Star lancer?

Quarto said:
Political correctness is a bunch of different things. One minute, they'll be telling you that it's wrong to generalise about all members of a given nation sharing some behavioural attribute... and then the next, they'll be telling you that you can't blame a criminal for his actions because it's society that forced him do it.

I agree, of course. That’s the problem with PC and relativism, it says contradictory things, because, of course, logic and coherence are politically incorrect. Besides, one of the most annoying PC traces is the moral relativism already displayed on this thread.

Manic said:
Evil is a relative term.

Only if you are a moral relativist. But it so happen that moral relativism is a) nonsense and b) evil. But that doesn't make you evil.

The very concept of someone calling something "evil" pisses me off.

Moral relativism pisses me off.

Bandit LOAF said:
Sounds like somebody didn't see 'On the Beach'.

And I didn't. I looked it up on the IMDB. It seems the result of nuclear warfare is usually overestimated. That is a good thing, of course. It would be horrible, but if the North is destroyed, some regions on the South should remain relatively sheltered. Besides, in that case Australia would become a savage land of road warfare.
 
Halman said:
-The US extermination of native peoples.

American indians have managed the best PR campaign ever.

It's amazing how people don't learn that they started it. American aggression towards the 'native' peoples was a response to the fact that those natives enjoyed massacring white settlers.

There might be some debate about this but from what I've learned the white settlers who came to America were the first to "start it". They were involved in plenty of massacres of there own, often against Indians who had done them no wrong and had even helped them. I'm not sure how far back you are going but at any particular point in history you could pick out who seems to be the aggressor, and there is certainly plenty of cause to say that initially it was the colonists.
 
Sorry, thats liberal forgive-us-for-being-white-and-more-advanced bullshit.

Colonists didn't just grab their pikes and put on their platemail and decide to go killing indians one day, they did it because indians were attacking their settlements.

There is a trend amongst white liberal intellectual to make ourselves into the bad guys in every aspect of american history. The indians-as-noble-savages thing completely ignores the reality of the situation. 'Native' americans, both north and south as it were, were among the most brutal peoples *ever*. They're like assyrians, except without the knowledge to work metal.
 
Halman said:
Sorry, thats liberal forgive-us-for-being-white-and-more-advanced bullshit.

Colonists didn't just grab their pikes and put on their platemail and decide to go killing indians one day, they did it because indians were attacking their settlements.

At the same time, I'd argue that the Indians also "didn't just grab their [bows] and put on their [warpaint] and decide to go killing." The colonists did on many occasions use force against the Indians when they needed food or wanted land. They clearly regared the Indians as inferior and one thing we can certainly see quite plainly from history is that inferior people were subject to discrimination, inequality and violence from, in this case, Europeans/Americans, so the posibility should not be shocking. There were raids on both sides, and different levels of cooperation between various groups, but don't think that the colonists never went out and massacred Indians for perceived or non-existent offenses; men, women and children. Such occurences are documented.

Halman said:
There is a trend amongst white liberal intellectual to make ourselves into the bad guys in every aspect of american history. The indians-as-noble-savages thing completely ignores the reality of the situation. 'Native' americans, both north and south as it were, were among the most brutal peoples *ever*. They're like assyrians, except without the knowledge to work metal.

I don't really understand the reference. In what ways were the Indians "among the most brutal peoples *ever*. " I am specificaly contrasting your emphasis on "ever" to the brutality that the settlers were also known to be capable of.
 
Halman said:
... Colonists didn't just grab their pikes and put on their platemail and decide to go killing indians one day, they did it because indians were attacking their settlements.
...
If the colonists had only killed indians in self defense, there would be a lot more of them today. Don't kid yourself. By today's standard, a genocide was carried out in the 19th century.
However, it was a different world back then & nobody alive today should be blamed for what their ancestors did.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
I don't know where he was born (though I know Chris was born in the US).

According to IMDB Chris was born in Redwood City, California on 27th May 1968 and Erin was born in Manchester, England on 3rd March 1970
 
You're kidding me, right?
The guy in south america with iberian ancestry is saying boo about how we conducted ourselves in north america?
 
I dunno- hitting the original topic of the thread- it wasn't shooting down torps that bugged me (gameplaywise) so much in Starlancer as in the vast majority of missions had at least one segment dedicated to escorting something with the armor, speed, and armament of a lawn tractor (off the top of my head, the Rippers and those satellite dropping transport deals)- That and I hated how if you had to replay a mission (which happend a fair bit with the amount of escort missions), there was no way to fast forward or skip the in-game cutscenes.

Freelancer plain pissed me off. The actual story missions were fun, but the in-between pick-up missions you did to build up your credit level to the requisite amount to move forward in the story sucked. Hard. You can only take so many "Fly out to waypoint and slaughter pirates / pirate bases" before it gets crazy boring. I suppose I could have tried shipping stuff more, but it seemed like the only way to make a decent profit from shipping was to fly halfway around the galaxy, which takes far more time and effort then just killing pirates for bounties.
 
"Sorry, thats liberal forgive-us-for-being-white-and-more-advanced bullshit."
And that's some Rush Limbaugh grade-A bullshit.

Halman, first off... I don't consider myself a Liberal in any way, shape, or form. If anything, I'm a Libetarian. I take the constitution at it's word, not at the BS interpretations of it by either side. I don't apoligise for anything my ancestors did (Which, according to the limited family history I have learned... wasn't much.). Simply put, I prefer to take a look at all sides of a story, instead of just screaming "EVIL!"
Sure, from the indian's perspective, we were evil conquerers. From the average white guy's view at the time, indians were evil, unchristian, savage little creatures, that would rape, murder, scalp (a French concept, by the way)... you get the idea.

" -The US extermination of native peoples.
American indians have managed the best PR campaign ever."
For being so few of them left, yeah, they had great PR.

"It's amazing how people don't learn that they started it. American aggression towards the 'native' peoples was a response to the fact that those natives enjoyed massacring white settlers."
Funny, I always thought the French and English put them up to it...

Also, moral relatvism is bullshit. If I directly cause the deaths of millions of people, it's evil no matter how right I believe I am.
(Unless it's self-defense of some kind, I guess.)
I guess, by that way of thinking, every US president up to Lincon was evil. No, wait, he was a racist, I forgot about that... chalk him up to the "Evil" category...
(Yes, he was racist. He tried to propose a "Back to Africa" concept regarding blacks. Doesn't bother me a bit, but it's funny how people idolize severely flawed people.)

Since you haven't really even touched on any subject except that you think I'm liberal, and that native americans are savages(I thought concept went out in the late 20th century)... let's touch on a few more.
The Catholic church keeps mummified remains in it's churches, corpses who are worshiped as idols, have invaded other countries for the sake of said religion, leading to the death of many, even backed the Jewish holocaust... (to an extent)
The US Government put some of the most "evil" men in power, including:
Osama
Saddam
Manuel Noriega
...all for the sake of democracy. these three are considered "evil" by most written histories. I guess that qualifies the US government as evil?
(no, I'm not an apoligist, nor am I a liberal. That doesn't mean that I'm going to shirk away from the fucking truth. These things did, and still do, happen.)

Another good modern example... Israel vs. Palestine. Jews throw rocks at Palestinian schoolchildren, Palestinians retaliate with a carbomb, Jews respond with 500lb. bomb in apartment complex... ok, I guess both sides can be considered "evil" in that case. Or just incredibly stupid.
I could go on for days, but I really don't feel up to it, tonight.
 
Manic said:
The Catholic church keeps mummified remains in it's churches, corpses who are worshiped as idols, have invaded other countries for the sake of said religion, leading to the death of many, even backed the Jewish holocaust... (to an extent)

You are not a liberal, or a libertarian, but right know you’re just some gay who posts trash on internet forums. You have no idea of what you are talking about and anyone with rudimentary notions of history demolish the rubbish of your trollish, stupid, post.

You twist events in a stupid way to try some point. That's like saying the French worship Napoleon because they keep his body on a monument. Every single act of warfare in human history has been done for the sake of something, so that phrase doesn't mean anything. It's like saying "Democracy" made Americans invade Germany and kill people. To simplify a complex historical event such as the Crusades - if that was what you were going after - that took centuries while ignoring the circumstances surround is reductionism. The Catholic Church never, ever backed the Holocaust, the big accusation of was of "silence", which can easily be proven false by the vast amount of evidence otherwise. If actions speaks louder than words, the fact that the Pope personally saved over 700.000 jews and many more were helped or saved by the Church in a whole makes the accusation a complete fabrication. The examination of primary sources demonstrates that. Albert Einstein said "only the Catholic Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing the truth." Impressed with the Church efforts in helping jews, the Chief Rabbi of Rome convert. But, no, let's not trust someone who was at that time and place and witness the events, let's trust what some fringe revisionist fabricated decades after.

What you try to pass as facts are simply warped prejudices and poorly assembled slander about events you clearly know nothing about.
 
Manic said:
Or just incredibly stupid.
Well, certainly somebody here is.

Your argument is downright pathetic. Essentially, you're saying something along these lines:

"Oh, so you don't think we slaughtered the Indians? Well, what about the Catholic Church and the Holocaust? Eh? Eh? And how about what Israel is doing, huh?"

How absolutely, horribly sad! You can't prove your point, so you needlessly widen the topic in the hope that someone will get offended enough to jump in and attack you, allowing you to bow out of the thread with your honour intact, yelling "help, help, I'm being oppressed". You can't win by presenting a coherent argument, so you instead try to weasel out by driving the thread into a flamewar. Sad, sad, sad. And the fact that all your arguments are merely standard internet idiot conspiracy theories makes this even sadder.

Worst of all, though, is the fact that some of these idiot-theories are in fact loosely inspired by the truth - for example, if I wasn't too lazy, I certainly could present a solid argument to counter what Halman said about the colonists and Indians (and especially about his implication that the Spanish were somehow worse than the Anglo-Saxon colonists in the north). But, apart from being too lazy, I'm put off by people like you. Having people like you on my side is the worst possible thing that can happen in a debate - all I'd achieve is to make myself look like an idiot by virtue of the fact that you agree with me. You've managed to make the truth look like a stupid internet conspiracy theory - nice going, buddy.

Halman, Delance, don't bother responding to this guy. All you'll be doing is wasting your time.
 
You're right about the holocaust thing, I forgot about reading that months ago...
Anyway. The point I am trying to make is that people can see things as evil, which in other countries (or cultures) are seen as good. Case in point, the Crusades. Yes, I oversimplified, but I figured you'd get the concept. Apparently you'd rather nitpick than see that a major war(or set of wars, rather) were sparked off, because the Pope... heck, I never really paid that much attention. I forget the exact reasons... but I'm pretty sure slaughtering people for the sake of a religion that clearly states "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty much considered "evil," by most standards.

Oh, and " just some gay"... was that what you intended to say? If so, piss off. Whether you intended it as "you are gay, Manic," or as "That's gay omg" internet-babble, it's still a quite crappy comment, and, as far as I know(and I would), untrue.

As for "poorly assembled slander" why, thank you. You find one thing wrong out of a few examples, and decide to print a tirade on the matter.

"That's like saying the french worship napoleon..."
No, it's not. People pray to said saints SPECIFICALLY. They write to them as if they would cure them of some sort of disease. I watched a 1-hour documentary on it last week.(yeah, history channel isn't known for the most precise information, but when you interview a priest stating these things, you tend to believe it.)

Oh, and "Democracy" did not cause the US to go to germany and kill people. The US went to Germany to kill people... suprise... because it was the "good" thing to do. I'm fairly sure the average German soldier didn't think GI Joe was a good guy. Turns out it fits into my own belief system of "right and wrong things to do to get along with the world in general", so yeah. I broke one of those fundimental rules, and now I have to deal with it... I opened my mouth on the internet.

"for the sake of democracy"... allow me to elaborate on that, for a moment. The US, post WWII, was in a cold war with the USSR. I'm sure you're familiar with it. They backed certain people for dictatorships, and whatnot, to counter the spread of communism. This would be called "Noble," and "Good," by some, while the residents of said countries wound up not liking us very much for it, eventually.

Anyway, it's all pointless BS. There's no point in arguing on it further, as those who do see my point, and agree(probably none, but I'm used to that), aren't going to respond, and those who don't, aren't bringing anything to the table to disprove my point. They'd rather call me gay or, worse, liberal. :p I'm opting out of the discussion, count yourselves victors if you want... it's irrelevant, in the grand scheme of things.

NOW, BACK ON SUBJECT:
Starlancer- I enjoyed the game, to an extent, though I found the Torpedo hunts tedious at times... I did like how they didn't involve alien races, at all, it was a rare treat in the universe of sci-fi shooters. I liked the game's concept of high-speed travel, it didn't involve wormholes, gravity anomalies, or any such thing... it felt closer to home. Somehow, it was more believable. I liked the immersion of the out-of-combat interface. I found it was a good balance of immersion and ease-of-use. however...

Freelancer- I enjoyed for a week. That was it. Once you beat the single-player campaign, there wasn't much point in continuing. The multiplayer was semi-enjoyable, if it weren't for the control scheme's limiting a player's control of his craft(I found myself yearning for a simple barrel roll or Shelton slide on more than one occasion). By simplyfing the control scheme, they took away more than they added.
The storyline, and voice acting was horrible, I found myself using the time taken by it to use the bathroom, smoke a ciggarette, etc.
overall grading of freelancer...
The graphics(4/5) ok, those were well done. The sprites could have used some work, but that's ok. The only reason I don't give this a 5 is the sprites, and a few minor graphical glitches here and there.
Sound (3/5) abysmal voice acting, a dire lack of variance in conversations, and sound effects that didn't feel quite right were one of the plagues of this game.
Control (3/5) another middle-of-the-road grade... while the control scheme made it incredibly easy to get into, it also detracted from the possibilites. I missed my joystick severely on this one.
Gameplay (4/5) I had fun on this one, for a while. the replay value is nil, however.
 
Manic said:
Oh, and " just some gay"... was that what you intended to say? If so, piss off. Whether you intended it as "you are gay, Manic," or as "That's gay omg" internet-babble, it's still a quite crappy comment, and, as far as I know(and I would), untrue.
I didn't even notice Delance had said "gay" - I unconsciously read it as "guy", probably because the context of the sentence implies that's what it was meant to be. I suggest you don't read too much into spelling mistakes.
 
I guess, by that way of thinking, every US president up to Lincon was evil. No, wait, he was a racist, I forgot about that... chalk him up to the "Evil" category...
(Yes, he was racist. He tried to propose a "Back to Africa" concept regarding blacks. Doesn't bother me a bit, but it's funny how people idolize severely flawed people.)

This is a dangerous claim to make, because it's largely generic internet stupidity with a small grain of truth to it.

We don't know how "racist" Lincoln was because you simply couldn't be a succesful politician and an abolitionist: you would not be elected by a northern public that believed ending slavery would mean northern cities would be flooded by free blacks willing to work for slave wages (no pun intended).

So, yes, in debating Kansas-Nebraska Lincoln says he opposes it because he wants the west free for whites. There's nothing else he could say, though: if he truly opposed slavery (and who knows?) and said so in public, he would never have been president. And there the proof is in the pudding -- once he has the option to constitutionally free the slaves, he does so... regardless, even, of an impending mid-term election. It's hard to argue that Lincoln was a racist under those circumstances.

Colonization was something northern leaders in favor of abolition could claim to support without fearing public backlash... it seems, though, that everyone generally accepted that it was never a realistic possibility -- it was something they could tell the public.

What you probably know about Lincoln's support for colonization doesn't even relate to this, though -- it's one of several things he polays up *after* he makes up his mind to issue the proclamation... it's part of a very clear campaign to establish to the voting public that he is freeing the slaves out of necessity rather than out of opportunity.

Looking at the events in order, it's clear there's something else going on. He comes back from Harrison's Landing, tells Seward he's going to emancipate the slaves because it's 'right'... and then he publically asks Congress for impossibly small amounts of money for colonization and to literally buy slavery away from the border states (both of which are simply impossible)... he invites free black leaders from Washington DC and insults them in front of reporters.

What he is doing is simply trying to keep his coalition together -- he fears that if the conflict becomes a war for slaverly the army will lay down its rifles... or, even that the McClellan (a Democrat) will march into Washington and stage a coup. This seems crazy to think about today... but there's lots of evidence that it was one of Lincoln's biggest fears. In freeing the slaves but assuring the voters that he is still a racist, Lincoln engages in that seeming compromise that he's famous for... and still gets exactly what he wants.

Funny, I always thought the French and English put them up to it...

There are certainly instances of this (the other way around, too)... but they certainly do not represent the totality of cause behind the Indian Wars.
 
Back
Top