Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

[Brf]

I never said anything about standards. You did. I was making a simple statement.

It has always been my opinion that such games are recruiting tools for Satan to train his army of evil.

I never said that it was written, played, or sold by "Good" or "Bad" people, or that it should be compared to anything else in modern society.

[Kim_Possible]

Why bring religion into this discussion? There's no point. While I don't expect you to understand or care why that's in the Bible nor do I want you (nor anyone else including myself) to try and explain this here it's pretty far out there to compare what was done in Biblical times with what's being done in terorrist acts today. So to say that there's some sort of double-standard in such a comparison is pretty weak And, as far as I know, the terorrist act being done in the game by the Russian terorrists has no religious background to it.

It is only a "double standard" if you are applying a different standard to two similar or identical things under different circumstances. And this is not that.

Reading something in a book (religious or otherwise) is not the same as participating in it virtually in a game for entertainment, is not the same as doing it in real life. In fact, the arguments in support of this game depend heavily on those distinctions.

For example, a person could conclude that military action/killing is necessary and moral in some circumstances, but believe strongly that it is not appropriate for people to watch or to play at for entertainment. Someone might conclude that killing convicted murders under the right circumstances is moral, but may be opposed to putting such executions on display for entertainment or making a game out of them (executing virtual murders). I'm pretty sure that most reasonable objections to violent video games fall into this category. It isn't a moral (and hypocritical) objection to violence. It is an objection to participatory violence as entertainment.

Also, there has been no mention in this discussion in favor of people calling for censorship based on religious grounds. The only actual censorship mentioned here were the actions of the governments of Germany and Australia. I'd be surprised to discover that Germany's government legislated anything based on a religious notion.

[Brf]

Also, in my statement, I never said anything about morality or censorship. I only said it is a training tool.

[Tom]

As for censorship, I have to say that while it's abhorrent to kill a bunch of civilians in a videogame as a way of keeping your cover, you could easily find atrocities being committed by "the good guys" in the Bible which are just as bad or worse. Did you know that after the fall of Jericho, the Israelites slaughtered all of the women and children in the city? Or that after catching his people worshiping a golden calf, Moses himself has 3000 of them killed? People have some serious double-standards about what is or isn't offensive or disturbing enough to censor.

I understand that we're trying to keep from getting into a religious scuffle here, but being a Catholic my whole life and studying the stories of the Old Testament in religion classes in the past, I can't help but explain the real meaning of those killings in Exodus and Joshua. Yes, the Israelites slaughtered everyone in the city, and Moses killed many of the idol worshipers (as did the Levites). However, not all of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is to be interpreted literally. I would use the example of divine inspiration as a reason for why the Old Testament is not to always be interpreted literally, but to prevent further religious discussion, I will present a more non-religious explanation for this. The Bible was written mostly during the "Exile" period of the Israelites, allowing a lot of time to pass between the events of Moses and Joshua and the actual writing of their stories. Before they were written down, these stories about Joshua and Moses were told time and time again and passed down through the generations by way of oral tradition. And, as well all know, stories tend to have their facts misconstrued and/or exaggerated as they are passed on from person to person. So, even though some of these facts made it into the Bible, this could have been because the writers of these books were writing with the knowledge that they had at the time, unknowing of whether it was absolutely correct or not. For all we know, Joshua's name could have been Ralph; but that's not the point of these stories in the Bible. The point of most of those Old Testament stories, as written by the authors, wasn't meant to convey historical truth at all times. Rather, these stories were composed by the authors at the time (and by God, if you so wish) to convey a deeper meaning to the peoples who would read these stories in future generations. I suppose it's hard to explain unless you have an understanding of the true nature of the Bible, but if you do then you'll understand where I'm coming from here. You don't have to believe in God to understand that the Bible, especially the Old Testament, was not primarily created to convey correct historical information.

Anyway, I am straying quite off-topic here. I was just attempting to point out how the killing of the people in Exodus and Joshua could have been a symbolism of some kind meant to convey a deeper meaning than what it seems. Maybe it was even referring to the final judgment that will occur at the end of time... Oh - there I go again with the religious talk.

To reaffirm my original concept, yes, you are correct in saying that "the good guys" have committed atrocities many times in the past, and even in the Bible. However, interpreting the Bible is very tricky and probably isn't best to be brought up in this type of discussion because it is quite an abstract concept to apply to such a discussion. Having said this, I now conclude my discussion of the Bible and its intended interpretation. Make of it what you wish.

[Techie-Micheal]

Gaming is supposed to be an "escape" IMHO. Not every one will buy a game, play a scene, then go out into the non-cyberworld and reenact that scene. Just as "Administrators" are supposed to know better about certain things within phpBB (aka it isn't totally "idiot proof") everyone is also supposed to know better concerning what happens on the 65" plasma screen.

It's called "common sense".

I never said that someone will go out and reenact what they saw on the screen in this game.

[Marshalrusty]

I understand that we're trying to keep from getting into a religious scuffle here, but being a Catholic my whole life and studying the stories of the Old Testament in religion classes in the past, I can't help but explain the real meaning of those killings in Exodus and Joshua. Yes, the Israelites slaughtered everyone in the city, and Moses killed many of the idol worshipers (as did the Levites). However, not all of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is to be interpreted literally. I would use the example of divine inspiration as a reason for why the Old Testament is not to always be interpreted literally, but to prevent further religious discussion, I will present a more non-religious explanation for this. The Bible was written mostly during the "Exile" period of the Israelites, allowing a lot of time to pass between the events of Moses and Joshua and the actual writing of their stories. Before they were written down, these stories about Joshua and Moses were told time and time again and passed down through the generations by way of oral tradition. And, as well all know, stories tend to have their facts misconstrued and/or exaggerated as they are passed on from person to person. So, even though some of these facts made it into the Bible, this could have been because the writers of these books were writing with the knowledge that they had at the time, unknowing of whether it was absolutely correct or not. For all we know, Joshua's name could have been Ralph; but that's not the point of these stories in the Bible. The point of most of those Old Testament stories, as written by the authors, wasn't meant to convey historical truth at all times. Rather, these stories were composed by the authors at the time (and by God, if you so wish) to convey a deeper meaning to the peoples who would read these stories in future generations. I suppose it's hard to explain unless you have an understanding of the true nature of the Bible, but if you do then you'll understand where I'm coming from here. You don't have to believe in God to understand that the Bible, especially the Old Testament, was not primarily created to convey correct historical information.

The double standard there is astounding. You are saying that some things should not be taken literally because they have been skewed by time. Yet you have no idea which parts have been scewed and which haven't. For all you know, the ridiculous parts are the parts that have been preserved.

Let's say I give you a truck-full of cookies and tell you that while I was baking one of the dozens, a bit of poison fell into the batch. Let's also say that one of the dozens turned out a different color than the rest of them. Would you assume that the discolored cookies are the poisoned bunch and distribute the rest?

Also, the "true nature" of something as complex and ambiguous as the bible is whatever you make it to be, or whatever others have made it for you. Your interpretation ("true nature") is different from the interpretations of the other billion people who have read the very same loosely worded book. Interestingly, this nicely leads back into the original question of the topic. As killing civilians in a video does not actually harm anything, the only potential problem is the influence it plays on you. Thus, it is whatever you make it. Some people, like me, will think nothing of it, while it might trigger some condition in others causing them to behave violently.

[Darth Wong]

I never said anything about standards. You did. I was making a simple statement.

It has always been my opinion that such games are recruiting tools for Satan to train his army of evil.

I never said that it was written, played, or sold by "Good" or "Bad" people, or that it should be compared to anything else in modern society.

Umm, dude, unless that statement was intended as comedy, the phrase "army of evil" does seem to imply, you know, evil.

[Darth Wong]

Reading something in a book (religious or otherwise) is not the same as participating in it virtually in a game for entertainment, is not the same as doing it in real life. In fact, the arguments in support of this game depend heavily on those distinctions.

But the argument in favour of censoring it does not. The censorship argument treats ideas as offensive based on the idea that they might inspire real-life actions. If anything, religion has a much stronger history of inspiring real-life actions than videogames do.

All I'm saying is that if we're going to censor videogames based on the questionable rationale that ideas which might inspire bad behaviour should be banned, then we could very easily take that same logic and apply it to religion as well.

[Darth Wong]

I understand that we're trying to keep from getting into a religious scuffle here,

Don't worry, I won't take offense

but being a Catholic my whole life and studying the stories of the Old Testament in religion classes in the past, I can't help but explain the real meaning of those killings in Exodus and Joshua. Yes, the Israelites slaughtered everyone in the city, and Moses killed many of the idol worshipers (as did the Levites). However, not all of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is to be interpreted literally. I would use the example of divine inspiration as a reason for why the Old Testament is not to always be interpreted literally, but to prevent further religious discussion, I will present a more non-religious explanation for this. The Bible was written mostly during the "Exile" period of the Israelites, allowing a lot of time to pass between the events of Moses and Joshua and the actual writing of their stories. Before they were written down, these stories about Joshua and Moses were told time and time again and passed down through the generations by way of oral tradition. And, as well all know, stories tend to have their facts misconstrued and/or exaggerated as they are passed on from person to person. So, even though some of these facts made it into the Bible, this could have been because the writers of these books were writing with the knowledge that they had at the time, unknowing of whether it was absolutely correct or not. For all we know, Joshua's name could have been Ralph; but that's not the point of these stories in the Bible.

Or for that matter, some of those stories could have simply been made up out of thin air. Archaeologists have never been able to find any evidence of a massive migration from Egypt to Israel, or of the kind of economic upheaval and sudden depopulation which would have resulted from the entire slave class of Egypt vacating overnight. When you think about how critical the slave class was to a typical slave-holding economy, it's hard to imagine anything other than a massive economic collapse following such an event. Egypt was in slow decline for various reasons, but there was nothing like the overnight disaster you would expect.

The point of most of those Old Testament stories, as written by the authors, wasn't meant to convey historical truth at all times. Rather, these stories were composed by the authors at the time (and by God, if you so wish) to convey a deeper meaning to the peoples who would read these stories in future generations. I suppose it's hard to explain unless you have an understanding of the true nature of the Bible, but if you do then you'll understand where I'm coming from here. You don't have to believe in God to understand that the Bible, especially the Old Testament, was not primarily created to convey correct historical information.

So you appear to be saying that the Old Testament is like Aesop's Fables: a collection of morality tales intended to teach lessons, rather than being historically accurate. I have no problem with this interpretation (indeed, Bronze Age people almost certainly did not subscribe to modern empirical philosophy, and probably regarded moral "truths" to be more important than empirical accuracy). But that distinction is not really important for the purpose of the argument I was making.

Anyway, I am straying quite off-topic here. I was just attempting to point out how the killing of the people in Exodus and Joshua could have been a symbolism of some kind meant to convey a deeper meaning than what it seems. Maybe it was even referring to the final judgment that will occur at the end of time... Oh - there I go again with the religious talk.

To reaffirm my original concept, yes, you are correct in saying that "the good guys" have committed atrocities many times in the past, and even in the Bible. However, interpreting the Bible is very tricky and probably isn't best to be brought up in this type of discussion because it is quite an abstract concept to apply to such a discussion. Having said this, I now conclude my discussion of the Bible and its intended interpretation. Make of it what you wish.

Personally, I regard religion as a vehicle for the perpetuation of a culture: its values, its beliefs, etc. Stories in the oral tradition were an ancient culture's only real way of transmitting such things from one generation to another. It's more fascinating for its anthropological value than any kind of existential philosophy IMO.

In any case, to return to the subject at hand, the comparison I made was intended only to address a particular kind of logic, by showing how people will jump through hoops to apply it only to videogames and not to older forms such as movies, literature, or religion.

[Rotsblok]

Are we here still talking about COD: MW2?

/me needs to upgrade his computer, so he can play it

Last played CoD2.. (I know it's almost ancient) after that my poor computer couldn't handle it anymore...

Why do they always ask for the newest things when building those games.. It's costing me a small fortune to keep up.. I'll bet those chip manufactures etc are behind it...

[Brf]

Umm, dude, unless that statement was intended as comedy, the phrase "army of evil" does seem to imply, you know, evil.

Oh course the army of evil is evil. That does not imply that the manufacturers, sellers, players, or even the training tools are evil. They are ignorant. Ignorance is not necessarily evil.

[RMcGirr83]

Ignorance is not necessarily evil.

It is bliss.

[Shadow of Nobody]

... Serious discussion aside. How do you all feel about the multiplayer balancing?

I feel the riot shield may be a tad bit... overpowered, and unrealistic, from personal experience.

(Example for any who may be unfamiliar with it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZPqWmatHYg )

[Kim_Possible]

. . . unrealistic, from personal experience.

You had real, personal experience with a riot shield?

Am I the only one who hoped your youtube link would be live action video?

[Shadow of Nobody]

I probably worded that terribly, but you know what I mean. I'll leave that slip there for people to giggle at