Marecki on 4/1/2003 at 15:00
By default the sniper rifle is loud as hell, much louder than this class of rifles usually is in real life (as far as I can tell about their design). I suppose the silencer is just a way of preventing the player from obtaining an extremely powerful weapon right at the beginning of the game - even if you dont' ask Paul for one there still remains the one carried by one of the terrorists.
santaClaws on 4/1/2003 at 18:02
Quote:
Originally posted by Marecki I suppose the silencer is just a way of preventing the player from obtaining an extremely powerful weapon (..)But the silences sniper rifle
is an extremely powerful weapon. It's not less accurate then the ordinary one. I still don't think it's too powerful, because I used it quite often, but didn't think the game became too easy this way. All I think is that it's very unrealistic.
Yeah, yeah, the whole setting is unrealistic. What the hell.
Marecki on 4/1/2003 at 21:57
Quote:
Originally posted by santaClaws But the silences sniper rifle is an extremely powerful weapon. Okay, so you've got it out in the open: ISA only did that because they didn't want the silencer to be a one-weapon (AR) upgrade :p
santaClaws on 4/1/2003 at 22:06
So where's my silenced info.link? Heh. That would've been cool.
Fixxxer on 7/1/2003 at 22:51
If you kill JoJo, he can't hurt anyone anymore. Perhaps that is the moral option. Knocking him out is worse than killing him because when he wakes up he'll just take it out on the Rentons. Killing isn't always wrong. If you kill someone in self defense or to protect someone else, it's not wrong. The wrong thing to do would let the person kill you or kill the other person, then continue living, possibly killing others along the way. Also, I don't see why anyone would refrain from shooting CAMERAS or bots. Hell, I even shoot the animals, godforsaken genetically engineered frankenstein things-that-should-not-be that they are. But even if you want to spare the gresels, why not destroy cameras and bots?
Dragonclaw on 8/1/2003 at 16:00
Quote:
Originally posted by Fixxxer If you kill someone in self defense or to protect someone else, it's not wrong. Careful!
While this may be true for a couple of cases, it is certainly not always so.
For a quick example, I'll refer to 'End of Days'.
Was it right for Arnie to protect the girl from the 'good' killers, even if it meant risking the whole world? I'm not too sure of that.
While this is a rather unprobable example, you'll get the idea behind it. One of the many problems (which is the one I described before), is where the "It's ok to kill to protect someone" fits on both sides.
But that's only a side note, let's not get into deep ethical and philosophical discussions...
santaClaws on 8/1/2003 at 16:35
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw But that's only a side note, let's not get into deep ethical and philosophical discussions... Hell, what's Arnie got to do with ethical discussions anyway .. IMO one can't talk about things like that taking films and fiction in general as examples.
For my part, when signing up for civil service instead of military service, I had to sign a statement, that I would not, for the next thirty years, buy, use oder sell a weapon, whatever the circumstances may be. And I'm hella glad I had the opportunity to.
Fixxxer on 8/1/2003 at 21:57
Are you some sort of hoplophobe? Weapons protect (and feed) people. More crimes are prevented by firearmed (that's not a word...) citizens each year than are perpetrated. The statistics are 2 million defensive gun uses vs. 440,000 crimes committed by firearmed (hell it's a word now dammit) criminals. Why would you not want to own a weapon? I own several guns, and I don't kill anything but game animals. I don't murder people or make the world a worse or more dangerous place. Why do you suppose you would if you owned a weapon?
EDIT: I see you live in Austria, so I'll just add that the statistics are for the US. Still, the point is valid.
Marecki on 8/1/2003 at 23:57
Ahem. Would you mind getting the **** <small>(self-censorship - okay, I might be cheesed off for many RL reasons right now but that doesn't excuse swear words)</small> out of this thread with the gun discussion, Fixxxer? If you want to argue about ethics, go to CommChat.
Here in DXGen we happen to talk about Deus Ex. That includes different playing styles and approaches: whether obeying certain rules and restrictions is possible, how it is possible or why it is not etc. The fact that I decided not to destroy the machines because I've got strong respect for other people's work and its results (not to mention that if we disable them we can use them ourselves later) doesn't have anything to do with the TSNK style itself, therefore I didn't mention it then. The JoJo issue popped up only as an example of how DX makes it possible for players to follow their beliefs ingame, so is connected with approaches as well. Your posts aren't.
In case you want/need a short version of the above: wrong forum. <small>I doubt they'll like you in CommChat though, people lacking tolerance are frowned upon there and those more-or-less insulting the others for their beliefs tend to get classified as silicate life forms (ie. trolls)</small>
Fixxxer on 9/1/2003 at 00:14
Excuse me, but will you please point out where in my posts I was being intolerant? First of all, I didn't bring up the morality disscussion, I simply replied to what santaclaws wrote. Second, I didn't bring up anything about guns until santaclaws made the comment about not wanting anything to do with weapons. So please, explain why you would brand me a troll and accuse me of being intolerant, because I'm not sure what I said that so offended you.
