The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I don’t think I would be expressing a minority opinion here if I said I enjoy computer games. In particular I enjoy games that involve killing things, often human beings. Recently, I have sampled the delights of Medal of Honour, Max Payne, RTCW, Operation Flashpoint, and most recently Soldier of Fortune 2. Now, I love Soldier of Fortune 2. The reason I love it is not for the beautiful graphics (though they are stunning), the twisting story (though it is intriguing) or Madeline Taylor (um…), the reason Soldier of Fortune 2 is enjoyable is because you get to kill things in the head, in graphic detail, and with a fantastic selection of weapons. And don’t try to pretend you’re any different.
I also have what many (including myself) would describe as an unhealthy obsession with guns. I can tell you what caliber rounds an M4A1 Carbine assault rifle fires, three different names for the SA80, what the hell an M203 is, the difference between an AK47 and an AK74, and why you need to be afraid of Vinnie Jones in Snatch telling you he has “Desert Eagle, point five oh” written down the side of his.
However, despite what the press will tell you, I am not yet a homicidal lunatic. Finding out so much information about firearms and seeing people die in horrific ways on screen has taught me a lot. As a result, I am about as anti-guns as anyone you’re likely to meet. The idea of them being freely available to the public as they are in America terrifies me. The idea of people keeping them and firing them for fun disgusts me. They are lethal weapons. They are not for “fun”. You may be the sanest person in the world but to own a gun is dangerous in so many ways, as I have seen for myself (as closely as I ever want to). I have to admit that it seems conceivable that violence on the scale of SoF2 may push an already unbalanced person over the edge, but anyone possessing a sound and rational mind can only draw one conclusion. Mr. Heckler, Mr. Koch, take your guns and stick them where the sun don't shine. If the tabloids feel like a headline, how about “Computer games taught me guns are evil”.
I also have what many (including myself) would describe as an unhealthy obsession with guns. I can tell you what caliber rounds an M4A1 Carbine assault rifle fires, three different names for the SA80, what the hell an M203 is, the difference between an AK47 and an AK74, and why you need to be afraid of Vinnie Jones in Snatch telling you he has “Desert Eagle, point five oh” written down the side of his.
However, despite what the press will tell you, I am not yet a homicidal lunatic. Finding out so much information about firearms and seeing people die in horrific ways on screen has taught me a lot. As a result, I am about as anti-guns as anyone you’re likely to meet. The idea of them being freely available to the public as they are in America terrifies me. The idea of people keeping them and firing them for fun disgusts me. They are lethal weapons. They are not for “fun”. You may be the sanest person in the world but to own a gun is dangerous in so many ways, as I have seen for myself (as closely as I ever want to). I have to admit that it seems conceivable that violence on the scale of SoF2 may push an already unbalanced person over the edge, but anyone possessing a sound and rational mind can only draw one conclusion. Mr. Heckler, Mr. Koch, take your guns and stick them where the sun don't shine. If the tabloids feel like a headline, how about “Computer games taught me guns are evil”.
Page:
No, wS**thout the gun, we would have been invaded a dozen times over by now, thats what i meant. Plus, wS**thout guns, warfare wouldn't have developed as S**t did. On that, neS**ther would Civilisation. Guns changed war, and wS**th S**t, the way we think, i.e. our behaviour ect.
The police thing, in a dark street, on a cold night in a bad area, a dude comes at you wS**th an object that looks dodgey screaming abuse, could you tell if S**t was a gun or not, would you risk S**t? Training can do a lot, but S**t can't tell you not to trust you're own eye's. Better a cop shoots a bad guy than vis-versa. Ok, mistakes do happen, but are you saying if we used clubs instead of guns, innocent people wouldn't get hurt. Someone once said somethink like, Civilisation is a cover over chaos, or somethink, ain't S**t just.
My look on like is simple, S*S**t happens, and their ain't nothin' you can do but deal wS**th S**t. Guns are a big part of the world now. You or I can't change 6 billion peoples minds and make them down weapons. Fact is, there here, so just try to control them, but that ain't easy, we all know that.
The police thing, in a dark street, on a cold night in a bad area, a dude comes at you wS**th an object that looks dodgey screaming abuse, could you tell if S**t was a gun or not, would you risk S**t? Training can do a lot, but S**t can't tell you not to trust you're own eye's. Better a cop shoots a bad guy than vis-versa. Ok, mistakes do happen, but are you saying if we used clubs instead of guns, innocent people wouldn't get hurt. Someone once said somethink like, Civilisation is a cover over chaos, or somethink, ain't S**t just.
My look on like is simple, S*S**t happens, and their ain't nothin' you can do but deal wS**th S**t. Guns are a big part of the world now. You or I can't change 6 billion peoples minds and make them down weapons. Fact is, there here, so just try to control them, but that ain't easy, we all know that.
Skarra wrote:
> In response to the TheMeistro's comments, without guns what would have
> happened to Napoleon, or in Kosove, Bosnia, the Gulf, Crimea, Natal
> ect. Remember, in Natal(Rorks Drift), without guns, the British guard
> there, 100 men or so, would have been over run by 4000 Zulu's with
> spears and cow skin shields.
- the use of guns in warfare is a whole other can of worms. Even if there was no such thing as the gun, we would still fight each other. Sadly it's human nature. I'm not quite sure I understand your point tho... do you mean that the gun was responsible for the development of these conflicts or praising it for ending them? Like I said, people will fight either way, and as a result I can't really object to the use of guns in warfare. Although it ain't pleasent, it's just another incarnation of the weapons people (and in this case countries) will use to hurt one another. Far more dangerous from this perspective is the idea of nuclear/chemical/biological weapons. HOWEVER, guns are an extremely dangerous weapon, far more so than a knife or, er, poisoned cricket bat, which is why they should not be in the hands of Joe public. Neither should nukes while we're about it.
I agree with Totoro on this one, it's not
> the gun that kills, its the dude who pulls the trigger, in most
> Civilised countries(a fair whallop of the globe), when a gun goes off,
> it is normally for better, i.e. police shoot a rapist, or murderer
> ect.
- But the majority of said rapes & murders wouldn't happen if the guns weren't readily available in the first place. Or would they?
Like I said the majority of shootings are by accident, and just because it's the police who've shot somone doesn't mean it's right. This is a tough one for me... it's right for the police to have and use firearms, but if they end up shooting innocent people like that chap with the tableleg which they thought was a gun (and promptly took him out) then it can't really be that great.
With out the gun, we'd probably be dragging big sticks around
> speaking one language or another.
eh? so the gun is responsible for the development of language? er... if you say so... :)
> In response to the TheMeistro's comments, without guns what would have
> happened to Napoleon, or in Kosove, Bosnia, the Gulf, Crimea, Natal
> ect. Remember, in Natal(Rorks Drift), without guns, the British guard
> there, 100 men or so, would have been over run by 4000 Zulu's with
> spears and cow skin shields.
- the use of guns in warfare is a whole other can of worms. Even if there was no such thing as the gun, we would still fight each other. Sadly it's human nature. I'm not quite sure I understand your point tho... do you mean that the gun was responsible for the development of these conflicts or praising it for ending them? Like I said, people will fight either way, and as a result I can't really object to the use of guns in warfare. Although it ain't pleasent, it's just another incarnation of the weapons people (and in this case countries) will use to hurt one another. Far more dangerous from this perspective is the idea of nuclear/chemical/biological weapons. HOWEVER, guns are an extremely dangerous weapon, far more so than a knife or, er, poisoned cricket bat, which is why they should not be in the hands of Joe public. Neither should nukes while we're about it.
I agree with Totoro on this one, it's not
> the gun that kills, its the dude who pulls the trigger, in most
> Civilised countries(a fair whallop of the globe), when a gun goes off,
> it is normally for better, i.e. police shoot a rapist, or murderer
> ect.
- But the majority of said rapes & murders wouldn't happen if the guns weren't readily available in the first place. Or would they?
Like I said the majority of shootings are by accident, and just because it's the police who've shot somone doesn't mean it's right. This is a tough one for me... it's right for the police to have and use firearms, but if they end up shooting innocent people like that chap with the tableleg which they thought was a gun (and promptly took him out) then it can't really be that great.
With out the gun, we'd probably be dragging big sticks around
> speaking one language or another.
eh? so the gun is responsible for the development of language? er... if you say so... :)
MoJoJoJo wrote:
As for Lord H, Edgy etc argued my point for me. Guns are designed to kill, knives and cars and cricket bats aren't.
- - -
Even those new cricket bats which come with cruise control and a nuclear bomb: For a limited time only, when you purchase an M15? What about those knives which come dipped in poison, and those cars with flamethrowers on the side?
It's all great stuff.
As for Lord H, Edgy etc argued my point for me. Guns are designed to kill, knives and cars and cricket bats aren't.
- - -
Even those new cricket bats which come with cruise control and a nuclear bomb: For a limited time only, when you purchase an M15? What about those knives which come dipped in poison, and those cars with flamethrowers on the side?
It's all great stuff.
Oh, and by the way, thankyou for recognising my better points, most people just see one bad point and write off the entire thing. We need more people like you who see when praise is due.
In response to the TheMeistro's comments, without guns what would have happened to Napoleon, or in Kosove, Bosnia, the Gulf, Crimea, Natal ect. Remember, in Natal(Rorks Drift), without guns, the British guard there, 100 men or so, would have been over run by 4000 Zulu's with spears and cow skin shields. I agree with Totoro on this one, it's not the gun that kills, its the dude who pulls the trigger, in most Civilised countries(a fair whallop of the globe), when a gun goes off, it is normally for better, i.e. police shoot a rapist, or murderer ect. With out the gun, we'd probably be dragging big sticks around speaking one language or another.
Lawless Fever wrote:
> her names Pat, she was married to Frank Boucher
>
> I was thinking of the Waterboy's mother, actually :P
Either way, I don't get the reference.
Oh, and the "person is evil" remark is kinda missing the point, but nonetheless, even if a person is evil, if they have nothing then what can they do? on the other hand if said evil person has a gun...
> her names Pat, she was married to Frank Boucher
>
> I was thinking of the Waterboy's mother, actually :P
Either way, I don't get the reference.
Oh, and the "person is evil" remark is kinda missing the point, but nonetheless, even if a person is evil, if they have nothing then what can they do? on the other hand if said evil person has a gun...
It's not the gun that kills but the finger that pulls the trigger.
Guns are not evil it is the person that fires it that is truly evil.
Etc, etc.
Guns are not evil it is the person that fires it that is truly evil.
Etc, etc.
TheMeistro wrote:
> Who the hell's Mrs Boucher?
her names Pat, she was married to Frank Boucher
> Who the hell's Mrs Boucher?
her names Pat, she was married to Frank Boucher
Page: