Resistance is futile?

Submit your own resources!

Pascal Bos   (Jun 11, 2007 at 17:14 GMT)

Are there many people your age or older???

Michael Perry   (Jun 11, 2007 at 17:16 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Great blog and even better comments Phil. Game politics news usually doesn't reach the GG blog section, so it's nice to hear a point made by other community members about topics I'm reading up on.

One note I might need clarified is this: Are they trying to say they are upset that a specific church was used? Or that A church was used?

The second holds the least amount of water since there have been violent depictions, events, and scenes within churches in all medians of entertainment.

Even if the first depiction, a specific church, was the problem, I think the timing and complaint of church officials is not only weak, but highly childish considering exact locations have been used numerous times in other games and movies.

It's been said before, and it can be said again: Books were evil. Then came music (jazz and rock'n'roll), then that was evil and harmful to children. Then came TV, which was the evil and harmful. Then came movies, then came computers, then came the Internet, and now it's video games.

Currently, the popular trend of fossils, lawyers, and politicians is to grab attention by platforming as crusaders trying to protect the children and better the world. I can't wait to see what my generation, a generation of gamers and game developers, will be trying to ban when we come to power =)

Pascal Bos   (Jun 11, 2007 at 17:18 GMT)

Oops sorry couldnt help my self. I think I might actually agree with you this time.

(I had an other witty comment at hand but editing my post 3 times kinda wore of the "funny" factor)
Edited on Jun 11, 2007 17:21 GMT

Phil Carlisle   (Jun 11, 2007 at 17:58 GMT)

Michael: the biggest problem was with the use of the specific church I think. But it was muddied with the argument that:

1) The game somehow promoted violence
2) That the city has high gun crime and that this videogame somehow promoted that too
3) That the game was insensitive BECAUSE this specific church was linked with victims of gun crime

The big issue really is that this is basically a rant and somehow it achieves national press (and no doubt international press once the rabid anti gaming lobbyists get hold of it).

Pascal: You are a pumpkin.
Edited on Jun 11, 2007 18:00 GMT

Eric Elwell   (Jun 11, 2007 at 18:35 GMT)

yeah, I find it interesting that you point out "aggression" since you can see aggression everywhere. The problem I suppose, is how it manifests itself. The news will cast clips of violence in the middle east, and that can manifest itself through hate and broad ethnic assumptions. Working with youth, most of whom are tickled to death with video games, I find that aggression, anger, restless energy (or whatever you want to call it) is common and a product of something entirely different. Our society is de-man-ifying youth all over the place. There's a part of the human (specifically male) psyche that needs an outlet, some positive way to manifest itself. Games have the potential to do this on a small scale and make it "fun" rather than simply hateful or malicious; but I certainly wouldn't make the argument that games are the answer at all, or even that all games are good. The problem, as I see it, is desensitization in one respect or another. Whether we get a thrill from a dead body, or it simply doesn't bother us, there's always the possibility that minds are being molded to think in certain patterns. We see this across the board. Games, movies, news, you name it. We're violent people. The mentality: "I'm losing, I need to win, I win by destroying my opponent" does not come from games, but it is so successful in games because it is a part of our nature.

I don't think that that will ever change. Finding a positive outlet is the search, and though we do need to be careful about what we take in and allow ourselves to process; simply placing the blame on one source or another will only cause it manifest itself in another.

Certainly not a complete thought, but.. fuel for the fyra!
Edited on Jun 11, 2007 18:35 GMT

Sam Redfern   (Jun 11, 2007 at 19:20 GMT)

Ah Phil- when I saw the blog title I thought you had thrown in the towel on air ace and decided to submit to the lure of the twiddly-gimmickly-2D puzzley genre ;-)

Good blog though, as always.

These studies that get published on controversial topics are very often laced with vested interests anyway. Lobby groups pay half-baked researchers with dodgy credentials to tell them what they want to hear. I'm not saying the ones you're referring to fit within that (not having read them), but.. there you have it.

Enjoy the summer!, not too many students around I hope ;-)

Dana Dill   (Jun 11, 2007 at 19:41 GMT)   Resource Rating: 2

Phil,

With all due respect, why are you discussing this on a GG forum? This is completely your opinion and I really could care less what you think about this issue. These issues are a common discussion and will be for years to come. Bottom line is we most likely don't know the whole story of either side and never will. Please post something that relates to you making a game so we can all learn from your experiences and not your opinion of a hotly debated issue in the gaming industry. If you want to have such opinions and voice them, then get your own personal blog and blog all you want about it there.. just not here where I have to read them (or aleast part of them).

Thanks!
Dana Dill

Kenneth Holst   (Jun 11, 2007 at 20:04 GMT)

"...have to read them"

huh?

Dana Dill   (Jun 11, 2007 at 20:16 GMT)   Resource Rating: 2

yes, you have to "start" reading the blog in order to find out what is in it. I subscribe to all the RSS feeds for GG blogs. Did you get the "(or at least part of them)" part of my response!!!???

Eric Elwell   (Jun 11, 2007 at 20:18 GMT)

it's game related, and not your blog.


besides, most people only look at the pictures. The picture of the Reverend made me curious as to what he was getting at, so I read. :) Since we're making up new rules: Next time, post a picture in your reply, or I won't read it.

Aaron e   (Jun 11, 2007 at 20:24 GMT)

Dana,

I've gotta say, in spite of the ADR preface, your comments don't sound very respectful.

This is an excellent topic for discussion, both in the GG developer blogs section and in the General Discussion forum. It's especially relevant since Phil is currently making a World War II themed air combat game.

I'm interested about Phil's opinion and insights on the subject because 1) he teaches game development courses at the university level, 2) he has completed multiple commercial game projects and knows a thing or two about the business and 3) he is currently creating a combat-oriented game set in a war-torn place and time in history.

As far as I can tell, Phil's post is perfectly suited for this venue since the issue at hand bears more than passing relevance to the types of game he is making.
Edited on Jun 11, 2007 20:25 GMT

Phil Carlisle   (Jun 11, 2007 at 20:26 GMT)

Erm, Dana, this *IS* a blog. Its not a "forum" as such.

I posted it because I think the garagegames community is interested in games and game issues, at least to some extent.

It just tickled me that I was asked to represent the gamers side of the debate.

But I'm not sure I agree with you that I shouldnt post this here. But if the majority think so, I'll post it elsewhere.

Barry Gallagher   (Jun 11, 2007 at 20:31 GMT)

Personally I think of these things as sensationalism and I believe there are a number of non-gamers who realise this. Its tabloid stuff basically and it doesnt just happen to us.

@Dana:
While Im not a fan of these types of discussions public attitudes towards games is definitely relevant to people who make games. (i.e Us!)

Dana Dill   (Jun 11, 2007 at 20:35 GMT)   Resource Rating: 2

Thanks for your response, but I disagree.

I think Phil's opinions should not be expressed here. As Phil, I am just expressing my opinion. There are places to discuss these topics I just don't think they are here. If his comments were less opinionated and more informative then I might be able to stomach them more. I just found his comments offensive. There are always two sides to each coin. I have no disrespect for Phil, I just don't agree with him and really don't want to hear what his thoughts are here. Now, if he wanted to post a link to his discussions and thoughts on this subject I feel that would be fine. Again, it is just my opinion.

Dana

Kenneth Holst   (Jun 11, 2007 at 20:39 GMT)

so if you agreed with what he was saying, rather than finding it offensive, then it would be OK for him to have posted it? :)

Matt Fairfax   (Jun 11, 2007 at 20:40 GMT)

No one is forcing anyone to read all or part of the blogs on GG (it was your choice to subscribe to the RSS feed after all).

The only time we exert any control over what goes into a blog is when there is no substance whatsoever, the blog is a question better posted on the forums, or if the content is offensive to a large majority of our community.

This blog doesn't fall uner any of those categories.

Not only that, I find this blog to be incredibly relevant to us as game developers (where do we draw the line on violence in our own games? how do we represent ourselves to the world outside of games and gamers...both when we are right and wrong in our actions?).

Dana,
If Phil has pushed some sore point with you, you are free to discuss that rather than trying to push your opinion about video games and violence as the "bottom line" in an effort to shut Phil up. I'm not trying to jump on you in particular but Phil is a *long* standing community member who earned my respect and personal friendship long ago.
Edited on Jun 12, 2007 00:03 GMT

Phil Carlisle   (Jun 11, 2007 at 20:48 GMT)

Actually Dana, I'm interested to see what has offended you in my comments. I try and base my opinion on fact and reading rather than pure conjecture, but I'm aware that there are other viewpoints.

The really interesting thing was that I had been asked my opinion, which I think kind of required me to explain what my opinion was. I dont think I'm trying to get everyone to agree (I know that wont happen).

If you think that somehow I'm attacking religion in any way, please let me know if thats the case and I'll modify how I write what I do. I happen to think the bishop is misinformed and I hope I've set out why, I'm not trying to make a personal attack on him, even if I do get frustrated that this issue has a lot of press versus say the two gun killings that occurred in manchester only last night.

Dana Dill   (Jun 11, 2007 at 21:00 GMT)   Resource Rating: 2

Matt, I am surprised at you. I really am. I have meet you at GDC and you are a very nice person and was very helpful to me, but I think a button of yours has been pushed here. You are reading into my post(s) way to much! You are not letting me disagree with Phil. I am not trying to "shut up Phil". Good Grief Matt how could I be doing that!!!!! I said I disagreed with his comments. How is that shutting him up.

Dana
Edited on Jun 12, 2007 00:04 GMT

Dana Dill   (Jun 11, 2007 at 21:05 GMT)   Resource Rating: 2

Kenneth,

"so if you agreed with what he was saying, rather than finding it offensive, then it would be OK for him to have posted it? :)"

wow that is taking me out context. (refer to my previous posts)

Dana Dill   (Jun 11, 2007 at 21:25 GMT)   Resource Rating: 2

Phil,

Thanks you so much for a NON attack response!!!! (what a relief .. other take note)

I admit I overreacted a bit on this but when it comes to comments of violence and video games I get really defensive! (no kidding right). I am actually a "religious" person if you want to say that and I hear this kind of topic come up a lot in discussions around the coffee pot at church. I am always defending violence in video games as it seems many "religious" people seem to think that the root cause of todays violence is due to all the violence in video games. I get sick if hearing preachers associate video games with all the violent behavior we see around the world. The media plays right into this. They seem to agree that violence in video games is a bad thing. I defend violence in video games. I really do. Like everything else I believe there is a line that can be crossed when it comes to violence but as game makers we have to look at our audience and our "beliefs" and decide as a company how you are going to represent the violence.

I think another issue that is related to this is how parents view violence in video games. It has been my experience that parents are very uneducated when it comes to knowing what game ratings are and what their kids are playing. I actually give seminars to parents to educate them on the gaming industry and what the games are that their kids are playing. I show them what the ratings are and where they can find out more information about the games their kids are playing so they as parents can make educated decisions what they believe their kids should be playing. I never tell a parent what or what not their child should be playing, I just educate.

I know now I have given my opinion here and am setup for some bas'in but I appreciate Phil's non attack post. I apologize if I came across too harsh. I certainly was not trying to silence you.

Thanks!
Edited on Jun 12, 2007 00:04 GMT

Phil Carlisle   (Jun 11, 2007 at 21:39 GMT)

Dana, I think we pretty much agree here then. I think a lot of the problem is that most people who comment in the violence debate are people who dont take part, so they have no notion of the intent of players and developers.

I think my biggest issue with the whole media around this event (and believe me, having seen at least the radio media up front on this, they DONT really want an adult thoughtful debate, they would rather have a witch hunt), is that there are FAR bigger and more important issues, like the gun crime that is meant to be causing at least part of the bishops offense.

I'm not religious myself, but it does sadden me when religious figures seem to enter into fairly shaky territory and what seems almost like political expression, especially when they are ill informed, as I think this case shows.

I do think that somewhere like gamepolitics.com is the appropriate place for a real debate on the issue, but I posted it here on GG because, well, because the GG community feels like my extended gamer family and I bring this to the community in that manner (much as I'm interested in anything significant with other GG community members if it is appropriate to games).

I do find it quite strange that most of my games are military themed and yet I dont feel that anyone playing them would possibly see them as promoting violence or military crimes (gun crime or whatever). Perhaps I'm wrong?

Dana Dill   (Jun 11, 2007 at 21:56 GMT)   Resource Rating: 2

Phil,

"I think a lot of the problem is that most people who comment in the violence debate are people who dont take part, so they have no notion of the intent of players and developers."

I agree. This has been my experience as well. Once educated most understand the issue better. It is just unfair that games "shot at" (yes pun intended) when something very violent happens in the world.

Although I don't play WWII games myself ("just not my field") my grandfather was in WWII and oh the wonderful stories he would tell. I do think it is wonderful that we have games like this to remind us about the war and all our loved ones who gave their lives for the freedoms we enjoy.

Dana

Matt Fairfax   (Jun 11, 2007 at 22:02 GMT)

Dana,
I do think your original post came on a little strong against Phil. It (and most of the following comments) read as "Phil, you don't know what you are talking about and I disagree with you so stop talking about it here where I have to read it!".

I wasn't telling you that you weren't allowed to disagree with Phil. I was trying to indicate that you were in the wrong by trying to censor the contents of Phil's blog and to push you into explaining your real problem with his beliefs. You have begun to do just that and I am glad. Let's keep the debate moving without having it become personal.
Edited on Jun 12, 2007 00:05 GMT

Phil Carlisle   (Jun 11, 2007 at 23:20 GMT)

Strangely enough, in terms of Dana's comment about WW2, I have a MUCH better appreciation of the whole thing (although admittedly still massively limited and unrealistic) after playing Call of Duty, especially some of the various scripted missions, like the russian defense of stalingrad as an example (the part where you play a russian that has to walk behind the man with the rifle and pick it up if he gets killed).

I know its unrealistic, but it does make you think about what it was like for the real people involved. Same with some other parts of the game.

Alexander "taualex" Gaevoy   (Jun 11, 2007 at 23:29 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

That Bishop is just not getting it at all...

The Church building is the community thing and was built on the donations, so no IP thing should be existing...

Church and Violence, huh? What about Middle Ages?

The bottom line is that Bishop is a greedy a$$ who wants to make money off a big company by trolling, not very original.

If his motives were good, he would go to Sony and asked them to remove the building from the game distribution.

I'm so sick of those greedy bastards who call themselves "Good Shepherd"s...

Dana Dill   (Jun 11, 2007 at 23:41 GMT)   Resource Rating: 2

Matt,

I agree that my original response did come across a bit strong and I have apologized for that but I do believe you have interpreted my intentions incorrectly. I was not telling Phil at any time that I disagreed with his comments (although I did say I was offended and that could be seen as disagreeing I guess). It was just my feeling that they should not be shared here. If you and GG say it is ok then I'm ok with that but I was just posting my displeasure with it.

I feel I did no wrong in what I wrote in posts as you suggest. Again, I think you way over reacted to someone you respect tremendously and felt he could not defend himself correctly. I think Phil did a great job in defending his position and I respect him more for it.

You also did not "push" me into anything except probably me defending myself more. Phil really did the pushing here in a good way and got me to open up a bit about some of the real issues. After discussing them with him we are more on common ground then I first thought. It was Phil's maturity that really won me over here not you "pushing".


Dana
Edited on Jun 12, 2007 00:05 GMT

Matt Fairfax   (Jun 12, 2007 at 00:05 GMT)

Fair enough.

I went ahead and removed the references you wanted removed.

Alan James   (Jun 12, 2007 at 00:11 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@Phil,

First, thanks for the post. Living in California myself issues like these are very relevant to me and my Indie efforts. If ever there will be substantial legislation on the regulation and distribution of games in the U.S. it will more than likely originate here and I am always curious how things are being debated and handled elsewhere.

Secondly I value your opinion, I have seen your work and have met you and respect what you have to say. I don't take your word as gospel, to coin a phrase, but I appreciate the fact that you are willing to stand and debate the issue in a public forum and are willing to share your opinions. I, for one, am glad you did.

Finally, how much more relevant would it have to be? Even if it was merely the issue of intellectual property, public facilities and the right to represent them in game format that would have been enough to pique my interest.

I live near a major Hydroelectric Facility owned by the state government. According to government regulations, it is illegal to use it in any commercial form (we discovered this in a clear and unequivocal way when the art director at my last job was threatened with the confiscation of all of her photographic equipment and arrest unless she left immediately).

Where is the line drawn between access and private property and public fair use? The Statue of Liberty at the end of "Planet of the Apes"? The destruction of multiple, well known public buildings (and cities) in "Independence Day"? The media forms may change but the relevancy remains the same. As an Indie without a wall of lawyers to stand behind, these issues and those involved with them are more than relevant, in fact they could one day determine the difference between a simple life of creative independence and the legislative end to a lot of small, creative voices.

But hey, that's just my opinion.

- Alan
Edited on Jun 12, 2007 00:13 GMT

Blake Lowry   (Jun 12, 2007 at 00:33 GMT)

Dammit people! You are only promoting the PS3 with this! :P Its supposed to fade away quietly and never return!

Anton Bursch   (Jun 12, 2007 at 00:47 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Dana,

Quote:

---

Name: Phil Carlisle
Member Type: Associate
Member Since: Mar 17, 2001

---

Quote:

---

Name: Dana Dill
Member Type: Member
Member Since: Jul 03, 2005

---

Matt Fairfax   (Jun 12, 2007 at 00:52 GMT)

Hey guys,
Let's back off. I think Dana has heard the message loud and clear and there is no reason to further fan this flame.

He and Phil have reached an understanding and that is what is really important here.

Please keep the discussion on track about video games and violence and the media response to it.

Mike Stoddart   (Jun 12, 2007 at 00:59 GMT)

So the Rev would approve if I wrote a game whereby the winner is the person who takes the most communion?

No but seriously, I take it with a pinch of salt. Like anything in life there will always be x number of people that will use violent games as an excuse or will try to recreate them in real life. I played with toy soldiers and action men as a kid, but I don't go jumping off upper floors wearing a sheet tied together by bits of string, carrying guns and shooting people. My dad was in the army; I fired a .22 on a couple of occasions but I don't care for guns as an adult. Some people are just screwed up no matter what.

Anton Bursch   (Jun 12, 2007 at 01:16 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

I'm personally sick of these people like this religous dude who try to censor how other people live their lives. They don't even know what real life is like. They live in a bubble world of their own. But they think they know right about how everyone else should live their lives. Religous people like this are always trying to oppress everyone else.

And with rules they can't even live by themselves. Preachers are the worst. They NEVER follow their own rules. But, that's the point of telling other people how to live, right? Do what they say, not what they do. As long as they keep getting paid to do it.

And now it's games they go after. How pathetic can you be when you are actually threatened by a toy. That shows how irrelevant this all is. When they go after toys. Give me a break. Pathetic.

And that is MY opinion of this topic of religous people trying to stop ME from making MY living making games unless I make the games THEY want me to make. Well. As far as I'm concerned. They can go Priest themselves.

Dana Dill   (Jun 12, 2007 at 02:38 GMT)   Resource Rating: 2

Matt,

"Let's back off. I think Dana has heard the message loud and clear and there is no reason to further fan this flame."

Thanks you!

Yeah, Phil and I are fine as far as I can tell. I hope no one else is losing any sleep over this. And you guys thought I was passionate about this topic. :)

Dana

Craig Fortune   (Jun 12, 2007 at 03:12 GMT)   Resource Rating: 3

Lmao, c'mon Phil I thought you knew better than to post a blog about this sort of stuff :D You KNOW that this is just a mahooosive can of mahooosive worms to open. *Slaps when I see you next*

_BUT_ well done everyone for keeping stuff mature and not going personal. Seriously I mean that, I hope this will set some sort of precedent for the GG community. Ultimately a somewhat classy thread of comments from what I thought would end up as a deleted blog. *smiles*

Anton Bursch   (Jun 12, 2007 at 03:14 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@Dana

Hey, just to be clear, my opinion above is not about you or all religous people. I am religous myself. I just don't care for people who use religion to oppress people or attempt to force their religious morality on other people. In my opinion, that is what the dude above was doing.

My overall opinion of churches and politics is this: pay taxes as a church and then you can have a say in how your country is run. I mean as a church, not as individuals, of course.

Dana Dill   (Jun 12, 2007 at 03:29 GMT)   Resource Rating: 2

@Anton,

Thank you very much for clearing that up. Seriously, I thought it might be aimed at me. Glad it was not.

As for you comments, I could not agree with you more! I am extremely frustrated with the religious community (the majority it seems) to quickly blame games for the demise of society. I wish it was that simple but it is not. Overall, games are misunderstood by many and even more so are game developers. We developers can't win. Some think we are heroes, others think we are evil. Truth is most of us are hard working individuals trying to make a living for ourself or our family. Someday maybe people will see the light. I think educating them is the key though.

Again, thanks for clarifying.

Dana

Barry Gallagher   (Jun 12, 2007 at 03:54 GMT)

Can't we all just get Along!

Can I get an Amen....

Kenneth Holst   (Jun 12, 2007 at 04:31 GMT)

Phil got a lot of experience with WORMS and cans thereof :)

Phil Carlisle   (Jun 12, 2007 at 09:50 GMT)

I do hope that in the future, where the vast majority of people are games players or at least accept games as a media, that this debate will become a little more mature. I mean, you rarely hear about films, even ultra violent films, being lambasted these days.

I wonder if thats because there is enough bad taste film making that at some level it becomes futile to try and rail against it? I mean, its like the dutch boy with his finger in the dyke.

Now, that also begs the question, do we have ENOUGH ultra-violent content? Is it a sign of a mature media that people can create disturbing content and still have an outlet for it. I guess then we come down to the whole issue of responsibility. Who is responsible for protecting people against inappropriate content.

Weirdly, directly relevant to the Sony/Bishop debate, is that the game is actually an 18+ (although I've seen a version that is also marked 15+, but I guess thats a watered down version). Here in the UK, it is illegal to sell and 18+ game to anyone under 18. Although I highly doubt the bishop knew that.

I think maybe part of the problem is that many times when these debates come up, you get the media asking gamers for thier opinion. Which leads to a bunch of rabid fanboys going overboard trying to defend their passion. I do hope I've provided a bit more of a mature considered response and stood up for game developers in a way that represents us (as a group) well.

We dont always present ourselves as the most mature industry do we? :)

Michael Hense   (Jun 12, 2007 at 14:12 GMT)

death... taxes... and religion... :)

combine any one of those with violence in videogames... well,

actually, this didn't turn out to be half as lound of an explosion as i thought it would be...

--Mike

Anton Bursch   (Jun 12, 2007 at 14:37 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@Phil

Did you hear the 'demands' from the church.

Quote:

---

from - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6739575.stm

An apology for using the cathedral

Withdrawal of the game, or modification of the section of the game to remove the cathedral interior

Sony to make a substantial donation from the games' profits allowing the cathedral's education department to target more effectively those aged 18 to 30

Sony to support other groups in Manchester fighting against gun crime.

---

And THAT is what it is ALWAYS about. Money. Money. Money.

And they sandwich it all in with talk of caring the poor innocent children age 18 to 30.

18 to 30 is the one age group that church's have the most trouble getting to go to church. That's a fact. They even speak of it as that age when they are too old to just swallow what they are fed and too young to start worrying about mortality. There's statistics and everything. How guiless and sweet is that.

I think I'm going to go buy a PS3 and GTA4 just to support the good guys. :P

Allyn "Mr_Bloodworth" Mcelrath   (Jun 12, 2007 at 19:07 GMT)

I'm sorry, but that pastor doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Churches are public spaces, unless he requires a membership to the franchise. Not only that, but i bet that church is a historical landmark.

Matt Summers   (Jun 12, 2007 at 21:50 GMT)

I personally don't believe that advocates for any religion thats burned people at the stake or started holy wars has the right to comment on violence in video games...

just my two cents... I appologize in advance to anyone I have offended, lol
Edited on Jun 12, 2007 22:58 GMT

Jeff Leigh (Jeffer)   (Jun 13, 2007 at 14:35 GMT)

Honestly I think the media should turn their eyes upon themselves.

I believe there are more youth who go off the deep end (violence-wise) because they saw some other whacko get grand publicity when they did the same, than they do from playing video games.

Alexander "taualex" Gaevoy   (Jun 15, 2007 at 17:50 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

I'm going to create a small FPS game, very violent with a lot of blood, all the action will be on a city square surrounded by ALL the famous churches. Then I distribute this game for free. Eat this!

I also include missions when you need to hunt priests, cut them in pieces for raping young children, stealing money and abusing citizens. All that with the links to the Middle Age inquisition and demand for the public apology from the Pope for the Church wrong doings.

That will be my public opinion.

You must be a member and be logged in to either append comments or rate this resource.

Home | Products | Solutions | Downloads | Support | Search | About Us
Copyright © GarageGames.com 2000 - 2008 All Rights Reserved