be played out more effectively if it didn't have that intent...

[aerb]

But the raw setting idea is more what I consider the concept, as well as the sides. The graphics and RTS come from the intent and the publisher. They don't want it to be overly violent (as in, it's violent, but not detailed or gory, no blood, etc.) because it's supposed to be a christian family game that teens can play with their parents and answer religious questions as a means of defense of the content. So they tone down the quality of the graphics so that the violence isn't over-played. Also, it can't have any role-playing elements because it should be impersonal. That's the way a lot of things are. Chritianity is an impersonal community so anyone can join, etc. You don't have to fit a character type. So they make a massive horde of impersonal characters that get as specific as having arabic names or being gospel singers and that's it. In order to pull this off, it has to be an RTS. No roles to play at all. And that is part of the construction and intent, not the basic concept.

[aerb]

I know that you can make a non-violent game with good graphics, but the game is violent, so they downplay the graphics so that it seems less violent, or rather, graphically violent.

Also, you continue to prove my point because all of those things are in intent and presentation, not in fundamental concept. I never denied that the game would suck given its current condition and developers, but I said that the concept could be nice if in different hands.

[aerb]

I'm sort of done trying to communicate because you either don't understand me or don't read what I type. I purposefully showed you that I understood your first point and the second half of your post is just agreeing with me. So that's all.

[aerb]

*grumbles*