| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (60)

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 11:34AM cylet said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
ah. need to see more on this one

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 12:08PM drumwiz86 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@cylet

If it includes the amy grant song by the same name, I'm all over it
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 3:03PM thinkthis said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@drumwiz86 I was thinking the same thing.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 11:42AM Poor Tom said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
It's obvious only a video can really demonstrate what this game is all about.

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 10:39PM EeK85 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Poor Tom You can thank me later:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ome4jjdSJbU

The side-scrolling bits look interesting. Can't say the same for the generic 3D action, though. Not that we can judge a game by a single video - one that Joystiq should have already posted, along with some more screens - but the only screen in this article makes the game look like a 2D downloadable indie platformer (the reason of my interest in it).
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 10:46PM develin said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Poor Tom
After having seen and played on TGS and still not understanding the game, I can say that it is a lot of fun but I still don't understand it.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 11:47AM JCDoe said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Enoch isn't in the Bible (unless you attend an Ethiopic Orthodox Tewahedo Church).

You could have verified this fact by checking wikipedia, one of the many free online Bibles, the free Bible in one of the gazillions of hotel rooms in the world, or by asking your religious neighbor ("Hey Flanders, is Enoch a book of the Bible?" "Nopily dopily!")

Not trying to be that "know-it-all" guy, but this is fairly common knowledge. It'd be like saying Pat Buchanan signed the Emancipation Proclamation while riding his trusty Tyrannosaurus Rex mount, Alexander the Great.

Hmmmm, that sounds like a good idea for a tv show . . .

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 11:56AM Xiegfried said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@JCDoe

I wouldn't go so far as saying it's common knowledge, since not everyone is religious or has read the Bible. It was a minor misconception and not that hard of one to make. It sounds like a book in the Bible and indeed was considered one at some point.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 12:17PM Puertoricarious said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@JCDoe

agreed. i've no problem with you pointing out that it's not in the bible, but it's far from "common knowledge."
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 12:31PM shadowskill11 said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@JCDoe Why would Enoch not being in the Bible be common knowledge? It's not like actual common knowledge like humans never existing in the same timeline as dinosaurs or what DNA is.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 3:30PM JCDoe said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@shadowskill11

Huh, lotta replies.

Fletcher said its based on the "Biblical book of Enoch." Unless you are a member of the Ethiopic Orthodox Tehwahedo Church, this is inaccurate.

The books of the Bible are common knowledge, just like (in the US) the names of the US presidents are common knowledge and the capital cites of each state are common knowledge. That doesn't mean that everyone knows these things. But they should, its a part of being an informed member of our society.

And when you have ubiquitous access to any and all pieces of information via the internet, 3g, satellite tv and radio, etc, there's really no excuse for writing an article that is inaccurate on a matter of "common knowledge."

Oh, and fwiw, I think this game looks very interesting.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 5:31PM MrU2 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@JCDoe

Actually, Enoch is mentioned in the Christian Bible quite a bit, mainly in Genesis. You are correct, however, that there is no "Book of Enoch".
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 6:33PM JCDoe said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@MrU2

Actually, the character is referenced thrice, once in Genesis, once in Hebrews, and once in James. The "book of Enoch" is a 3rd century Jewish apocalypse which describes a supposed vision Enoch has. The most interesting part of the book is a parallel of the Prometheus story, except that in Enoch, its fallen angels that teach the forbidden arts to men (like how to apply makeup, metallurgy, etc).

The Book of Enoch is a fantastic example of ancient Jewish apocalyptic literature, but its far from "holy writ." There was never a time in western church history that it was considered a part of the Christian Bible. It is mentioned by many very early Church fathers (Jerome, Origen, etc), but only Augustine and Tertullian had anything positive to say about it (and ultimately Augustine rejected the book as being contrary to the Genesis account of the origin of evil).

Yeah, I wrote a 30 page paper on the book in college. :) Lotta fun, that one. There's a commentary on it by a man named Nickelsburg (he's the definitive scholar on the book) if anyone is interested. Good stuff!
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 10:04PM Frankazoid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@JCDoe Amen brother, amen.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 10:37PM Korangulation said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@JCDoe just because you know does not make it common knowledge. There isn't one common 'society' online (or for that matter, offline), and there are people from different cultures, societies and religions all living and interacting with one another. What one considers 'obvious' and 'common knowledge' may not be as obvious or common to others; for example, I doubt many people wrote a paper on the Book of Enoch in college so that they'd have an intimate knowledge of the matter.

For example, I know a lot about Klaus Fuchs. Not many people do.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 10:58PM JCDoe said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Korangulation

Your argument fails. I was talking about the /books of the Bible./ Yeah, I know alot about an extra-Biblical book, but that doesn't change what is baseline, common knowledge.

You can argue all you want that there is no such thing as common knowledge, but if that were the case, you couldn't have meaningful conversations with anyone, ever.

If someone says to me "Obama broke alot of racial barriers," I know that he or she means the president of the United States, Barak Obama. Its common knowledge, shared between myself and the other person. That same person could say "Hitler was a jerk," "Saddam Hussein couldn't die soon enough," or "I could really go for a Big Mac" and I'd get the references. Most people would.

But wait, there's a kid in Zambia who doesn't know who the president of the United States is! Doesn't that mean that there is no such thing as shared, common knowledge?

The sentiment is, of course, nonsense. There is no one fact that is known by every human being on the planet. That doesn't change the fact that, in any given society, there is baseline knowledge most people expect you to know.

Basic Biblical info falls into that camp. The books of the Bible. New Testament vs. Old Testament. David and Goliath. Basic stuff.

I remember in High School lit class, we studied the Bible for that exact reason: there is a lot of art, music, and literature that assumes a certain level of Biblical literacy and it would be lost on an audience that didn't get the references. The teacher wasn't Christian. In fact, I don't think she gave a fig about religion. But she understood that there are some things that are expected as common knowledge in Western society, and basic Bible info is in that bag.

Oh, and I'm not prejudiced. Everyone should know that the faith Muslims follow is called Islam (not "Muslimism") and that their holy book is call the Quran. And that Buddhists follow the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, and that Hinduism follows the teachings of the Vedas. Its just a part of being educated, people.
Reply

Posted: Sep 20th 2010 11:01AM Singular Trap said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Can we just say "easily available knowledge" and settle the nit-pickers? I agree with JCDoe. I knew that Enoch was in the Bible, and I still had to do a quick search on Wikipedia to confirm my understanding that this isn't really a "book" in the bible that I know. But finding the information was very fast, and easy. I think JCDoe is just saying that JC Fletcher should have just verified that too. Who know why it was referred to as a "Biblical book." Maybe the developer introducing it referred to it as such. But I think that JCDoe is correct that the information is, if not "common knowledge," certainly it is easily available knowledge.
Reply

Posted: Sep 20th 2010 3:44PM MrU2 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@JCDoe

I stand respectfully corrected!
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 11:58AM Nova Hands said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
JCDoe -

Actually, Enoch is in the Bible. He's in Genesis 5:18-24. He's an interesting character in that he did not die naturally, but was said to have walked so closely with God that he was "translated" from this world.

However, you are correct that the Book of Enoch is not in the 66 books of the Bible. Wasn't sure if you were distinguishing the two or not...

Which makes me wonder how they came up with this game even more. What does Enoch have to do with anything? And why the name El Shaddai, "God Almighty?"
And, will Amy Grant make a cameo to sing her rendition of the song?
Let's hope not...

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 2:01PM garnsr said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Nova Hands Dear God, every time I see this game it makes that stupid song pop into my head from my childhood. I'm still interested in the game, though.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 2:27PM TheBrainninja said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Nova Hands

He(?) does specifically refer to Enoch as a Biblical book in his(?) parenthetical Simpsons reference.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 2:56PM KobaltKode said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Nova Hands

Regardless, the writer never stated that the Book of Enoch was in the bible. He referred to it as "the biblical Book of Enoch." The word biblical has several meaning that are not "in the Bible," such as of the bible or in the time/sense of the bible. All of the books that were not canonized may be referred to as biblical...

Would be the same as telling me I am lying when I say, "I knew her biblically." I didn't know her in the bible, but it is still a valid statement.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 12:07PM Shadowbender said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As a Catholic myself, I'm always compelled to see how games can tell religious stories, or have religious aspects and elements to them.

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 1:00PM Sordid State of Eclairs said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Shadowbender

I have to admit this is nice to see. A company making a game not just because it's religious in nature, but because they respect the source and think they can do something interesting with it.

I know the above wasn't necessarily the point you were making but I think it dovetails nicely.

The art style is not my absolute favorite but I'm up for giving this game a shot, since so far everything I have seen of this game it seems like the devs want to make the best possible game they can.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 12:56PM fauxcivility said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Hmm, interesting visuals.

Can't say I'll be playing it if the game is about spreading religion rather than just deriving a story from it.

Nothing wrong with drawing from ancient mythology :)

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 1:07PM Sordid State of Eclairs said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@fauxcivility

It's Ignition entertainment so... doubt it'll have anything to do with spreading religion. (see Muramasa: Demon Blade and Deadly Premonition)

You atheist? I am as well... but I liked Shadowbenders comment better :p
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 1:10PM Jerrac said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
As others said, Enoch is a character in the Bible. The Book of Enoch is not in the Bible. It is simply an ancient piece of text. I also agree that it wouldn't be common knowledge. Which is unfortunate, since the Bible is arguably the most important book in Western History. People really should know at least a little about it, even if they just consider it mythology. Just like most kids learn about Greek Myths...

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 2:01PM metamorphic said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@Jerrac
"Most important book in Western history"? Seems like someone here's funded by evil Benny. Here's an update: no one gives a shit.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 2:31PM TheBrainninja said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Metamorphic

Woah, hostility much? He said "arguably most important," and referenced its historical relevance. Just because someone may or may not believe it to be the word of a god that may or may not exist does not erase the effect its believers have had on Western civilization.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 2:04PM garnsr said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think it's reasonable enough to call stories that come from Biblical times Bible stories, even if they aren't in our version of the Bible.

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 2:15PM original fred said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@garnsr Agreed. The bible has gotten so many rewrites throughout it's lifetime that it is more than plausible that the book of Enoch was, at one point, part of the "canon" bible stories. Honestly the franchise has seen so many reboots and spinoffs that it's hard to keep things straight.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 4:06PM Grauw said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@original fred Going by Wikipedia, some fathers in the 4th century decided that the book written 500-700 years before then wasn’t canon, and from then on it was no longer part of the bible. That’s how institutions work, they filter out the bits that don’t fit their interests and beliefs.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 2:22PM ChuckBartowskiX said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Playing the bible would be much more fun than reading it. I want moar liek dis. Its all fiction anyway.

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 2:35PM Nova Hands said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
You folks who are calling the Bible fiction are speaking from a perspective of ignorance. Time and again, the historical accuracy of the Bible has been proven to be true, has corrected faulty historical information, and has even revealed nations not previously known to have existed.

If you want to question its moral truths and supernatural underpinnings, that's an issue of faith. But the historicity of it is not faith-based. To ignore that is to allow your worldview to cloud your reasonable judgment.

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 2:56PM original fred said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Nova Hands That is false. Most of the claims in the bible are, in fact, impossible considering what we know about history and physics.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 3:09PM Nova Hands said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So you're arguing against the archeologists who, for years, argued against the historicity of the Bible, only to find through archeological research that it was, in fact, true in the areas it claimed to be?

I'm assuming you've got some solid, observable scientific research to back this up. You wouldn't just shoot from the hip and turn this into a commentary.

Now, if you're talking about claims like Jesus being the Son of God, then that's a different area. That's faith. But it's a sound faith, based on reason. You don't have to abandon reason to believe that.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 3:16PM original fred said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
So you're arguing against the archeologists who, for years, argued against the historicity of the Bible, only to find through archeological research that it was, in fact, true in the areas it claimed to be? [citation needed]
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 3:31PM original fred said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Okay, for starters, Exodus couldn't have happened (hundreds of thousands of people wandering around in the desert for 40 years is logistically ridiculous) The entirety of Genesis runs counter to everything we know about physics, The bible itself offers numerous conflicting stories regarding Jesus' life.

It's okay to take the bible as a bunch of life affirming stories but to try and claim that it's 100% historical is just silly.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 4:18PM Grauw said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@original fred So here we have someone’s argument against a claim that the biblical texts are 100% fiction, against which then it is argued that they can not be 100% true. I think that’s called a straw man argument :).

Can’t you meet in somewhere in the middle? Although being nonreligious myself, I have read some texts from the bible and dead sea scrolls, and I do think that parts about them recount actual events. Albeit an exaggerated and spun version thereof (as a tribe leader, it is obviously in my interest to claim that I am a direct descendant from beings created by god, and that my great-grandfather lived for hundreds of years :)).
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 4:24PM Grauw said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
(And these would be stories passed down for generations by word of mouth until they finally got written down, obviously they get distorted over time, but a core of truth remains.)
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 4:30PM original fred said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Grauw I do not believe I was attacking a strawman. I was just responding to their argument as I saw it. If that was flawed I apologize but it really looked to me they were claiming that the bible was historically accurate full stop. I'm just saying that, although yes the stories are inspired by history and some take place during actual events claiming that they can be used to "correct" what we know about history is an extremely dubious claim.
Regardless, this is a video game blog and i really shouldn't have tried to antagonize this. For that I apologize.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 4:45PM Grauw said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@original fred :) no worries, it’s on-topic, no? :)
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 10:06PM Frankazoid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Nova Hands +1,000,000 :D
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 11:38PM JCDoe said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@original fred

The question of whether or not the Bible is based on events that actually happened is impossible to answer scientifically, for two reasons. First, many of the events in the Bible claim supernatural origins. A supernatural event by definition defies the laws of physics, ergo, it can neither be proven nor disproven. Second, one side of the debate argues a negative (the stories of the Bible did not happen), and you cannot definitively prove a negative argument (you can't "un-find" archaeological proof for stuff).

That said, there are many things in the Bible that scholars believed were not historically accurate, which have later been proven via archaeology. I'll give a few examples (all are well documented, a concern you quite correctly expressed).

King David is the Biblical king of Israel's "golden age," but his actual existence was doubted for over a hundred years, until the Tel Dan and Mesha stele, which mentioned him, were discovered.

The existence of Belshazzar, a pagan ruler mentioned in Daniel, was doubted because no Babylonian king by that name existed in extant records. Then we went and found the Nabonidus Cylinder, which told us that a Belshazzar did in fact exist (he was a local regent).

The Bible mentions the Philistine people in its earlier books, but since these people were not mentioned in later literature, their existence was doubted. Then we excavated site such as Ashkelon and Gath, and found physical remains.

Point is, faith in the Bible is /reasonable./ Not a /fact,/ but supported by facts.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 3:15PM Bitrate said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
We need more games like this. New imaginative worlds with interesting art styles that have stories that expand upon myth or religious theology. Definitely looks like my type of game.

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 3:16PM KobaltKode said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow, the resulting comments have religious friction written all over them! Time to get out of here while I still can!

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 4:57PM aerospace10to1 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@KobaltKode

Clearly you weren't here for Dante's Inferno. This is child's play in comparison.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 4:00PM Grauw said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
All this fuss about canon or no canon... A religious work is a religious work, whether it got a stamp of approval from some particular religious institutions because it fits with their take on reality isn’t really important.

The game looks interesting. As long it is not evangelising in nature, these are interesting and historically important stories that I wouldn’t mind seeing a little more of in games.

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 4:05PM corna said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Not liking the sound of the control scheme, but I'm staying optimistic till I see more.

Posted: Sep 19th 2010 5:27PM Its X with Guns said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh my. Mention the 'bible' once, and the crusaders of greater internet justice come out of the woodwork.

It's not real journalism unless you get my favored deity's backstory right, JC. Also: factcheck (apparently).

Better factcheck yourself before you wreck yourself.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW