One character's loyalty mission contains references to a recreational drug. That same character's recruitment mission portrays a minor character that has been subjected to a substance that increases biotic abilities, which has also intoxicated him. Both are portrayed as having negative effects.
Please keep in mind that the comments for this game are open for anyone with access to the Internet to see, so it isn't necessarily the regular users and/or operators of the site that are giving negative feedback ("thumbs downs") to the complaints. It could be people who have stumbled across the site, have been directed to "vandalize" the comments, etc. or it very well could be the regular users. The purpose of this site is to provide information about the content of games so that others can make informed decisions about their entertainment choices: having others leave comments about how the game personally impacted them or what they thought of the content is very relevant to this aim, and there should definitely be a respect for those comments, whether or not one agrees with the thoughts of another, as long as the comments are factually correct and not antagonistic.
That video is what convinced me to buy the game in the first place, and I am by no means disappointed.
I didn't say that the real-life men were evil, per se, but that killing, whether one feels justified or not, is not Christ-like according to the Bible: forgiving and loving someone in the midst of the pain they cause you can be indescribably difficult, but it's what Christians are called to do. Now, I do believe it's possible for one to be a Christian and a soldier, but it's a dangerous road, physically and spiritually.
As for the actual Crusaders portrayed as templars in this game:
They were leaders that were on the Christian, i.e. European, side of the conflict, but that does not have any more bearing on their spirituality than it would for a person coming from the Bible belt. Whether or not their religion was cultural, they were not acting as "Christian leaders" but military leaders that happened to be Christian: they were going out to capture territory, not spread the good news. This is a subtle, but important, difference.
Taking that into account, also keep in mind that five out of the nine main assassination targets are Saracen and artistic license is taken with more than just the character of the Crusaders. The Crusades were a bloody, complicated mess, and the game actually does a competent job of portraying both sides as flawed, as well as showing that even the game's fictional version of the templars had a noble goal, if horrible means with worse implications.
EDIT: I see your latest, pending response, and must now bow out. These comment fields are for the discussion of the game and the conversation has been steadily veering from that topic; at this point, it is almost entirely derailed. If you would like to continue the discussion, I ask that you create a profile for our message boards and either send me a private message or create a topic.
Yes, they are "misrepresented," but these men, once again, still killed or helped to kill real people. What about loving your enemy (Luke 6:27)? What about turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-42)? My point still stands: you are upset about "Christian leaders" being misrepresented when the real-life people weren't being Christ-like in the first place, and are condemning the fictional killing of the caricatures while conspicuously ignoring the killing that they made possible.
The "Christian leaders" you kill are nominal Christians, committing atrocities and spreading corruption in the name, but certainly not the spirit, of God. There are plenty of valid arguments that one can make against this game, but that is not one of them.
EDIT: My point is that trying to defend the "good name" of the crusaders puts one in an awkward place. The real men these characters were based on still took part in and/or facilitated the actual, real-life killing of people, whereas the player of this game is taking part in the assassinations of exaggerated caricatures that, even in the context of the story, are not really happening. How can one defend the actual killing of people while condemning the fictional killing of the killers?
It's not, and was never called one in the review. I made mention of it because it is as "harsh" as the game gets in that category, i.e. not at all, but some people like to avoid it, all the same.
I think (i.e. hope) that this person was being facetious.
My primary love language (if you don't already have an entry about those...) is physical touch, so I've given and received my fair share of side hugs. The type of hug really depends on the level of familiarity with the other person: any time the youth group is around, you will see plenty of side hugs, but then you'll also see the "dance huggers", the "back poppers", the "ninja sneakers", etc. The variations have actually become a bit of a joke in a very small, eccentric circle.
That has more to do with whether the Hebrew word used was "YHWH", the proper name of God, or "adonai", the actual word for "lord". "YHWH" is normally rendered with small caps and "adonai" with only a capital "L", unless it is referring to an earthly authority, in which case it will follow the normal grammatical rules of a common noun.