[After a brisk nap]

I don't know if I had too much coffee or something before writing that last post. I still don't understand the reasoning for not covering games that might promote specific agendas, but I hope it's an argument that won't be applied in practice.

Nor do I agree that you should steer clear of controversial topics. That's the kind of reasoning that leads to IMAX theatres refusing to show movies that talk about evolution.

I can see that some games would be so loathsome and offensive that you wouldn't want to give them free publicity, but if it's a big-budget game and selling well, I think that in itself if news worth reporting.

You can't cover everything, of course, but I would think that for a website called Adventure Gamers, two major adventure games with unusual elements in their design would be of obvious general interest.

So let's say I'm surprised at what I perceived as your resistance to covering these games.

[fov]

I think the point is, Jack never said we wouldn't cover it. He said he couldn't answer one way or the other without knowing more about the game. Everything else has really just been a hypothetical discussion with no real basis in what AG may or may not do in this case.

At a volunteer site with a limited amount of staff, there does have to be some trade-off in what we decide to cover, when, and how. That's true for pretty much any game. Some fit into the "no brainer" category (i.e. games like Still Life or Moment of Silence that we're obviously going to cover), and for those it's just a matter of resources (who can review it, how quickly to meet deadlines, etc.) But in many cases, we need to weigh the pros and cons before assigning volunteer staff to any game, and to date, in this case, those pros and cons are still being considered.

A lot of thought goes into what runs on Adventure Gamers. That thought translates into the high quality content that we work very hard to deliver. The fact that this game was brought to our attention does not mean we're automatically going to dedicate staff to it, and the fact that it's religious in nature doesn't automatically mean that we won't. But a big deal is being made over nothing, here. Jack and Marek make decisions every day about what should and shouldn't be covered on this site, and those decisions are rarely up for public consumption. I think it's easy for people to get antsy when religion is involved (on both sides of the fence), but let's try not to read into each other's statements and turn this into an argument where none needs to exist.

[Captain_Tuttle]

Well I'm glad AG is deciding to cover the game and I'm glad with the way your handling this Fov, AG intially had just seemed to be very resistant to the game, (I mentioned that it's based on Odyssey to show that there is a large audience, Jackal says licenseing is meaningless though tons have coverage has been given to Sam & Max and the upcoming BONE game because their licenses) Also a statement

Snarky, there's a big difference between having controversial content and having content promote a particular agenda

Well The sierra Eco-Quest games certainly promote an Enviromentalist agenda, and it could be aruged games such as Runaway promote a Secular agenda. I think any large Adventure game made should be given attention to at Adventure gamers, as long as it is primarily an Adventure game. Heck, if the N.R.A. or the A.C.L.U. produced a good adventure game (Both very contriversional organizations), it should be given attention by AG, though of course mentioning that it is promoting a certain agenda. Adventure Gamers should cover adventure games equally as they are primarily that adventure Games, the deciding factor on whether or not to cover them is how big are they, and the quality of the game.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Captain_Tuttle

Jackal says licenseing is meaningless though tons have coverage has been given to Sam & Max and the upcoming BONE game because their licenses

Are you TRYING to take things out of context, or just coming by it naturally? A license is meaningless on its own. I'm sure tons of people are interested in The Matrix, too, but I don't feel compelled to cover Matrix Online. Licenses just add a bonus layer of interest if all the other elements make it worth covering.

Anyway, if you'd come down from your soapbox, you'll notice I was never "resistant" about covering these particular games, but "resistant" about covering games I knew nothing about. Continuing to distort what I've said into some cause to argue has long since become irritating.

As for the cut and dried, black and white advice on policy, it's duly noted, though reality has a tendency to be a whole lot more complicated than that.

[Captain_Tuttle]

You really seem to not understand what i've been saying at all and you've been seem to be deliberatily ignoring parts of my message, when i'm reading it, I think it's almost like Baghdad Ali given your responses, anyways there seems to be too much misscommunication, you ought to just lock the thread, the main point of the game being given notice has been achieved, and there is just too much misscommunication which is like to continue, as is like to happen in a non vocal converstation.