Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
User avatar
Tom
Former Team Member
Posts: 2665
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:12 am
Name: Tom Catullo
Contact:

Re: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

Post by Tom »

Marshalrusty wrote: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?
You have a good point there, I must admit. Maybe I should have made my idea of the Bible's truth more clear. Truly, no one knows the true nature of most of the texts of the Bible. However, Bible scholars who spend much of their lives studying it have come up with some interpretations, and I tend to follow those interpretations which the Catholic Church accepts. And, like I said before, it's all about how it is interpreted. Just because some people interpret it one way does not mean that others can't interpret it differently. I was only trying to point out the fact that there is a lot of symbolism and deeper meaning contained in many of the Bible's books, especially evident in the Old Testament. People of that time tended focus more on symbolism, it seems, than we do today. Now, like I said, you have a made a good point, and I won't deny that. I suppose that we can never truly know what parts of each book of the Bible are true or not, but, though studying the various concepts of Bible interpretation in the past, I tend to have an easier time at noticing some of the symbolism contained in the Bible. This doesn't mean that the symbolism can't also be historical truth. It's just that most non-religious people approach the Bible as a book which contains historical truth and historical references. While this is true for some of the Bible, it isn't true for all of it. Really, the Bible is meant to contain symbolism to evoke a deeper meaning. Therefore, a lot of the stories told in the Bible could either be true, partially true, or completely made-up - we just don't know for sure about any of them. It's not like reading a history textbook. ;)

So, to reaffirm what I'm saying here, yes - all of those stories could have been true, or some parts of them could have been made-up or exaggerated. I was just attempting to point out the possibility of symbolism or exaggeration in those specific stories, in relation to what Darth Wong posted previously.
Darth Wong wrote: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.
That's not exactly what I'm saying, but partially. I meant that a lot of books of the Old Testament (and the New Testament, alike) seem to start with a simple story, such as Moses crossing the Red Sea, and then expand upon it by adding some symbolism and historically-false ideas, such as Moses "parting" the Red Sea. Such stories or exaggerations were made to convey a certain idea or concept. In the exaggeration that Moses "parted" the sea, for instance, the concept trying to be conveyed was that God was with Moses and helped him along the way. However, if they would have put down the fact that he actually crossed the coast of the Red Sea at low tide instead of parting it, then that might have taken away from the central concept of the story.

Alright, I know that this isn't even really relevant to our main discussion anymore. Just clarifying my one point about the stories of the Old Testament - not all are necessarily historically true, but they all convey some sort of central concept or idea that the authors wished to make known.

In an attempt to get back to the original subject matter of this discussion (which turned into a discussion about the "good guys" of the Bible, due to me bringing religion into this), I feel that the reason why people attack video games on issues like this more than they do movies, and other forms of multimedia which may showcase the same idea, is because the person playing the video game is acting as the character in the video game. Therefore, you are the one initiating the action of shooting the innocent civilians in the video game, whereas if watching a movie you are simply observing what is happening on the screen without directly "causing" it to happen. Sounds like a bit of a cloudy idea, I know, but it's my only explanation for why people tend to attack video games more than movies and other such things in relation to issues such as this. Trust me - I'm in the same boat with everyone else who feels that video games are attacked much more than they should be, but there has to be an explanation for why this is so.
Tom Catullo - Former Moderator Team Member
phpBB3 Smiley Pak Generator | Legend Repositioning MOD | My GitHub | My Site
Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

Post by Darth Wong »

Well, we probably shouldn't get too much farther into the subject of religion because I'm an atheist after all, and I'm bound to say something that deeply offends someone sooner or later :)

Anyway, I agree that the "you are participating" argument is the justification that people use for the double-standard, but I don't think that's the real reason. A lot of times, the reason someone gives for his position is not the real reason, but rather, it's something he manufactures to defend his position. For example, the US politician Rick Santorum has argued that gay marriage should not be allowed because it's more "ideal" to have parental role models of both genders, and we should only allow "ideal parents" to marry. The thing is, regardless of whether you agree with this reasoning, we know he doesn't sincerely believe it because if he did, then he should logically also want to outlaw marriages of other "less than ideal" parents, such as ex-convicts, alcoholics, and registered sex offenders (all of whom are allowed to marry, none of whom are under threat of losing their marriage rights, and all of whom are likely to be far worse parents than the average gay person). In short, the argument he gives is not the real reason for his position.

Similarly, I don't believe that any of the stated arguments against videogame violence are the real reason for the position. I think the real reason is overwhelmingly simple: videogames are newer. All older forms of media have been "grandfathered in" due to their sheer age. You could produce all manner of damning evidence against violent movies, literature, or religious beliefs, but since they're so old, they get an automatic pass. Videogames don't have that protection, so they're still vulnerable to attack. If role-playing is truly the great danger, why do we scoff and laugh when people talk about not letting kids play "cops 'n robbers" in the backyard? I think people are just casting about for an excuse to single out videogames.
Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

Post by Darth Wong »

Shadow of Nobody wrote:... 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 )
The riot shield is completely retarded. In real-life, a clear plastic riot shield is not completely invulerable to small-arms fire and grenades. They do have much heavier tactical shields, but those are all metal except for a small viewing window, so they would really get in your way playing the game. The designers clearly chose to sacrifice realism in order to give people a cool shield.

I have to be honest: apart from offering a larger selection of toys and upgrades, I don't see what makes this game better than COD4 or COD5. The story from COD5 is more compelling (Nazis replaying WW2 are more compelling foes than silly terrorist/Reds in wildly implausible stories), and the gameplay of COD4 seems more realistic.
kzone
Registered User
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:35 pm

Re: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

Post by kzone »

Modern Warfare 1 is like Windows XP while MW2 is like Vista. MW2 has a lot of stuff that doesn't make online Multiplayer better than Modern Warfare 1.

Any gun can be used as Assault rifle, sniper, short gun or LMG :D I just raked 2000 kills using the M4.

Infinity ward need to release a patch to adjust recoils in all weapons and damage.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”