Dongs is a tyrant
 

Dongs apparently thinks the Goldeneye 007 article is his own precious infant that only he can edit and whatever he puts on it is right and correct.

Everytime i try to update the page, he refloods it with his nonsense.

Check the page history to see what I'm talking about.

Worst of all is that i took the time to reorganize the page so that the firearms are presented in the order in which they appear when scrolling through them in the pause screen. Why did he feel it necessary to change it back to the original nonsensical order?

He may be tweaking other VG articles I've edited, GTA: VC, GTA: SA, GTA 3, and 007: TWINE

Update: Dongs keeps undoing my change to Vice City. He idiotically insists the stubby shotgun is a Stakeout, regardless of any evidence I present to the contrary.

See the history for details.

Orca1 9904 not only reverted all your edits to that article because they were vandalism, he also protected the page. You should probably therefore assume that those edits are not regarded as welcome rather than registering so you can make them again. As regards the other article, Gunman69 doesn't agree with you either; there's no such thing as a Serbu Super Shorty with an Ithaca 37 reciever and bolt.

This whole conversation is symptomatic of a larger problem on this site. That problem being a lack of consensus on how to identify poorly or improperly rendered firearms in video games.

One example that immediately comes to mind is GTA 3. The M16 was, for a while, identified as "M16A1 w/ A2 handguards". In movies, A1's are given A2 handguards because A2's are needed but A1's are all that are available. The American movie going public for the most part doesn't notice, and the illusion is succesful.

In a video game, there is no need to jury rig one weapon into another or use rubber props. If you want something, you write the code for it and it's there, and you try to the best of your ability to make it look and function how you like. The developers have an intent to create something, and then they have the final product, which, due to time and technological constraints, might not be exactly as envisioned.

the M16 in GTA3 was "intended" to be the M16A2. But because of how it was rendered, somebody here felt that the barrel wasnt thick enough to qualify it as an A2. So they called it an "A1 w/ A2 grips". Not what the developers were intending it to be, but what it ended up most closely resembling visually.

Another example; the RCP90 from Goldeneye. Not a real gun. Doesn't look like a real gun either. It shares the same basic shape as the FN P90, but the colors and proportions are all completely wrong. Still we call it a P90 because what else could it be? It's based on the P90, but is it really a P90?

This is why I avoid all but the most legitimate gun video games where I can definately identify weapons as they are meant to appear. These arguments are dumb, and frankly, so are a lot of these video games. I haven't played Golden Eye since I was like 6. It's an ancient game most people don't religiously play anymore since the advent of much more advanced games with much better renditions of firearms.

And GTA 3? The game has suck-ass graphics, even for the PS2, so calling it an M16A2 would likely be right. But does it fire full-auto? If that's the case then it is an M16A3.

Yeah that Dongs guys is annoying.
look at this stupid argument I had with him.

(Scroll down to "Dragon is indeed a G36K")
http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/User_talk:AdAstra2009

What are you talking about? Which page are you debating on a G36K?

It was the Perfect Dark page, which has since been deleted. Mostly because of Dongs and his nonsense.

Dongs was claiming the dragon (top) is the G36K.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...en-compare.jpg

It looks like a toddler's drawing of a G36K. I don't see the stock at all, the carrying handle is completely wrong and even the barrel looks bent. How can someone thinks this is a G36K. It's stupid.