Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Because reasons. More seriously, the writers seem to have wanted to off him (perhaps as atonement) and chose to have him die "heroically."
Why did Welkin stood their idle about while Faldio creeps to his death... SLOWLY.
Responses to events can be pretty strange. Seeing something like that (your best friend pulling a deranged man with powerful weaponry toward a pit) may have been strange enough to impair reaction. It doesn't really excuse Welkin.
Hell why in the world Welkin didn't do anything to stop it since he made a big speech about not using powers and to not waste the life you have?
That's a good question. Perhaps he still resented Faldio for shooting his waifu.
Why did the ship spontaneously exploded,
I assume it had something to do with Maximilian's hardware being stressed beyond its load capacity in the fight, making it less stable and causing it to go off, igniting some fuel source.
Speaking of pit, when the hell was there giant pit to begin with, and why is it even there?
Convince of the plot?
It's Max's private elevator! :D (You may be right).
Next did really need see that sappy escape from Welken and Alicia? Alright that problem is more of my preferences but still it was a bit too silly (even for the silly parts in this game).
It was somewhat silly, but I enjoyed it (despite my internal protests that missing the Isara was more likely!). I would assume that the team wanted a nice, cinematic moment to end the story with.
The ship exploded because Maximillian was the only thing controlling the Ragnite and it blew up without him. Ragnite is also what your grenades are made from.
The pit happened from the bombings and the Lance being fired earlier.
The sappy scene is for our benefit, the entire story is through their eyes. They are our avatars. And people enjoy romance especially when its good. You clearly don't but don't knock those who did. The plane thing was not a Deus Ex Machina like some people believe and was heavily forshadowed earlier.
As Far as Japanese games go this one is very well done. All those games you mentioned had predictable endings too, even Earthbund. All of them had some level of sappy too for that matter.
The final battle was actually one of the more easy battles imo. I'll reiterate that people enjoy romance and sappiness when they are done appropiately. This was an apporpriate response. So was Isara being born 9 months later. I'd sure as hell be in the mood for nooky after something like that.
Since you asked I basically think the opposite of what you do. I am not trying to defend what you see as bad but I do think you missed some of the points and seem to dislike romance. But I liked the ending aside from somewhat hurried way the war ended in Gallia. I would have liked a longer explanation. VC3 ties up some loose ends that weren't addressed in this one.
Anyway don't takle this too seriously, we all enjoy different things and I thoroughly enjoyed this from beginning to end. Multiple times. Flying pigs and all.
Oh, and Faldio almost got his friends killed. Nice. A bullet to Max's head would have sufficed you know.
The Ukrainians would probably beg to disagree, given what they got for giving up nuclear weapons. Namely the Budapest Memorandum that was backstabbed by one of the powers that was supposed to enforce it and not upheld by the rest.
Switzerland had the fortune to be relatively well protected for the last century or so. They didn't have to deal with the aggressive totalitarian Soviets at their border in the Cold War. And even th en they only survived WWII- and Hitler surrounding them with intent to invade- by making contingencies to not so much win as horrifying bleed out any Axis invasion, on Top of making some very unpleasant compromises to their values.
The safety of the post Cold War era is extremely unusual historically, and while nukes migh tnot be necessary they certainly help. As do benevolent neighbors. And if the Paris attacks showed us anything that safety is not to be taken for granted....
Ultimately, the big stick is still the surest means of defense.
The only thin Nukes protect against is other nukes. Otherwise the aformentioned Paris attacks would not have happened. No, it isn't the big stick that is the surest defense it is the willingness to use it.
Two nukes in Japan and they surrendered. Lets say a dozen nukes in ISIS territory and I guarantee that it would be no more than a hate group with no power by dinner tomorrow. Our morals, which ISIS does not share, is the only thing preventing the nuclear powers from glassing the entire region.
There used to be a time when we fought evil, namely WWII, and now we tolerate it because of diplomatic nicities and an unwillingess to commit.
Anyway I'm afraid this comment is somewhat more related to current news than is nessesary. Point is you don't need THE BOMB. To keep your country safe from an army, only from other bombs. replace bomb with magical silver hairded ragnite enhanced chick and there you have it. Besides what Welkin does is irrelevant because developments are made anyway.
Condescending much?
Pointing out the exceptions to the rule Is smart. Because exceptions to the general rule still Happen, and can have very important consequences. As we have seen in Ukraine.
Or are you going to argue that Putin would have been just as likely to start a major ground war in Ukraine if it was defended not by the Memorandum but by nuclear weapons?
Mutual nuclear disarmament is in many cases a misnomer. It basically consisted of nuclear powers (and their allies) with lots of WMD making agreements to scrap *some* of the WMD. Which does not undercut MAD or the resulting deterrance by much.
The number of cases where a nuclear power- with active weapons and resources- has completely gotten out of the game and disarmed can be counted on one hand. And the only clearcut success story is South Africa.
Everywhere else, the basic story remains the same, especially when dealing with a hostile power with nukes that you are an imminent target of. it is safer to have the weapons you have on hand than an agreement promising something Later. Especially now.
What the heck is that supposed to mean?
The Ukrainian military- incompetent, poorly lead, and at the start of this war something like a quarter "ghost" (ie: Nonexistant soldiers there to have paycheck fraud, useless staff, and so on) has been involved in fighting since the war began in the Donbas last year. On top of paramilitaries.
Unfortunately, its' success is little different from the main Gallian military in this game. See; Damon. And it cannot compete with an aggressor that has superiority in weapons, safe resupply across the border, and absolutely no regard scrapping agreements it signed to get a tactical advantage. See the Battle of Debaltseve, a conflict that should not have happened because it took place after a time ceasefire should have happened.
Not true.
The early Cold War nuclear buildup was not designed to counter Soviet nukes that didn't exist yet. It was made to counter the power of the conventional Red Army on mainland Europe to buy time for a shift to war footing and transfer of troops there. It was only years later when the Soviets DID get the bomb that the multilayers Nukes-to-counter-troops-and-these-nukes-and-the-navy-and-those-nukes really took off.
Not applicable. IS- not unlike their ♥♥♥♥♥♥ rivals in Iran- are apocalyptic nutters who believe that the coming Judgement Day is at hand and they have a duty to be the instrument of Allah in doing so. MAD may not be useless against those types but it certainly isn't going to work as well as a cushy Soviet kleptocrat who just wants to keep living and stealing from the Til.
Expecting terrorists (especially the die hard Dirka Dirka apocalytpics) to be deterred or stay their hand from fear of reprisal is a losing game. Which is why the focus is on finding, killing, and destroying them, not trying to play buddy or reach a modus vivendi with people absolutely opposed to the point of death to your modus vivendi.
You're also forgetting the one time nuclear weapons WERE used in war. Where they were used not against Japanese nukes, but against the massive Japanese home defense infrastructure.
That to and same here.
Firstoff: you just contradicted yourself. That nukes can only protect against other nukes. While ignoring that they also protected against conventional and terrorist Japanese resistance to occupation.
Secondly: the problem is that ISIS territory- even considering how much more conventional and territory focused than most terrorist groups (the LTTE are the best comparison I can make)- is not particularly connected or important. When you have a group with strongholds dotted from Western Iraq to Central Syria to Benghazi to wherever some generic franchise group swears allegience to them (and these might not necessarily be connected) it's hard for nukes to destroy them.
Moreso when so much of their infrastructure is "underground" in ways safer than putting it a hundred miles under the surface is. We can't exactly nuke Western cities where there are underground servers or recruiters rallying men for them, for one. And that "nuke-proofing" through being hard to target means that that infrastructure can survive trying to brute force nuke them fairly well. Which in turn allows the possibility of them recovering.
They're not a territorial state or regime like Putin's Russia or even Iran and its' terror nexus or Taliban Afghanistan were. How would you stop a Paris attacker who landed in Greece using Nukes?
Well, that and the potential that Israel in particular and other interested parties like Russia might retaliate nuclearly and that there might be other backlash. Though I agree that is a valid point.
Agreed, unfortunately (and there are far more cases than just WWII). Though the fact is- for better or worse- one can still fight evil (or try to) even as you compromise yourself by tolerating it. That is the history of the Cold War in general; and while it was far from perfect the alternative (as confirmed by this one Communist fanatic I ran into earlier) was even worse.
Indeed.
Broadly agreed.
And yes I am condecending. Just like you kake claims like the Ukraine having a ghost army of non-existant soldierds
Yes, you did. You are now trying to shift the meaning, but:
And I quote.
SIC aside, if you don't think nukes can be protectively deployed against/ (dropped on) conventional armies (which is precisely what large parts of nuclear doctrine in the Cold War were about; use of them to defend friendly territory against invading armies), then do not know a great deal about it, do you?
Firstly: don't try and act condescendingly if you can't even spell words like FAKE correctly. It makes you look like an idiot.
Secondly: if you have not heard of corrupt militaries having "extra' nonexistant soldiers on payrolls- like this http://www.ibtimes.com/iraqi-military-uncovers-50000-fake-soldiers-payroll-abadi-vows-fight-corruption-1730972 - or how Ukraine suffered from that....
... then you had better apologize and shut up. Don't shoot off your mouth before you complete loading your brain, especially on something you don't know about.
Now, let's stop derailing this thread.
Firstly: my spelling is not linked to my intelligence, merely the amount I care to want to edit myself after quickly typing something out. This thread I wanted to end after my first post for instance.
Second claiming that the Ukraine has nothing but ghost soldiers and linking me an article saying some may be non-existant leads me to believe you didn't know a damn thing about what your talking about during your quick rebuttal and only knew hearsay before I forced you to come up with proof.
Lastly do not ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ insult me and then suggest we end a thread. ♥♥♥♥ you ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. You do not dictate what I can say, or my ability and willingness to defend myself. Now if you want to be the better man than stop ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ talking and leave. Otherwise I'm am petty enough to keep this going and will respond when I have time. You see, I actually like doing things I enjoy like playing Fallout 4 rather than argue some stupid point with a retarded OP and some guy who thinks he is better than anyone else and who really needs to get off the internet for awhile if some guy on the Steam Forums like me is having this much of an effect on him.
I already got it, because I read it correctly the first time.
You claimed that nuclear weapons can only protect against other nuclear weapons.
A basic history of the Cold War proves what nonsense that is. While there was fear that the Nazis were developing Nuclear Weapons, there was no question of the Japanese or pre-espionage Soviets doing so.
The atomic bombs were not built to defend against other, not-yet-produced atomic bombs. They were built to protect against the conventional military power of the Axis, whether the Nazi or Soviet field armies strangling Europe or Japan's home defense forces.
You tactitly admitted as much when you pointed out to the one case they Were used in reality. To help destroy two major- conventional- strongpoints of Japanese resistance.
The attempt to shoehorn that you were not referring to offensive operations is post hoc and not worth dignifying. As such I have already discounted it.
Your next statement can be argued but stop trying to discount my comment on account that you think I'm contradicting myself.
And that does nothing to change the fact that when you blatantly admit you are being condescending- and doing it for no just reason- stupid spelling mistakes like accusing me of "KAKE" claims make you look like an idiot.
Any questions about how mispelling basic words undercuts any right you have to be condescending, or is that clear enough?
Congratulations for proving you Didn't Read My ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Post.
Because I did not claim that Ukraine has "nothing but ghost soldiers." Instead I WROTE- and I quote, copying and pasting DIRECTLY from my previous post:
"The Ukrainian military- incompetent, poorly lead, and at the start of this war something like a quarter "ghost" (ie: Nonexistant soldiers there to have paycheck fraud, useless staff, and so on) has been involved in fighting since the war began in the Donbas last year. "
"something like a quarter "ghost"
That is what you magically turned into "nothing but ghost soldiers."
Which indicates one of two things. Either you failed basic reading comprehension and didn't check to see what my actual claims were, or you knew but lied.
So, which is it?
In that case, it's lucky the real world does not give a damn about what Metatron does or does not believe. Truth is Truth and Lie is Lie.
And you ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up badly enough to misquote what I said when the transcript is Right Above You, and admitted you were so blind you did not see the Ukrainian Regular Army in Combat.
Thus demonstrating that what you are lead to "believe" is factually irrelevant to the merits of your claims, like anyone else's beliefs.
As things stand, you acted like my claim that the Ukrainain army- as part of the symptoms of endemic corruption- started the war with a number off fictional soldiers that existed to have their money pocketed. You acted- by your own admission- condescendingly without reason or research. I popped up the first article I found detailing the general symptom (even if not relating to the Ukrainain military as a whole) because it was late in the morning and I needed to sleep.
And you- again- ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up and mistated my point.
You insult yourself by your poor conduct and basic inability to do research or even *copy paste an opposing claim* correctly.
You fired your mouth off before loading your brain, there was no justification for any of it, and it showed.
Any questions?
Ah yes, the purview of someone who has no argument on which to defend themselves.
Pointless insults unconnected to any evidence or argumentation.
I may or may not be an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.
But the bottom line is that you not only acted like an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, but also an idiot. As I detailed above.
No, indeed. The only responsible party for that is you. Which is why if your ability to do so is dismal there is no-one to blame but yourself.l
But that does not mean I will not analyze what you saw and counter in kind. If you want to be condescending without merit, you bring it on yourself. Is that clear?
I am already the better man. I didn't act condescendingly without reason. Your point is irrelevant.
If you're so petty that you will keep a fight going in which you are clearly Wrong (as demonstrated by the botching of copy/pasting) rather than doing something you enjoy, then you really are an Idiot. And this isn't about who is or is not a better person, but about something even more basic.
However, lucky for you that I won't be the only one who will keep it going if you really do. Because you see, you're not the only military veteran, RPer, or history afficianado I know. And a few of them expressed agreement with my previous post, and might be willing to pitch in.
Oh, you misunderstand me. I don't think I am better than anyone else, not by a long shot. And in many ways your service makes you -at least in some limited capacities- better than I am in those ways.
Thing is; I DO know that I AM better than the petty loon who couldn't do a copy/paste of my prior comments correctly.
So I say again: I do not want to continue this. But you need to apologize and shut up about things you do not know about or can't be asked to get right. Simple.
Edit:
And because this is such a perfect representation of what is going on.... a straight up copy/paste of the steam attempt to right this. Which Ic an back up by a screencap.
Turtler: Metatron: worth a try as you clearly fail to see that i care what you thin
Turtler: So you do care what I think?
Metatron: whoops typo
Turtler: Now you see what I mean about typos and mispellings and how they make you look?
Metatron: now do you see how you acting like aq bully?
Metatron: no? suprise
Turtler: I'm not acting as a bully.
Turtler: I'm acting as someone who is taking out the trash
Turtler: On someone who insulted me and the OP
Metatron: still havent proven anything btw
Because apparently proving he made a typo (even by his own admission) still meants I "havnt (SIC) proven anything btw." Ladies and gentlemen, the mind of Metatron.
And yes, I've got some thoughts on the points made. But this has gotten to the point it's not even worth bringing them up--and the sad part is, I don't even hold those opinions of mine in high regard. This thread has gotten that bad. Nobody left reading this is actually still of a mind to read something and say, "Hmm, that's interesting, he's a stupid bugger but that's still pretty interesting." It's like... Reddit levels of sad in this thread.
Indeed, my apologies.
Sitll working on a proper reply to your OP. Will do it ASAP.