Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX

sat·ire n. 1. 1. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit. 2. The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature. 2. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

What about using the search tool, or looking in the big thread at the top of this forum with the same name as this, which has dealt with this exact topic exhaustingly?

Mirror mirror on the wall

I wouldn't call discriminating against a particular religion racist.... but it is discrimination. By the way, I'm a hardcore atheist, and I'd never call for religion to be forbidden- and I don't know any freethinkers that would. WHile it is evil, bad for humanity, and worth being rid of, 'forbidding' things doesn't work. Unfortunately, that is the type of garbage that gives rise to cultural relativism and other nonsense. It is simply not true that 'truth' is subjective. The plane either crashed or it did not. People have their own interpretations of events; but the events themselves are digital and discrete; they happen or they don't. Yes, of course we may lack knowledge about some of them, but that does not change this fact.

So Icefire, would you support a war to rid america of the fundamentalist government/ peoples that infest it?

You're right except for the garand, which used .30-06 (7.62x63 mm) There were some later attempts to convert it to 7.62x51, but they were unsuccessfull.

When did I mention war? Hasn't anyone ever told you there are other solutions than violence?

So even the hardcore Bush administration supporters are admitting the gash they talked about invading Iraq due to human rights violations was bullshit? Excellent.

Simons: Download the OFPwatch utility and use that. It will tell you when the mission is finished and automatically download any addons you need. Its better to organise the addons into seperate folder(s) which OFPwatch can also do and use automatically for the server. The best servers... well opinions vary, but any you can see linked to in people's sigs in these forums are guaranteed to be good. Which one is best for you depends on how hardcore you like to play (no 3rd person, no crosshair) and where you are. But when you find one that is good for you, stick with it and get to know the people.

Any time a bunch of religious fuckwits want to kill each other, I'm a happy guy. Not good that (relative) innocents got in the way though. Would someone explain to me how this is so specially different from the bombings of other businesses, though?

Someone's been watching too many US war films. Real soldiers don't grab a massive map and spread it on the ground. And the rest of the suggestions are either already suggested or ..bad.

As I've said before, I am on a military shooting team, and have been on similar teams for years. Firing a weapon in a game, even one as realistic as flashpoint, is absolutely nothing like firing it IRL, not to mention everything else you need to know how to do (reloading etc.) People can claim that the poor parents shouldn't be held responsible for not caring about their children all they like, but at the end of the day it is their responsibility. How do we change society for the better? Stop making stupid fucking lawsuits blaming other people (ie games companies.) All that is needed is a few judges presiding over such lawsuits to say "No, sorry, they are YOUR children, do your job, case dismissed and a fine for wasting my valuable time." For the fiftieth time: being responsible for children doesn't entail being with them 24 hours a day. Especially in the case of parents who blame games that THEY bought for their children. The solution is to make parents aware that if their kid goes awol, THEY will be held responsible. At the moment they don't care, because they won't be.

Because it was hard to do, too much work to do, and wouldn't make that much difference in their opinion; but mainly because it was hard to do.

You cannot answer the questions. You cannot make any decent points. All you have done is claimed some games should be forbidden (banned), refused to elaborate, claimed you never said anything of the sort, then started with this line about parents not being responsible for their children. Its amazing. Like it or not, parents are legally responsible for their children. That is a simple, demonstrable fact. Go and argue with the government if you do not like it. Don't complain that children don't listen; its still a fact if they listen or not. Don't say parents cant stop children doing certain things, because they can; and usually its a lot easier to do so by talking to the child instead of shouting at them. *edit* I am NOT saying, Balschiow, that it is always easy or pleasant for parents to 'control' their children: BUT THEY ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE.*edit* *edit2* Thats responsible as in accountable; liable */edit2* Don't claim, either, that games companies have some responsibility to tailor their games for an age range they ARE NOT SOLD TO.

What is the problem, as you see it, and how will banning good games solve it?

Answer the question, please. If you can. Who decides where the line is? How do you determine what deserves to be banned and what doesn't. What makes your opinion and mine that OFP shouldn't be banned (or shouldn't take tighter responsibilities) more right than the lobbyists who insist ANY game featuring violence of ANY sort should be banned? Thats the problem; please try to answer it, not make flip remarks. I don't watch any shite like that. That is how we deal with things we don't like in a consumer driven commerce: we don't buy it if we don't want it. I tell them that they are STILL responsible for their children, whether they like it or not. I already told you they don't have to physically be there all the time; they just have to show some slight remote interest in their own children: trust their babysitters, guardians etc. Not leave them in front of a TV or a computer all day: that is simply bad parenting, pure and simple. Allow them to use the TV or the computer if they want; but not simply dump them in front of it and leave them with no further thought. 'WAAAAAAH ITS NOT OUR FAULT WE ARE BAD PARENTS' Yes, it is. It is your own fucking fault, not the TVs, not the games. Its really simple: show an interest in the kids. They do not have to be there all the time (this will be the third or fourth time I say this, just in case you put words in my mouth again.) Let me draw your attention to one simple fact: THESE PEOPLE BOUGHT THE GAMES FOR THEIR KIDS Read the article. The woman KNEW her son and his 'friend' were playing the game; she knew the content of the game; she simply did not give a shit. Parents have the only responsibility for their children. GET USED TO IT. Crap. Lazy parents. Can't be bothered. Bad parenting. Show me a child that makes enough money to own their own computer and internet connection. The parents can stop them playing such games if they want to. They could also talk to their children once in a while, you know, have a discussion with them, find out whats bothering them. Still waiting for the answers you know you cannot give on forbidden games.

Just realised I have a 5 Digit ID,never took any notice of that before.

British army had 6.5mm ammo they were going to use until the Americans forced all of Nato to use 5.56.....

A solution is never found by blaming someone for someone elses stupidity.

But they are responsible for content control. That´s it. BIS is best example. Or don´t you think that a lot of people would like to have bodies that splatter and limbs flying through the air. Does BIS do it this way? No they say they have a responsibility to follow and that´s what I mean. ...No, they don't / didnt have the engine that could do it or the resources to spare, so it was never a consideration. Would you have still liked OFP if all the weapons looked like magic wands and shot streams of feathers? They didn't do it this way because of responsibility, they did it because it was the best choice for them in terms of aesthetic and engine load. And even if it had been implemented, it wouldn't change a thing about the game; just eye candy. You're talking nonsense. OFP's level of violence would be seen as completely irresponsible by the people complaining about violent games. You might not think so; but some would. Where is the line? Eh? You draw it at manhunt; they draw it at barbies fashion designer. Who is right? Would you pls hold your breath ? I did not say that I want total censorship. I neither used the word itself. So pls hold it. How many times must I show you using the word forbidden until you admit it? How can you sit there and claim you didn't? You did. Forbidden = banned. There is no such thing as only banning 'some' violent games. That is the point. You cannot do it. Can you accept and admit this. (Saying 'I was wrong, I don't want any games forbidden' would do) That has absolutely nothing to do with it. Parents are responsible for their children until they reach legal age. End of line. Ratings system have not much effect this days, parents buy the games and teenagers already know where to download illegal copies of movies and games. EDIT: There is many PC mags. where it is 18 rated demos on, where is the rateing on that? As has been said many, many times in this thread, the rating system is not a law; it is to help parents mainly in knowing which games are suitable for their children and which are not. How do you know the demos are 18 rated if they don't have ratings on?? That makes no sense. Heres a hint: Look on the cover of the mag or the box, there WILL be a rating on it. You can stop listening to their whining and their bullshit law suits; you can pass laws making responsibilty matter; it is NOT the companies fault that their stupid selves hurt themselves by using the product wrongly. (eg McDonalds Coffe bullshit)

That's not answering the censorship questions. And you're wrong. Its the parents responsibility to know what their kids are doing. They don't have to be there 24 hours a day, they just have to take a slight interest in their kids and know what they like doing. Game developers, TV, etc are NOT responsible for raising the children of fuckwit lazy parents.

Exactly. So why do you want it realistic but want to be able to fly around in a magical camera?

Why do you complain about what most people would say are minor, cosmetic things, purportedly in the name of realism, but play games through a magical flying camera?

The ..... 3rd (I think) terminator game (Rise of the machines?) was actually pretty good - it was one of the first games to have drivable vehicles and aircraft in it - way ahead of its time. This looks like it could be good, to be honest - but it won't be, because its been over simplified.

You play games in third person but complain about this?