Jump to content

Crymson

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,745

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Crymson

  1. Haflinger

    Posted · Edited by Crymson

    @Maelstrom Vortex

     

    You're in luck: I'm checking these forums for the first time in four years, and I saw your notification. 

     

    Per your claims on Karma: having had my finger very much on the pulse of Cybernations at that stage, I can tell you that you're incorrect; Vektor and Triyun certainly weren't the catalysts for it. If anything, they were--after the retirements of Dilber and Philosopher--the only competent foreign affairs persons remaining in the ranks of NPO's government at that time.

     

    Karma was caused by the rampaging incompetence and power-tripping of such fools as Moo-Cows, Zha'Dum, and so on. Under Moo's leadership--particularly in the absence of Dilber and Philo--NPO progressively made enemies of a larger and larger proportion of the treaty web while increasingly alienating friends and allies, all the while operating under the bizarre belief that the latter would mindlessly fall into line to protect NPO when the butcher's bill ultimately came due. Needless to say, they ended up unpleasantly surprised on that count. I've seen the logs of NPO's IO channel on the night the Karma War erupted, when it became suddenly apparent to all those present that they did not have the strength to win the conflict they'd started. Their genuine astonishment at the situation was absolutely hilarious to behold; the vast majority had a sublime lack of understanding as to how their own choices had led directly and inexorably to that ultimate consequence. The hubris was truly amazing. 

     

    It was Moo and company who had critically undermined the cohesion of Continuum in the latter half of 2008, who lost friends and made enemies of the majority of that bloc's members, who had carelessly bullied and power-played their way into the elusive scenario of those stagnant days: one in which a number alliances were, at last, willing to band together against NPO in sufficient numbers to make a fair fight of things. For TOP's part, Vektor and Triyun were the only ones who paid us any attention or our opinions any heed, Triyun throughout the early stages of that year and Vektor on the days leading up to the war and indeed up to the very moment it was begun.  It was the rest of NPO's leadership that blithely neglected a critical relationship with TOP, arrogantly content up until the very night the war began to assume we'd simply fall into lockstep, no matter that it was the umpteenth time during our treaty relationship that they'd callously trampled on our agenda without any consideration. 

     

    That was an enormous mistake. TOP was, punch for punch, quite possibly the most militarily powerful alliance in the game at the outset of Karma, and we had a great deal of political pull to boot. NPO absolutely needed our support if it was to begin that war on even an equal footing with the opposition, and Moo's very act of starting that war was--after nine months spent entirely unconcerned with our opinions about anything--to give us a giant middle finger that we were entirely unwilling to forgive. We'd beseeched him to avoid pursuing an entirely petty issue into a war that would leave us in an incredibly awkward position, and indeed I was mediating talks with an aim toward resolving the issue---talks that ended when Moo abruptly decided he'd had enough and immediately declared war. I know for a fact that Triyun and Vektor were against this and tried to stop it, but Moo and his gang of cronies were not having any of that. That event about sums up the NPO mindset that brought about Karma. 

     

    If Vektor and Triyun told you that you didn't have what it took, my admittedly limited experience with you would lead me to agree. And if you did indeed end up becoming "a force," as you say, you did so in the twilight years of a moribund game. My recollection of your behavior is comprised largely of your megalomaniacal, hysterical rants made years ago. You'd have been a perfect fit in NPO's hierarchy during its glory years. It was the many people of your temperament in NPO's government who helped topple NPO's from its position of glory, and indeed the very types who led me to quit that alliance and migrate to TOP in the first place. The irony of that has always amused me, as I played probably the greatest role in building TOP from a largely passive observer into an active, powerful political force whose support NPO ultimately took for granted and whose independence they underestimated; and I was there, on the night the Karma War began, when we terminally lost patience with NPO and told them to take a hike. 

     

    That said, this all took place years ago and in the context of a game. I have no particular hard feelings toward you or anyone else, save those few who were legitimately bad human beings. I'm not sure what "dismantling" you're referring to, nor the recovery race you've referenced. I recently reactivated my nation at the behest of others, after years in the inactivity pile. 

     

    In any event, I've enjoyed this trip down memory lane. For three or four years, this was an engaging game with a stellar community. It's a shame that didn't last. 

     

     

  3. Louis XVI

    Posted

    Nobody gives a $%&@ about TDO, people just want to get in their free shots against MK.

    Agreed.

    I'd tend to agree with HoT here. Defending TDO isn't really the goal here. It's taking shots at a bunch of fools who are as shameless now that their alliance is disbanded as they were shameless when they were on top.

    Say what you will about MK, but they were many times more successful in this game than your alliance is likely to ever be.

  8. Captain Marin

    Posted

    Your post is so chock-full of arrogant stupidity that I won't even bother responding to it. Your explanation of Padme's death was the only part that I found entertaining. Apparently being choked for 15 seconds means death. That's funny. Anyway, the movie itself and literally every canonical Star Wars source out there disagrees with you, but since it's obvious that you're an egotist, it doesn't surprise me that you continue to argue the point anyway.

    Reviews are for idiots that cannot make up their minds about a certain objective. Earn your own beliefs and stop depending on ignorant, no-life, journalist-rejected assfaults for ya.

    In other words, you're unwilling to watch these highly-touted masterpieces because they disagree with your views. Got it.

  13. Captain Marin

    Posted

    A) Darth Vader has accordingly followed his master's orders throughout the Original Trilogy. He was basically the Emperor's Pawn because it was the Emperor who accepted him when the Jedi Council denied so. The Emperor was the one who embraced the actual talent and potential Anakin Skywalker has as a warrior and as a person. Sidious was basically the only person who has expressed concern towards Anakin whereas Obi-Wan acted as a no-BS strict parent that has grown ignorant towards any input by his own apprentice and cared for the Jedi Code and the Jedi Council rather than Anakin himself (in Ankin's point of view). The Jedi Code did not allow any type of emotion into a Jedi, being a human, while Anakin and Padme were both in love with each other. Who would you rather pick, the love of your life and the mother of your child(ren) or living your dreams as a Jedi Master of the Council. Anakin did not feel comfortable. Anakin was an outcast of the Jedi and wanted something more than what he has received, so he has turned to the one side that accepted him for being himself - the Dark Side.

    Anakin was fooled into becoming evil. Palpatine manipulated him (in unbelievable manner) to believe that Padme would die in childbirth otherwise, with Palpatine himself being the only one who could keep it from happening. The cost of Palpatine supposedly saving Padme was that Anakin turn to the dark side. Palpatine's single bit of leverage was the visions that he introduced to Anakin's dreams. Anakin was an unbelievably stupid character who fell for a ruse concocted by a guy whose kind was legendary for its lies and deceit.

    The story depended on Anakin being a moron.

    B) Padme did not die because of Darth Vader being conceived, she died at child birth (just right after Darth Vader force-choked her to a faint), which was the one vision and nightmare that clouded Anakin's mind with paranoia since his own mother's demise signaled the same type of nightmares and visions Anakin has had towards Padme. He was desperate and he wanted his wife to live longer and not die because Anakin "cannot live without her". That has accomplished to convince the public how much Anakin cares for Padme and loves for her.

    Padme died of a broken heart. The medical droid outright said that there was nothing medically life-threatening, and that she was dying because she had lost the will to live. This is an indisputable point, so don't bother arguing about it.

    C) I awe in irony when you say that you have sunk in emotion while watching the Original Trilogy. Emotion was the single characteristic the Original Trilogy failed to deliver. "My oh my, my uncle and aunt, that has raised me ever since I was a baby, has died. Let me mourn for a couple of minutes and join an old man who I think is a crazy elder. " "Oh, my father has died in my arms while saving my ass from an evil emperor, let me ditch this old fart, save myself and celebrate victory with my friends instead of attempting to save my old man from being burnt and honor his death." Do I even need to talk about Jabba's oh-so merciless "gang", the *sobs* tragic death of Bobba Fett, and the final battle victory of the rebellion? Hell, the clone troopers' strength were equivalent towards of that of Harry Lime and Marv Merchants from Home Alone! Darth Sidious's hunger for power was indeed ludicrous, but rational enough to understand the greed of the Sith and politicians whereas Sidious's plan to create a Death Star (a machine that only destroys one planet and takes up way too many resources to support) was moronic instead of genuine. Sidious's strategy to create an empire was brilliant and do not see how it can be outdone.

    This is the typical refrain from people who were born closer to the prequels than to the original series, and who grew up exposed to the flashy battles and special effects that the prequels provided. Kids tend to favor war and flashy things to actual storytelling. I'm not saying that this is you, but this is the general reasoning behind the words of those who simply cannot appreciate a good story---nor, for that matter, any story that is not filled with CGI.

    D) For one, I have not enjoyed the effects of the Original Trilogy. The plot was epic and the acting was amazing but the issue I had with Episodes IV-VI were the effects and I understand that those effects back then were hailed and highly praised, but in an age where you can bring the world of Coruscant to life and modernize the battles between Clones and Droids, between Jedi Masters and Sith Lords, it would only be deemed logical for Lucas to seize the moment and use the CG as an advantage. I concur that there was an over-excess during Attack of the Clones but it was better moderated in Episode III. Many believe that one of the flaws of Revenge was that it had too many action sequences and I reply with, why wouldn't it be. In a world with lightsabers, lasers, blasters, spaceships, robots, and a recent discovery of a Clone Army, it would be rational that the Republic would take advantage of such sources to use them for their own good. Not to mention that Palpatine's excess of executive, military powers shows how war-hungry and corrupt Palpatine was as the Chancellor. Not to mention the epic lightsaber duels the Prequels perfected.

    The effects were revolutionary for their time. More, they were used properly: as a supplement to the story. In an interview from way back when, Lucas openly said that special effects could not make a movie. He apparently forgot this in the interim.

    The power of the original trilogy is that unlike the horrid story in the prequels, it told a yarn more than sufficiently interesting to keep people emotionally involved. The characters were excellent, and audiences became invested in them. The special effects are more than good enough, even today.

    Put down the damn lightsaber toys from 1977 and for once, break out of that ignorant "Old School will always be better than New School" phase. Episode III might've not remain the same elements of the Original Trilogy, but it created its own. While Phantom contained some cheesy lines and effects as Attack provided boring scenes, Revenge grips the objective and core plot of the movie and ignites it with a flame. George Lucas has demonstrated the tragedy of Anakin Skywalker's fall and Darth Vader's rise. The legendary "So this is how democracy dies, with a thunderous applauds" line and Sidious's rise of power and the birth of Darth Vader demonstrates that such event should not be sugarcoated influenced by the Original Trilogy that it had to take a different, darker direction to make the rise of an empire and the birth of Lord Vader a tragedy. Episode III has not failed to connect the Prequels towards the Originals and the Originals towards the Prequels. You are entitled to your opinion, but for me , Revenge is the epitome of a Star Wars movie.

    Oh, so you've finally resorted to the typical method of those who believe the prequel trilogy to be superior: accusing me of being hidebound. Quit the ad hominems, please; I could just as easily accuse you of being a foolish youngster incapable of recognizing a good story and instead merely interested in special effects. The prequel trilogy had an atrocious story rife with awful, unbelievable characters, and was little more than a platform upon which Lucas could utilize his new CGI technology. That is why I disliked it, so spare me the crap. Episode I was an abomination, Episode II only slightly less so, and Episode III is considered the best of the trilogy purely by stint of it being the least flawed.

    As for the idea that Revenge of the Sith is "darker," that was not the point of the trilogy from the beginning. Lucas felt compelled to take that direction after the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the first film and the lukewarm reception received by the second. And if you think that Empire isn't dark, then I don't know what to tell you.

    I find it funny that you cite the final Senate scene as a powerful moment, given that it's a microcosm of how plainly imbecilic almost every single character in the series is (this was necessary in order for the plot to proceed). Plinkett, who created extremely intelligent and thoughtful (not to mention hilarious) for all three movies, sums up that scene very well:

    He tells the Senate that the Jedi---an organization of monks that have been the guardians of peace and justice in the Republic for a thousand generations---have suddenly decided to take over the world. Oh, and I just so happen to look and sound like a monster that wants to take over the world. Don’t mind my creepy black cloak, my horribly evil-sounding voice or terrifying face. Also, don’t mind that I’m yelling about creating a galactic empire run exclusively by me. No, no, you see, it’s the Jedi that are the ones who tried to take over. And that warranted them all being executed by the army that I control by myself without any sort of trial in the courts to prove that I what I’m saying is true. Yep! We just killed them all! Including the children! And then we burned down their temple. And you’re all just going to have to take my word for it. Trust me! Look at my face! Would this face lie to you? You see, I’ve successfully eliminated the only opposition I would have had to forming my own galactic empire. Please continue with the applause, and remember to vote Palpatine in the next election that will never happen... because I said so.

    Yes, the prequel trilogy created its own mold. That was George Lucas taking full control of every single aspect of the series' direction, with absolutely no oversight. He even wrote the entire script for each movie by himself, and was the single mind behind hideous characters such as Jar Jar Binks. Gary Kurtz once said that Lucas tends to get rid of people who disagree with him, and this absolutely shows in the prequel series. Suffice it to say that I'm very glad Lucas will not have creative control over the next trilogy.

    I'll leave you with the suggestion that you watch Plinkett's reviews of the prequels. They have rightly become quite famous and will be very eye-opening for you. http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/

  14. Captain Marin

    Posted

    Episode III is terrible, just like the other two films in the prequel trilogy; and if it did inspire emotion in me, then that emotion was frustration---frustration at how awful the movie was, and how plainly inept George Lucas is when left entirely to his own devices. The plot of Episode III was one giant hole, a black hole that sucked everything else into it. Palpatine's plan was ridiculously convoluted, made little sense, was predicated upon the proper conclusion of a legion of uncertain outcomes, and depended entirely upon the unconscionable, unbelievable stupidity of almost every single notable character in the series.

    And how did it end? Akakin was tricked into becoming evil; he did not turn to the dark side because he was seduced by its power, but rather because he was fooled by Palpatine into believing that Padme would die otherwise. Yep, Anakin willingly left behind all of his lifetime of training and every one of his friends---many of whom he went on to murder---entirely on the power a series of obscure dreams and the claim of a Sith Lord whose kind was known for its evilness and duplicity. He then went on to do everything the guy told him, again for no apparent reason. Did I mention, too, that his character was spoiled, pretentious, and intolerably whiny, and thus completely unlikable, and played by a terrible actor to boot? I found Anakin distasteful and annoying, and thus his fall, which Lucas meant to be tragic, held no emotion whatsoever for me; for one to be a tragic character, one needs to be liked by the audience first, and Lucas failed utterly at making this happen.

    Then Padme, who was surely one of the most bland, featureless characters ever to inhabit an entire trilogy of movies, died of a broken heart, a trilogy-ending premise so immensely ludicrous that it could only Lucas could have actually put it into a movie; no director worth his or her salts would ever dare to do such a thing. The guy couldn't whip up an ending that even made a bit of sense, so he settled with this, an ending outright insulting to the fans: Padme died because she just couldn't handle breaking up with her secret husband. Gee, wow, what a strong character! Again, no emotion: her character lacked any emotional appeal, and thus I didn't particularly care when she died.

    The single part of the movie that was even remotely emotionally jarring was when Anakin slaughtered a bunch of kids. This was of interest solely because I was surprised to see such a thing in Star Wars. The rest of the movie constituted the typical deluge of excessive special effects, boring story, and stupid characters.

    Did I feel emotion in any of the original movies? Absolutely. I was invested in all of the characters from the start. I felt Luke's loss when Obi-Wan died in A New Hope, and cheered when the heroes defeated the Death Star. The love story between Han and Leia in Empire had depth, and Han being frozen in carbonite was a moving scene. Vader's revelation of his relation to Luke was a genuine surprise, and that movie's end left me wanting to know what would happen next. Return of the Jedi got a bit silly, with the Ewoks and all, but I was nevertheless still emotionally invested in the plight and the ultimate victory of the Rebel forces, and the redemption and death of Vader was a poignant story arc. The ending, though infested with Ewoks, was still heartwarming, and provided a satisfactory end to the series.

    Speaking of fleet battles, remember that huge battle at the start of Episode III? You know, the one with all the special effects? Its participants: clones and robots, neither of which the audience had any reason to care about, all the more because everyone knew that Palpatine was in charge of both combatants. Nay, this was merely an avalanche of CGI, and was a microcosm of the prequel trilogy as a whole: Lucas forgot that he had to get the audience emotionally involved, instead opting to base the trilogy primarily on a bonanza of bright lights and shiny images.

    If you need more explanation as to why the prequels were horrible, watch Plinkett's reviews.

  16. Icewolf

    Posted

    The only coup with any degree of success that was ever carried out in a major alliance was Ivan's replacement of Moo in 2007, and it lasted for only a few days. At times I wonder if it was staged, because Ivan was promptly forgiven.

    The proper execution of a coup requires three main possessions: one, root admin access on the alliance forums; two, a membership willing to, in its great majority, support the usurper(s); and three, a sufficient number of other alliances willing to support the usurper(s). Under almost no circumstances will one have even two of these, let alone all.

    These just can't happen. This isn't like real life, in which coups have generally been followed by mass executions and kangaroo courts. There aren't militaries or police that can be used to suppress resistance. And so on. This is a political simulator.

    Edit: Note that I didn't actually read much of your post.

  20. Enamel32

    Posted

    As you noted in the thread in question, you don't know what goes on between TOP and IRON. While I'm sure that the interactions between our two alliances have political implications for you, note that our treaty is by a large margin the longest-standing MDP in the game's history. It has lasted with meaning for a long time, and it has even survived, with very evident flying colors, us being on opposite sides of the spectrum before.

    Outside the jab, I'm not sure what you're getting at, because the success of foreign policy is based on many, many more things beyond the case I've posted above. Besides, at no point did I claim to have a successful foreign policy.

    Your foreign policy has been an abject failure. You got yourselves into a bloc that turned out to be slaved to the fate of two alliances (Polar and GOD) that were detested by your alliance (or at least its leadership, both middle and upper) at the time. Then, when you got yourselves into the first losing war in Sparta's history and finally had the chance to prove the Sparta's naysayers---who said that Sparta would never fight in a losing war---wrong and solidify your reputation as a quality alliance, you instead chose to prove those naysayers absolutely correct by running to peace mode en masse in highly cowardly fashion. This obliterated your alliance's reputation and credibility and played possibly the most significant part in the follow-up war that occurred this June; it was widely felt amongst the coalition from the Winter War that several alliances (most notably Sparta, but also R&R and GOD) had escaped damage during that war, and thus there was widespread support, from the alliances that made up that coalition, for another war to finish the job. That is why a coalition came together so smoothly and easily when MK began its war against CSN.

    Then came that most recent war, and Sparta ran to peace mode yet again. This time, nobody was surprised. In retrospect, your best move for the long run would have been to take your licks in the Winter War, thus proving yourselves, and then rebuild your FA (the then state of affairs of which was, as noted, something that many in your alliance were not exactly happy about) in the aftermath. Instead, the cowardly approach was taken; and on top of destroying your reputation and playing a part in ensuring another war against you and your allies, you needlessly destroyed your relationships with ODN and Umbrella, two alliances that were, believe it or not, quite loyal to you, and whose friendship could have been useful to you in the postwar period.

    In short, your alliance did everything wrong. Thus ends this wall of text.

    @Feanor, That's true. A balance is key. Expecting to get your way with allies all the time is setting unrealistic expectations.

    Sparta's approaches in both foreign affairs and military affairs over the past 51 weeks have been horrific. "Balance" is not a word that can be reasonably applied to them. More, your rhetoric on loyalty to your allies is nonsense. That Sparta was the sole alliance to hide its stats en masse in peace mode whilst its allies fought and burned proves the vacuity of your boasts.

  22. hawk11

    Posted

    Interesting article. There's one point I'd like to address: your criticisms of the use of "Polaris delenda est." This statement is a reference to "Carthago delenda est"--Carthage must be destroyed--a phrase uttered by the Roman senator Cato the Elder at the end of every speech he gave--regardless of the speech's actual content--in the period leading up to Rome's eventual declaration of war upon Carthage (which initiated the Third Punic War). An argument of Latin with the ancient Romans would lack any foundation; and as far as I'm concerned, Cato the Elder's mastery of Latin trumps that of Google Translate.

  25. Xiphosis

    Posted

    iirc NAAC disbanded by their own decision. Pacifica never fought NAAC in GWIII and Polaris (iirc) actually had terms. NAAC just hated Polaris so much they would rather disband than submit to Polaris.

    I was in the NPO in GW3 and spent two weeks fighting against a high-ranking NAAC government member, so I can say with a high degree of accuracy that you're incorrect.

×
×
  • Create New...