TheDudeOfGaming's forum posts

#1 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

Come on mods, we'll have a civil debate in this thread, I promise. So lets try again.

#2 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

Why? Cause fuck censorship and hypocrisy.

Oh and Sweep, give this thread about an hour or so before you lock. k? thx.

#3 Edited by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

The movie itself kind of sucked, but Bob Hoskins was great in it. Gonna watch The Long Good Friday. RIP Bob Hoskins. Also, his final role was in the Snow White and the Huntsman... with Kristen Stewart... Fuck this world.

#4 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

Honestly the difficulty is a plus for me. No hand holding is always a good thing. But at the same time, the concept of just letting the player wander around the world with little to no objective while shooting arrows at zombie Spaniards doesn't seem like it can carry a an entire game. At least Dark Souls has a shit ton of weapons and leveling so there's a clear sense of progression that can last for dozens of hours.

And after a little more searching around the interwebz apparently it takes around 6 hours to beat the game. I guess exploring every bit of the game and doing everything, 15? 20? Banished it is. I'll probably also end up picking up Betrayer at some point though. Both games seem kind of unfinished though.

#5 Edited by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

Stalker meets early 17th century America? I've read that the game is a very atmospheric , surreal FPS game, with what seems to me like an interesting premise. But some people think the gameplay is the weak point of the game. So what do you guys think? I'll buy either Betrayer or Banished so I'd really appreciate some input on Betrayer.

Also, pretty fucking awesome name. *whispers* Betrayer!

#6 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

@thedudeofgaming said:

What I'm getting at is this. You've only yourself to blame for the situation you're currently in. And more importantly, the majority of people in Crimea declare themselves as Russian and do not want to be governed by the new regime, the same way you didn't want to be governed by Yanukovych. It was actually the people of Crimea that asked Russia to step in. Most of them seem pretty happy by the Russian intervention.

Sorry, what? You're blaming the OP/Ukrainian people for this mess? Short of him clashing on a Kiev square, how exactly is he to blame? Have you paid any attention to anything written at all? The buildup to Crimea is about 60 years in the making, ever since Krushchev haphazardly gave it away back in 1954, exacerbated by the dissolution of the USSR, oligarchs (who make up the political elite) squabbling over privatization creating numerous economic woes for its citizenry, several revolutions, rampant nationalist rhetoric not to mention agent provocateurs from Russia, EU and the US all joining in on the fun.

You're as bad as MSNBC, who can't even look up a map of Central and Eastern Europe post 1992.

Yes, yes I mispoke and I take it back and I apologize. When I said they have only themselves to blame I meant the invasion of Crimea being a consequence of the so called "revolution" that was orchestrated by the west. The major factor of the Russian invasion is Ukraine moving towards the EU and undoubtably NATO. If you expect Russians to sit idly by while NATO continues to expand its sphere of influence well, that's why Ukraine is in the situation is today. Like I said in my previous post, more than anyone it's the west who is to blame for what is happening now. They tried to get Ukraine, and they weren't expecting such a harsh consequence.

And that's what the west does, it purses its intrests, regardless of the consequences, creating instability in many regions of the world.

#7 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -
@thedudeofgaming said:

@truthtellah said:

@thedudeofgaming: Wow, that's the worst comment I've seen in a while. How dare you, man.

Sure some commenters have actually been fans of what Putin is doing, but suggesting that Ukrainians revolting against a corrupt government makes them responsible for another country invading them is ridiculous. It's not as though they pushed against the government to get this new crappy government in; they have complaints about it, too. But people everywhere in the world should be able to voice their criticism of terrible governments killing their own people without somehow deserving to have a bad replacement government come in or have their country attacked by another nation. That makes no sense.

This guy has every reason to be concerned about the chaos in his country, and blaming him for another country coming in is about the worst thing I can imagine someone saying in this instance.

I'm not blaming SnakeVSGiantbomb, I'm blaming the west who's using Ukraine as a pawn against Russia. He has every right to be concerned for his country. But If you really think that the revolting had no outside assistance well, you have the right to think whatever you want. But no revolt happens spontaneously.

And to my knowledge, Russia has deployed troops in Crimea, and Crimea only. This was requested by Crimean leaders and seems to have the support of the people who inhabit Crimea. Perhaps you missed this part. Because for like the third or fourth time the majority of Crimeans are Russian or at least declare themselves as such. And they do not want to be a part of a country that's obviously anti-Russian.

You know what's funny though. When the US decides to invade countries, laws are a distant afterthought. There still hasn't been a fired shot in Ukraine, but you act like Russians are carrying out a genocide against Ukranians.

You literally said "What I'm getting at is this. You've only yourself to blame for the situation you're currently in." and then you questioned his motives for being concerned about it. What gives you the nerve to be that dickish toward someone in Ukraine worried about the state of his nation and his own life?

Plus, you seem to be speaking for the population in Crimea despite there being no evidence that they all wanted this. Plenty of people speak Russian and even identify as Russian in Ukraine, but it doesn't mean they genuinely want to be a part of Russia. There were no elections, no polls, no referendum, no anything. All there has been is Russian soldiers rolling out and occupying the region. If you break into my home, point a gun to my head, and ask whether I want you to be in my home, I'd probably say you're welcome to be there, too, but that has little to do with what I genuinely want.

So, not only are you suggesting that they deserve it and questioning this guy's motives for being concerned, but you're also speaking for the Crimean people when you and none of us have a right to do so.

Okay, I said you've only yourself to blame. That was wrong and I apologize. I believe that Ukraniane people were blindly led. And yes Yanukovich was bad, but he was democratically elected and violently thrown out.

There you go, I happen to agree with everything McGovern said, and some of what Snyder said. But I find it laugable that he draws a comparison with Russia's ties with Ukraine, being the same as US ties with Mexico or Canada.

#8 Edited by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

@truthtellah said:

@thedudeofgaming: Wow, that's the worst comment I've seen in a while. How dare you, man.

Sure some commenters have actually been fans of what Putin is doing, but suggesting that Ukrainians revolting against a corrupt government makes them responsible for another country invading them is ridiculous. It's not as though they pushed against the government to get this new crappy government in; they have complaints about it, too. But people everywhere in the world should be able to voice their criticism of terrible governments killing their own people without somehow deserving to have a bad replacement government come in or have their country attacked by another nation. That makes no sense.

This guy has every reason to be concerned about the chaos in his country, and blaming him for another country coming in is about the worst thing I can imagine someone saying in this instance.

I'm not blaming SnakeVSGiantbomb, I'm blaming the west who's using Ukraine as a pawn against Russia. He has every right to be concerned for his country. But If you really think that the revolting had no outside assistance well, you have the right to think whatever you want. But no revolt happens spontaneously.

And to my knowledge, Russia has deployed troops in Crimea, and Crimea only. This was requested by Crimean leaders and seems to have the support of the people who inhabit Crimea. Perhaps you missed this part. Because for like the third or fourth time the majority of Crimeans are Russian or at least declare themselves as such. And they do not want to be a part of a country that's obviously anti-Russian.

You know what's funny though. When the US decides to invade countries, laws are a distant afterthought. There still hasn't been a fired shot in Ukraine, but you act like Russians are carrying out a genocide against Ukranians.

#9 Edited by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

@snakevsgiantbomb said:

@thedudeofgaming: Ha so if Russia invade America to"protect" Russian people in USA it would be okay with you.We are not blaming,we know we fucked up,but you have to understand it was not without help from Putin.Tell me one source were there are legitametaly normal native Crimean people who help from Russia.As I said before there will be two elections this year , presidential,than government .New government are willing to give people in Crimea as much power as they can handle,and if it will be not enough they can through diplomacy and referendums decide do they want to be in Ukraine.I don't know we're you from but you obviously do not know about people in Crimea.

Would I say that Russia has the right to invade the US to protect Russians there? No, because they have no historical (apart from Alaska, see you soon capitalists!) or ethnic claim to any US soil. Crimea on the other hand is a completely different area. And they have at least some legitimate claim to it.

Now yes, the video is from RT. But other sources have reported on the pro Russian element of Crimea. Regardless, if this pro Russian element decides to break away through violent means if need be, even if they aren't the majority. Can you explain to me the difference between that scenario and the one that took place in Kiev only a few weeks back?

We can try to defend any of the 3 sides, but the truth is there is no innocence. All you'll see now is each party trying to protect it's intrests, and hey you can call upon whatever law you wish. But the most important law is might makes right. And right now it seems Russia certainly has the might to take Crimea.

As for the ethnic structure of Crimea from the couple of sources I've looked up, over 50% of the population declares themself as Russian. This makes them the majority. I frankly don't understand why you would expect them to become a part of the EU, which lets face it, doesn't always have Russia's best intrests at heart, to put it lightly.

If this crisis ends with Crimea becoming part of Russia or breaking away from Ukraine to form an independant country, I'd say that's a happy ending compared to the unlikely, but still possibe alternative of war.

I'm from Serbia btw #biased. We're all biased here, to a greater or lesser extent.

#10 Edited by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

Well, currently the only thing "your" revolution acomplished was gaining a powerful enemy (Russia) for an undependable friend (NATO). From what I've seen and heard so far, all the westerners will do is throw a couple of threats here and there and then try to talk it out. They'll impose some sort of sanction on Russia, we'll see how long that lasts.

What I'm getting at is this. You've only yourself to blame for the situation you're currently in. And more importantly, the majority of people in Crimea declare themselves as Russian and do not want to be governed by the new regime, the same way you didn't want to be governed by Yanukovych. It was actually the people of Crimea that asked Russia to step in. Most of them seem pretty happy by the Russian intervention.

And the situation in Crimea is a clear example of the famous double standard of the west. It's okay for people to determine their political future, so long as it serves our intrests.

As for any talks of war. Trust me, NATO will never risk a war for the sake of Ukraine alone. The politicians will give you vague reasurences and they'll say that they hope that the situation can be solved diplomatically, but that's all the help you can expect from them.

Regardless I hope the situation becomes stable, but that will require one side to back down. We'll see who it is.

And I could say something about your incentive to "spread the word", but I'll keep my mouth shut. I seem like enough of an asshole as it is.