Board Game Cleanup 3: My Firm Guidelines

As I have mentioned in my two previous posts, I try to be judicious and wise about which games I bring into my house. I have some rudimentary personal rules based on a combination of my faith in Christ and my own sensibilities of what is appropriate for me and my family.

For the sake of brevity, here is a list of my rules, which aren't necessarily hard and fast rules as much as firm guidelines that inform my selection process:

• No nudity or coarse language
  I will not tolerate either profanity in any game text or nudity in any game imagery; any game that has these elements will not exist in our household.

No religious content that is antithetical to Christ
Sometimes, this is a judgment call, but a good example is if a game involves offering money to a deity, even a make-believe one.

No bloody imagery
This is more related to certain violent acts portrayed in art, such as impalings, body explosions, graphic beheadings, maimings, and the like. Sometimes, this is also a judgment call, but I have replaced art for images that were "too bloody." I also reject games that have actions that result in those outcomes.

No overtly demonic imagery or acts that invoke demons
The criteria for identifying this is actually quite narrow; I'm referring to outright occultish depictions, such as pentagrams, ritual sacrifices, and portrayals of creatures that were meant to be demons. Also, I rule out in-game actions that involve summoning demons or devils, or appeasing such entities. (Note: I don't reject games if demons are portrayed as "demons" and meant to serve as antagonists).

No positive portrayals of drug use
I don't think that a game that assigns any positive value to illegal or narcotic drug use is "family-friendly."

As I said, these are firm guidelines that are open to assessment; in other words, I try to investigate the game before I reject it. That said, I do lean towards rejection and try not to justify buying games if justification requires long-winded excuses; for example, if a game allows a protagonist to behead people, I wouldn't justify it by saying that the "people were bad, and so they deserved it." Of course, you, the reader, may have your own convictions, but these are mine.

If you would like, please feel free to offer your own convictions and interpretations of the Bible in the Comments section. I'm always willing to engage a cordial commenter, and I have been known to change my mind if a fine point is made.

Castlevania: 1HN Self-Sufficient Devil Hunter

Right after I got my NES, one of the first games I received as a gift was Castlevania. I don't remember why I got that game: did I ask for it? Did Mom think it would be a game that I'd like? Did another family member give it to me? I'm not sure, but I do remember that it was one of the first games I had.

What more can be said about Castlevania? For those who are not familiar, Castlevania is a side-scrolling platformer that was one of Konami's flagship titles. In the game, you play Simon Belmont, a whip-wielding nobleman who enter's Dracula's castle with no other mission but to destroy Dracula and break his curse. Along the way, you encounter every cliched horror monster conceived: bats, mummies, zombies, creatures from the Blue Lagoon, dead knights, Frankenstein, and Igor... Or, at least, a bunch of leaping hunchbacks. All the while, you whip candles and walls to get upgrades to your whip (which ultimately becomes a rather elastic ball-and-chain morning-star-like weapon), special weapons like holy water, cross-shaped boomerangs, axes, and daggers, as well as hearts for ammunition, pork chops for health, and treasures for extra points.

As with many NES games, each level of Castlevania is capped with an end boss, whom you must fight to proceed to the next level. After traversing the first level of the castle, you encounter a giant bat who swoops down at you repeatedly. It is defeated somewhat easily, but then an entire castle awaits with more levels and bosses. At the end of the game, you are challenged by Dracula, but he's not the last boss; after you behead Dracula, an immense leaping rock monster attacks you, knocking you around as your life meter decreases to a dangerously low point...

...and, then, you die. At least, that's what always happened to me because I was never able to beat Castlevania -- not as a teenager and not in recent history.

Castlevania is a game about which I used to be quite conflicted. On the one hand, all of the horror film and literature conventions are in the game: ghouls, monsters, Dracula, torches, skeletons (both animated and as piles of bones), holy water, crosses that clear away the undead, and the like. My Christian radar often blipped at every demonic image on the screen I  encountered when I played recently. I thought about what kind of influence this game would have on my boys: would they develop an interest in horror films? Would they pursue knowledge of the occult? Would they pretend to be Simon Belmont or Dracula?! All of the stereotypically Christian concerns crossed my mind as I considered the implications of a horror-themed video game. On the other hand, you are Simon Belmont, who was sent to vanquish evil, armed with holy water and crosses. These are Catholic elements to be sure, but one cannot deny even a slight Christian influence on the protagonists of some horror movies and themes. After all, who is a more frightening adversary than Satan and his minions? In that sense, Castlevania is spiritual warfare played out on-screen: it's good versus evil presented in a blatant and obvious way. In addition, Castlevania is an excellent platformer with fine graphics, a memorable soundtrack, and gameplay that challenges you and gives you some freedom of movement. Except for some cheesy villains, Castlevania plays rather smoothly for an NES game and has replayability, even after you defeat Dracula and his winged beast.

Despite how well-crafted the game is, I sold Castlevania and Castlevania II as a bundle on eBay, along with their original retail boxes and instructions for the first Castlevania. Once again, a personal conviction led me to rid myself of something I didn't think would be a positive influence on my boys. As a teenager, I didn't live a life pursuing Christ, so I did what I wanted to do. At the time, Castlevania seemed harmless to me, but I looked at the game with renewed eyes and determined that it was games like Castlevania that did affect me as a younger person. If anything, like magic, I may have looked at horror themes and demons as entertaining and fun. Even though demons and supernatural monsters were villains, there was always an implied coolness to them; today, with the proliferation of zombie and vampire TV shows, that seems to be Hollywood's opinion. However, I see things differently: in most, if not all horror-influenced TV shows and movies, God rarely plays the role of vanquisher; instead, it is often through human ingenuity and perseverance that supernatural evil is defeated. In this way, what I find as a negative influence in horror-themed entertainment is not the imagery or storylines as much as the insidious idea that we don't need God to vanquish evil; we'll just do it fine on our own, thank you very much. "We don't need Jesus; we just need each other." It's a perspective that infects the mind, convincing us that we are better than we think we are.

Thus, is playing or owning Castlevania a sin? I don't think so, but it's one of those things that plants a seed of doubt in one's mind. For an adult, it may not be so dangerous, but to plant such a seed in the mind of a child could be spiritually damaging. Not everyone else is the same when it comes to the effects of horror themes in entertainment, but when it comes to my boys, since I'm accountable to God for them I shouldn't risk exposing them to the idea that we can conquer Satan and his demons just fine on our own.

Batman: 1HN Crimefighter

Back in 1989, I was 15 years old and big into Batman; not the DC Comics series as much as the Batman movie directed by Tim Burton and starring Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman and Jack Nicholson as Jack Napier/Joker. I remember going to see Batman on my birthday, wearing my blue T-shirt with the Batman logo prominently emblazoned across the chest; at the time, the movie was an awesome spectacle of darkness and Tim Burtonesque quirkiness. Despite being a well-known and accomplished comedic actor with dramatic chops, Michael Keaton was surprisingly effective as Batman, and Jack Nicholson was, as always, excellent as the demented Joker. In my lifetime, I would end up watching that movie well over 10 times. Even today, Batman is still eminently watchable, despite the existence of two superlative films directed by Christopher Nolan: Batman Begins (2005) and The Dark Knight (2008).

In 1990, Sunsoft released Batman: The Video Game for the NES. I got this game for Christmas; and, I don't remember asking for the game, but I'm glad that my mom and dad got it for me because, even today, this side-scrolling platformer is still a classic on the NES. As you may have guessed, you play as Batman and start out in the middle of the action with the Joker's flame-throwing and dashing minions gunning for you. Ground-level robots with retracting spikes, mobile mines, and hulking robots comprise some of the drones, which you can dispatch with Bat-a-rangs, Bat-gun rockets, some spread weapon that launches three shurikens, or your fists. Batman also has a very effective wall jump technique, which is much easier to master than Samus Aran's wall jump in Super Metroid. The game features wonderfully catchy 8-bit music, moody scenery, and smooth animation for an NES game.

Of course, as with any Batman game, movie, or comic book, there is violence: Batman punches, Bat-a-rangs (if that can be rendered a verb), and assaults baddies left and right with almost-reckless abandon. Such is the nature of the Batman mythos -- a one-man (or two, counting Robin/Nightwing) crime-stopping show. But, I put the violence in context: Batman is a crimefighter who fights for the poor and defenseless and stands against the tyranny of megalomaniacal supervillains and amoral thugs. On a level of principle, Batman stands in the gap by saving flawed humanity from itself; I am not likening him to Christ, but his sacrifice undergirds the "violence."

That said, children do not make such distinctions; after all, punching

someone is punching someone, and kids may take what they see in this game and translate it to real-world actions. Because of this, I caution people about exposure to this game, though discussions can be had regarding why Batman fights. In my opinion, children may understand the heroic nature of Batman's actions; and, fortunately, the NES' presentation of Batman is somewhat filtered through 8-bit graphics and sound, thus separating the violence from the blood and bruises of more realistic fare, such as in games and movies today.

Batman: The Video Game is often touted as one of the top 10 or top 20 games on the NES, and for good reason: the graphics and music are top-notch, gameplay is smooth and responsive, and the action is non-stop. Anyway, I have a soft spot for comic book heroes. I used to collect all the X-Men titles, as well as Spider-Man, Hulk, and other Marvel comic book series. Superheroes remind us of that innate yearning in all people for a savior to stand up against evil. At least, that's how I see superheroes, and you may feel the same way, though the in-game violence may be an issue. For more on this discussion, please refer to my previous post by clicking here and here.

Role-Playing Games: A RETROspective

(Originally posted as Role-Playing Games: One Christian's Perspective on Epinions)

Okay, this is a tough one; why RPGs are a "tough" subject is something I'll explore later. So, before I offer my "brief" opinion, let me provide some background:

From the mid-80s to the mid-90s, I was a HUGE RPG fan. It all began with Choose Your Own Adventure-type books, like Lone Wolf (by Joe Dever and Gary Chalk) and the Wizards and Warriors series. As I became interested in the fantasy milieu, I delved into the "dreaded" world of Dungeons & Dragons (D&D), starting with "first edition" Advanced D&D in the 80s and then second edition in 1993. I expanded into other worlds of gaming, such as various Palladium RPG series like Robotech, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turles, and Rifts. Because I often didn't have the time or enough friends that were interested in playing RPGs, I was more of a collector and reader of the rule books than a player, though I spent countless hours rolling up characters and designing game campaigns in my head. When I did get to play, I was often the Dungeon Master (DM) or Gamemaster (GM), telling the interactive story while relatively inexperienced players assume the roles of characters. One classic session of gaming featured my friends Ed and Tim, who were brothers, playing the roles of bungling assassins. Ed's weapon of choice was a trident because it did the most damage (one twelve-sided die's worth of damage) and his primary tactic was charging at non-player characters (NPCs) with it. Ed once kicked Tim's character in the butt for double-damage (which is done by rolling a 20 on a twenty-sided die), reducing Tim's assassin to one hit point. Ah, the heady times of RPGs...

During my college years, I largely left RPGs behind in favor of comic books and, later, collectible card games, so my books sat in boxes for years until I unearthed them last year in my parents' garage. I thumbed through those old tomes, remembering the good times: games with Ed, Tim, and Brian; the hours of rolling up characters; memories of the histories of characters that existed only in my imagination; the times I walked to Comic World, eagerly awaiting the purchase of any newly-released book. At the time, RPGs seemed like intelligent, but somewhat carefree fun with wizards, fighters, clerics, and thieves intermingling in fantasy worlds of adventure and combat; the rules could be dense, esoteric, and almost impenetrable to the novice enthusiast, but RPGs were simply rules for conducting interactive games unlike any board game.

However, having given my life to Jesus in 1999 in Japan, I now peruse those books as a Christian. As a believer, I cannot help but consider some of the themes that are present in many RPGs: violence, stealing, questionable character decisions, occult imagery, the (pretend) use of magic, and the general darkness of the motifs and settings in many RPGs. I also consider the broad array of critical articles and opinions leveled at RPGs, particularly D&D, by Christians: in the 80s, D&D was linked to the suicides of obsessive players; in the 90s, the criticisms were largely redirected at card games like Magic: The Gathering, but RPGs were still viewed with scorn as gateways to the occult, witchcraft, and devil worship. Even today, RPGs, which are mostly digitized and game console-based, are nonetheless associated with the same negative influences as the paper RPGs of twenty years ago.

Anyway, I'm kind of beating around the bush, so I'll go straight to my opinion, assuming that you, the reader, have at least been exposed to RPGs either as a player or as a reader of the criticisms against RPGs. In my opinion as a believer, playing a paper-based RPG can be a fun, social event with friends who want nothing more than to make characters, do a little play-acting, and take part in an adventure told by a storyteller. Granted, there would have to be the proviso that certain things would not be done, such as playing characters that commit atrociously criminal acts in the game, worshipping deities, and summoning demons or other hellish creatures. Also, the friends would have to agree that the game would start and end at times decided beforehand, and that future games would occur only at set times -- this prevents the potentially life-sucking temptation to play daily. More than that, one would have to look critically at any game and decide if the story and the characters are an affront to Christ, but what does that mean? That would be up to the individual, in prayer and contemplation, to determine. With all of these conditions in mind, an RPG can be a viable way to spend time with friends.

All of that said, I find it extremely difficult to reconcile RPG play with a Christian worldview because most of what makes RPGs "fun" is predicated on action and violence. Now, for me, I don't have a problem imagining a quest to rescue somebody and having to fight orcs, dragons, beholders, and the like; after all, Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, who were big influences on Gary Gygax and his creation of D&D in the 1970s, often depicted epic battles between the forces of good and evil in their Christian-influenced works. But, many campaigns often involve one-on-one violence between characters and NPCs; yes, even though the violence is highly imaginary, one must question if one's imaginary actions reflect what is in one's heart. Though Jesus spoke of adultery in Matthew 5:27-30, what He says is also applicable to violence; in other words, if violence is in your heart, it is just as bad as committing the act of violence. Of course, violence is a topic I have broached before, and it is a tricky one vis-a-vis games, especially pencil-and-paper games like D&D or NES 8-bit games like Contra, but the idea that your heart can be reflected in your gameplay cannot be dismissed.

Besides violence, there is still much to consider regarding the imagery of some, but not all, RPGs. Obviously, D&D and other fantasy-based games are steeped in wizardry and occult elements while games like Robotech (which is based on the animated series of the same name) are not -- this is undeniable. One may point out once again that Tolkien and Lewis also employed such elements allegorically, and that they were using spellcasting and witchcraft as plot elements, but are these concepts that anyone, let alone children, should allow in their minds and hearts? Some would say these things are merely in-game actions; if your conviction towards such things is this, then I cannot speak against that. Likewise, if you feel convicted about having any of that in any game or medium in your household, I cannot speak against that, either. The important thing is knowing one's own weaknesses and not exposing oneself to ideas that can take away from Christ.

I could go on and on about the positive and negative aspects of paper-based RPGs, but I will just present the basic ones. The positive aspects of paper-based RPGs are the use of imagination, the inherently social nature of gameplay, the creativity necessary to conduct the games, and the sheer fun of rolling cool-looking dice. Conversely, the negative aspects of paper-based RPGs are the imagery, the incorporation of violence, the encouragement of occult activity in the game, and the temptation to spend too much time in game play and game preparation. I do not believe that RPGs are inherently satanic or demonic, and I don't believe that RPGs are categorically amoral and mind-warping, but much of what is published for game use can be all of these things -- that is the danger of paper-based RPGs. If, somehow, one can elevate the positive aspects and minimize the negative aspects, one may can have a fun time with paper-based RPGs, yet this is more easily said than done.

To close, I must mention video game-based RPGs -- the kind you play on your computer or game console. Because these games are audiovisual and presented for the player, one is both dissociated from the action and engulfed by the action: dissociated insofar as the action is external to the player's mind and reduced to button presses and hand-eye coordination, yet engulfed in that one's senses of sight and sound are enraptured by the graphics and effects of the game. In this way, PC- and console-based RPGs are no "worse" than paper-based RPGs except that console RPGs are mostly non-social and somewhat isolating while paper-based games are not; and, console RPGs require little or no preparation to play, so one can play these games anytime, which enhances the addictive qualities of such games. Plus, one has to ask oneself: what is more powerful, the imagined appearance of a monster, or the appearance of a monster as visualized in a computer or console game? I'd choose the latter because the detail is too particular and too realistic.

Super Mario Bros. 2: 1HN Sitting on Airborne Eggs

Ah, Super Mario Bros. 2: the oft-forgotten game in the NES/SNES library of Mario games. As I mentioned in my brief review of SMB: The Lost Levels, Super Mario Bros. 2 was originally a game called Yume Kojo: Doki Doki Panic, which was released in Japan as a title that was completely unrelated to any Mario game before it. However, when Nintendo saw in its infinite wisdom how much of a cheesefest the original Super Mario Bros. 2 game was, they re-worked the characters in Yume Kojo: Doki Doki Panic and re-badged that game as Super Mario Bros. 2. Thus, for decades, Americans were playing a game that they grew to know and love, but was not originally a Mario game at all.

Here is what I think about that: it doesn't matter at all. The American... I mean, our Super Mario Bros. 2 is an absolute hoot. What better way is there to spend a couple of hours than jumping onto foes, pulling them over your sprite's head, and then throwing them at other foes? There aren't many better options than that! Super Mario Bros. 2 plays unlike other Mario games in this regard: instead of squishing bad guys with your ample posterior, you pick them up and throw them at other bad guys. You can also pick up radishes, keys, and even POW blocks with devastating effect. You can even jump onto enemy eggs as they are shot at you, pick them up in mid-air, and then throw them back at the enemy!

Modes of attack aside, Super Mario Bros. 2 is also unlike its brethren in that there are no raccoon or tanuki suits, no fire-flowers, and no Yoshi. Instead, you get a choice of four characters (the first time a Mario game featured this), a kind of life meter with a maximum of three hits, potions that lead to the negative world where objects turn into coins, and you get annoying phantom faces that chase you around if you pick up a key. This game feels very different from its brethren that it's almost... like an unrelated game. Go figure.

Super Mario Bros. 2 is a lot of fun for all ages. Is it violent? Perhaps, but I contend that Mario/Luigi/Toad/Princess are just trying to defend themselves from these dastardly foes. I am a Christian, I believe in Jesus, and I can say this: the Bible has its violent moments, especially the battles in the books of 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Chronicles. But, the violence was not for violence's sake -- it happened for numerous reasons that were sometimes in God's will and sometimes committed by those who weren't in His will. Anyway, my point is that Super Mario Bros. 2 is not nearly as violent and is a lot more innocent than the kids' shows out there today.

Okay, I'll get off my soapbox...

Super Mario Bros. 2 is most fun played with enhanced graphics and sound on the Super Mario All-Stars SNES cartridge, but if you can get your hands on the NES cartridge, it's the same game. By the way, this is a first-hand nostalgia (1HN) game for me: I played this back in the day, and it's as fun now as it was back then.

What Defines a (Iron) Man?

Yesterday, I pondered that which defines a man. I started off from the dangerous standpoint of what I cannot or do not do: I can't fix a car, plan a camping trip, program my own website, engage in martial-arts beatings, use a firearm, kill game with my bare hands, ride a mechanical bull, lasso a real-life bull, drink alcohol, or urinate for great distances. There were many guys at my old church that could do many of these things and they formed a nice group of men that could band together in the end times to form a viable commune and defend it with an acumen for survivalism and shotguns.

I then thought about what I could do: I can speak Japanese, teach linguistics or history or English, fix my computer, cook dinner, clean my house, iron my clothes, connect and configure electronic equipment, use an SLR camera, play most sports okay, run five miles, and write reviews, blog entries, and/or academic essays.

When I compared the lists, I became despondent because my skill set really does not correspond with what most men (even men in our churches) equate to masculinity. I began to ask myself: if the poop were to hit the proverbial oscillating fan, could I protect myself and my family? Could I stand up for myself? As the self-questioning questions flooded over me, I grew even more distraught.

But, this morning, I kept in mind the best answer I could muster -- that answer being to look at Jesus. He was indeed the Man -- self-sacrificial of his time and health, wise to always ask for His Father's help, courageous in the face of an inevitably painful crucifixion, and loving of humanity enough to reach out to both the masses (from the Mount, feeding the 5,000 with two fish and a loaf of bread) and the individual (Zacchaeus, Martha, Mary, and so on).

Thus, I was reminded that my yardstick of comparison should not be the guys at church, but the Man who is the head of the Church. Of course, I fall short of that yardstick as do us all, but I have to believe that I can do all these things in He who strengthens me. If I can strive to do those things, I could indeed protect my family and ensure my own safety with much more God-given strength than just being able to pummel any foe.

Then again, even David had a sling. :)

Super Metroid: 3HN Adventure

Today, I turn my sights on to Super Metroid. Now, there's not much that can be said about this game that hasn't been said on thousands of websites and in thousands of review articles -- it's one of the finest games ever devised for home video game consoles. Having poured a couple of hours into it, I can honestly agree with those reviews, though I imagine I'd be incredibly frustrated if I didn't have access to walkthroughs. With a walkthrough or player's guide, Super Metroid is difficult enough with having to master wall-jumping, mid-air ball morphing, and so on; but, without a guide, this game would take ten times as long to go anywhere. That's what I think...

Anyway, Super Metroid is a fine example of third-hand nostalgia, which is to say that I neither experienced nor knew about the game when it was truly relevant, but am just now playing it and feeling those nostalgic feelings associated with something from the past (i.e. the 90s). Since I swapped the sadly faulty Gen-X for a Retro Duo, I had been reading as much as I could about Super Metroid. But now, I get to play it, albeit only when my family, work, and school schedules allow it.

In almost every way, Super Metroid has lived up to the hype, but I have to ask the question I posed a few months back: how violent is this game? In a nutshell, Super Metroid is a game about exploration and discovery that involves the inevitable shootings and boss battles. On the planet Zebes, almost every creature is either apathetic to your presence or downright hospitable (seeing how some of the baddies are space pirates, after all), so blasting alien creatures is sometimes necessary. However, this is not the primary intent of the game; for the most part, you explore Zebes' extensive underworld to find things, get to other places, and find more things until you find the Metroid hatchling and eventually Mother Brain.

But, is the game violent? Yes, it is. You're shooting aliens, you're blowing up blocks with bombs and missiles, and you fight massive bosses that are ugly and evil. Is it appropriate for kids? Well, I would ask this: is Lord of the Rings appropriate for kids? Are many books of the Old Testament appropriate for kids? Does anyone remember that David actually beheads the felled Goliath with a big sword? Or that Samson kicked one thousand Philistines' butts with the jawbone of an ass? My point is that Super Metroid does not focus on violence, and I do not believe that it promotes violence, but you do have to defend yourself in that game... and you do get nifty upgrades to your arm cannon.

In any case, this is not a game for kids, and the violence must be considered in context: you are Samus Aran on a strange planet with creatures either trying to hurt you or doing nothing to keep themselves from hurting you. Oh, and creatures generally disappear with a PFFT, leaving behind missiles and life orbs to restore lost energy. How do alien creatures die and leave missile refills behind?

Ciao.

Violence and Video Games: A RETROspective

Hello Everyone!

Anyway, I wanted to open up on my views regarding violence and video games by stating that I don't believe I can aptly discuss such a subject with one brief blog entry. So, I will start off with this primer and then continuously augment my views as I write more posts. In other words, you, the reader, will surmise my views on violence and video games as more and more posts come out.

All of that said, here's my very basic view on how violence can be defined in video games: violence is largely defined by the depicted act and the intent of the act. Much is made of the results of violence: the gore, the blood, death. Of course, the aftermath of violence is important and all too prevalent in many of the video games made today. Heads being blown off, body parts strewn about, and other graphic depictions of the aftermath of violence are more often used to define how "bad" violence is. However, I think that violence is more about how it is committed and, more important, why it is committed.

Take an NES game like Contra. You've got two guys with big guns (upgradeable, mind you), shooting up bad guys and alien creatures. I break it down like this: each act of violence is depicted by weapon fire hitting a foe and the foe falling into oblivion; and, ostensibly, the intent of each act of violence is "saving the world," or "getting the bad guy out of the way," or "to get out your aggression on a virtual foe," or whatever. At a glance, Contra is admittedly violent.

Now, take any recently released military or action-themed game. You've got a big guy (or gal) with many weapons. Each act of violence is depicted with relative anatomical accuracy. The intent: could be anything. At a glance, these games are also violent.

But, let me ask: which is more violent? Contra or, say, Halo? We have to ask certain questions:

• What is my intent for playing the game? (e.g. to vicariously save the world)
  
• What is my approach to the game? (e.g. to relieve stress)
  
• How are acts of violence depicted?
• Does the realism of the act and the aftermath of the act make a game "more" violent?

Beyond these questions, as a believer in Jesus, I have to ask:

• By playing a violent game, how is the violence influencing me?
• How does it affect my witness as a believer?
• Does the violence of this game glorify or defame Jesus? (the answer is not easy, trust me)

I hope to explore these questions as I go. In the meantime, feel free to offer input. Thanks!