Christ Centered Gamer

ccgr wrote:flip the switrch or ancient one?

Switch flippery

FamilyFriendlyGaming wrote:ChickenSoup,

That is another area we are going to disagree.

It all depends on the definition of what is being used to describe a classic game. Have you noticed any media outlets have the exact same top 100 game list? How about top 10? Why not? They are using different criteria.

Do they use sales? Game play hours? Ones that got their flesh all stirred up? Was it innovation? Was it unique? Did they throw darts at a dartboard?

You have to remember I apply God's standard to the definition of a good video game. Which is why many of the games on that list do not make into the definition of a classic for me. Most of the games on that list bring up negative connotations for me, not positive ones.

You are right that many of them started trends.

If you want to consider them classics, then by all means. I am not trying to force you to change that opinion.

then by all means, consider Bible Trivia Sword Drill Fighter 4 a classic

to each their own

ChickenSoup wrote:

FamilyFriendlyGaming wrote:

ChickenSoup wrote: Actually, there's a lot of games on there that will most likely be considered classic.

We are going to have to agree to disagree soup.

You seriously don't think that Ocarina of Time or Knights of the Old Republic will be classics? I'd also consider Pokemon Red/Blue to be [future] classics, along with Halo CE (if only for the fact that it was the start of a hugely popular franchise), Super Mario World (Hey, it's even 2D...), and Chrono Trigger (that's already almost there in the "classic" category age-wise)

Remember, I'm not saying they're old enough to be truly classic yet. I'm saying they will be in the future.

Um... dude. Pokemon Red and Blue were released in 1996. If we're going by the estimation that Halo 1 was a classic (released in 2001), then those would most definitely be considered "classic."

FamilyFriendlyGaming wrote: You have to remember I apply God's standard to the definition of a good video game.

I'd like to know: where, exactly, do you get the right or the guidelines by which you'd say that you have "God's definition" of a classic videogame?

Because - honestly - that's one of the most bizarre statements I've ever seen.

"God's standard."

That's one of the most vaguely subjective things ever.

Just for kicks, let's use it elsewhere!

"I use God's standard for any girlfriend I want, because God doesn't really like uggos."

"I use God's standard for the books I read, because God wouldn't read Twilight."

"I use God's standard for my diet, so I only eat at Chik-fil-a."

Get real.

Should be noted, I think, that I say the above in jest, and in an effort to open up some real discussion on this.

The idea that one can throw out a statement as vague as "God's standard" has to me always seemed a bit highfalutin and ego-centric. It dodges the real issue, and places a man-assigned and -interpreted view of God on a single work or group of works, as opposed to actually tackling matters where they should be met: head on.

In writing about games, especially for Christian publications, I'm more interested in dealing with tough issues than I am in censorship. I've always been more interested in good games and good experiences - stuff that allows us to grow as Christians and people - as opposed to saying, "This is bad content and should be avoided."

There were two reviews by Christian authors that I've read recently about The Binding of Isaac. The first was Drew Dixon's review (Drizzoo on the boards here). The second was ccgr's review. After reading ccgr's review - almost immediately after - I logged onto Steam and bought the game. It was on sale, what can I say?

But really, the reason that I did something like that is that I believe that the experience is worth having. Controversial interpretations of the Bible notwithstanding, the content of the game seemed more a metaphor than anything else, and I wanted to have that experience. I don't take that sort of thing literally. I believe that The Last Temptation of Christ is one of the most honest portrayals of Jesus ever put on screen. I really do. And I take that approach to games as well.

So when I see a statement proclaiming that something is measured against "God's standard," I find it not only a bit nebulous, I also find it to be directly evasive of the heart of the matter. It does nothing to edify brothers and sisters in Christ. It steps back and removes the person stating it by deifying their views. I have a problem with that. In fact, I have a serious problem with it.

My aim is not to attack or belittle others' beliefs, but I've always been honest here, and I try to be honest to myself. Stating this is doing that.

good to see you're feeling better, Drew! You make a some good points. If we'velearned one thing, many of us differ on what we believe God sees as beneficial for us. What ffg sees as blasphemy, you may see an opportunity for a fresh perspective. Who is right? I'm not sure there's a clear answer.

I'm a big believer in being careful what I see or hear. If something is designed to poke fun at God's Word, I personally would steer clear. But I don't think I'd hold it against someone if they wanted to play a game that might challenge their faith. As long as while doing so, you are being mindful of temptation or that Satan may use such a game to tell you lies about your faith. Discernment is such a great gift from God, yeah? If you know someone who has been gifted with it, have them watch while you play and get another perspective.

Time for bed!
BG

Um... dude. Pokemon Red and Blue were released in 1996. If we're going by the estimation that Halo 1 was a classic (released in 2001), then those would most definitely be considered "classic."

FUTURE classic, my dear Drewsov give it some years and a couple more inevitable Halo sequels

ChickenSoup wrote:

Um... dude. Pokemon Red and Blue were released in 1996. If we're going by the estimation that Halo 1 was a classic (released in 2001), then those would most definitely be considered "classic."

FUTURE classic, my dear Drewsov give it some years and a couple more inevitable Halo sequels

I consider them classics, suh! I do!

Those were some good points Drew.

Drewsov wrote:

ChickenSoup wrote:

Um... dude. Pokemon Red and Blue were released in 1996. If we're going by the estimation that Halo 1 was a classic (released in 2001), then those would most definitely be considered "classic."

FUTURE classic, my dear Drewsov give it some years and a couple more inevitable Halo sequels

I consider them classics, suh! I do!

Then WHY HAVEN'T WE HUGGED BEFORE NOW <3

For some reason when I read the phrase "God's standard" for what makes a video game a classic, the image that immediately came to my mind was God beating Ikaruga and only dying once. I'm not trying to be offensive or poke fun, but for some reason the mental image needed sharing.

And just to make a Chuck Norris joke: "Chuck Norris once beat Ikaruga on the hardest difficultly without losing a life, so he decided it was too easy. He can now be found playing World of Warcraft with his level 81 character."

I have been extremely busy with serving God, family and the day job as of late. Not able to devote the time to provide an appropriate response. First off I have to be blunt – I do not believe you want to rationally and civilly discuss this. If you did, you would not have started it with mocking the other person in such a manner. You expect to be treated with respect, but still have not grasped the Golden Rule. You treat others like dirt, and expect to be put on a pedestal. So you started it out bad. But I forgive your insults. In fact I celebrate them because you are treating me the way the prophets of old were treated. So you honor me by putting me in that category.

If I understand your stance it is this: “I worship the world, I love the world, and that draws me closer to God. I surround myself with rebellious attitudes, opinions, thoughts, and ideologies. Being around all of that rebelling against God brings me closer to Him.” Did I get that right? If I did, I have no idea how that logic works. I am of the mindset that the more time you spend in/with the things of God, the closer you become. The more time you spend in/with the things of the world the more you become like the world. So right there the foundation of your logic makes no sense to me. I need to have that explained.

What do I do? What have I done over and over again? I point people to God. Why does pointing people to God cause such an uproar? Why is there such hatred and anger against someone who says: “include God in all that you do.” How exactly is that judging any of you? Since that is the response I have seen here. I still do not follow the logic. God’s law (aka standard) is written on the hearts of all mankind. Unless we have been turned over to our sinful desires.

I really do not comprehend the desire to spend time with the most vile, evil, and wicked games of the industry; while ignoring the good, clean, uplifting, and wholesome ones. How does that faithfully follow Philippians 4:8? How does mocking the godly games draw anyone closer to God? If you want to actually discuss this rationally then please explain it to me. There has to be theology that can back it up right? I am not mocking, I am trying to understand. Because I use Bible verses to back up my opinions.

Look I do not have all the answers. I have prayed about it. So I would like to know what Biblically backing you have for your stance. And none of the attacking the person you are debating. The person has nothing to do with it. The ideas, concepts and theology is what is being discussed. Please keep it in that realm.

I am not attacking, or judging any of you. You make your choices and God will judge all of us for the choices we all make. I merely point people to God, and ask them to consider including Him in all they do. Does that really deserve harsh treatment?

Related scriptures:
1 John 2:16-17
Philippians 4:8
Isaiah 5:20
Matthew 5:11-12

I think I see the solution here. FFG speak for God. Drew's viewpoint clashes with FFG's. Therefore, Drew's opinion is wrong, and if you disagree with FFG, you are a heretic.

</topic>

The topic is only over if there is no meaningful conversation left to be had. FFG put some thought and effort into that last post. If anyone wants to discuss it further please do so in a civil manner or else this will get locked.

Gaming is a hard area to judge since I know that everyone has different standards and convictions. FFG I admire your stance on not playing M games. It's a rule that I do not follow. Am I any less of a Christian for doing so? I would assume not. Does that disqualify me from working in the church nursery or being an Awana leader? I don't think so. Now if I were in the position of a junior high leader than I would be careful of what games I would talk about in front of them so I don't cause anyone to stumble. The same goes for these forums..I'm pretty open about the games I play and what I find right or wrong with them. Granted I don't agree with some of the gaming choices that some people on here have but that's none of my business or my place to judge them. That's between them and God. If a person is growing in their faith and letting God take the driver's seat in their life, they will make the proper lifestyle adjustments He desires.