Ending ??

[jungle only]

So, After 105 level, What exacly happen when Bella and the Fuhrer went back to the town?

Did the commander flood the city by destroying the dam?

[Ked]

One of the first missions involves you defending the supreme commander at the Dam. So essentially you become the Krug leader trying to kill him again at the Dam, and eventually failing becoming the new Krug leader so the never ending cycle of war continues. It's clearly inspired by the book 1984.

[Bomoo]

Originally posted by Kira:

It's clearly inspired by the book 1984.

How do you figure that?

[jungle only]

Originally posted by Kira:

One of the first missions involves you defending the supreme commander at the Dam. So essentially you become the Krug leader trying to kill him again at the Dam, and eventually failing becoming the new Krug leader so the never ending cycle of war continues. It's clearly inspired by the book 1984.

i have the same feeling of it being partly inspired by 1984

Perpetual unwinnable war, Misery for the common class in the name of the state . Not to mention bella admonishing the soldeir for "thinking" too much

[Ked]

It's a neat little trick to continue the game after you have finished it. Nothin changes since it's in the nature of the story to not change anything. The story serves the gameplay, and not the other way around. A great lesson big company should learn.

[Bomoo]

Originally posted by Kira:

It's a neat little trick to continue the game after you have finished it. Nothin changes since it's in the nature of the story to not change anything. The story serves the gameplay, and not the other way around. A great lesson big company should learn.

Ah, I see, having finished it. It's a bit ham-fisted but I could see where you get that comparison.

[Sakirth]

I love the ending. It seems to me that Bella actually figured out what the Fuhrer was doing after he made the commander the new traitor general. Thus Bella acted as if she was on Fuhrer's side to lead him into a trap - residing under the dam once again and telling the traitor general. Makes me wonder whether its the first time Bella found out or knew all along.

And dont tell me we'd be defeated at the dam, we didn't get to play it so you wouldn't know.

Also, it is implied that the Fuhrer knows why or how the Krux keep coming up with new weapons and stuff when you think they've been beaten. Could it be that the Fuhrer has been supplying them with weapons to fuel the war?

[Ked]

Look its very simple. He fuels the weapons to the opposing sides in order to continue the perpetual war. What you think is gonna happen once the Krug leader is gone? ofcourse he's gonna need a new one, and who better than you who have conquered all the Krug territories and has been appointed the new Krug leader? And isnt just more than a coincidence being again at the Dam where you foiled the previous Krug leader plan and met for the first time the Fuhrer? I dont know why it looks so hard for people to get it, and even worse; actually need someone to blatantly tell him "this is gonna happen". I guess this problem falls in line with many things with entertainment in general.

[Bomoo]

That's actually nothing like 1984 (and the modern world, namely murica, by extension) aside from the whole "perpetual war is good business" thing.

[Ked]

Which is essentially the core of the book. The story of the protagonist is relatively less important, he's just a narrative tool in order to describe the world, so much that he just "happen" to work for the governament in a very specific and important branch. For Orwell was more important describing the world and the effect of socialist states (actually, the opposite of America which see socialism as the boogeyman). And no, the idea of the book is not what a troglodyte would think, which war is good for business. But the overarching structure in which a sociasm state (according to his imaginary future) can sustain itself is only in a constant state of war. And if you read most of his books, like i religiously did during my youth, you'll see his change of mind during the course of his life. Next time, before trying to ridicule someone else opinion, you better be prepared.

[DJ]

Kira, its totalitarianism, thought crime and tyranny that Orwell was repudiating; not socialism per se. Much of what you've written is correct (especially about manufactured war and economies) but this is a very important difference. Many people, even published intellectuals, conflate the so-called "socialism" of Soviet Russia (which is just tyranny and totalitarianism) with actual socialism. For a start: socialism isn't a political or social structure, really, its a set of idealologies. They can be pursed with all kinds of different socioeconomic policies, many of which, such as with the Soviet example, end up being anathematic (ironically) as per the wretched pattern of unintended consequences.

Orwell - in anachronistic terms - was left wing.

Also I must make the point that the US and the west in general is a dystopian capitalist ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. Let us not even flirt with the idea that there's a simple, polarised good vs evil thing going on, with anti-socialists in the right.

Suggsted reading: Any of Christopher Hitchens' works about Orwell; Iain Banks' Player of Games; Slavoj Zizeck's Living In The End Times [of capitalism?].

[Ked]

The point of why i used the word of socialism instead of comunism is because in his books there were hints of the national socalistic party (nazi in short). A tyrannical state after the decay of monarchy could only be emplyed in a total socialist regime. Without straying too far from the subect, even the most anarchist state should employ some socialist concept in order to preserve the society at it's core, the problem comes with an overabudance of it, in that case it becomes tyrannical. Orwell was left wing, but after fighing in the spanish civil war he started to gradually change his mind till he became what he despised in his first books (which is ironic since in aspidistria blooming, i roughly translate, i forgot the original title, the main protagonist follow the same arc that Orwell will). A democratic conservatorist.

[Bomoo]

You understand national socialism has nothing to do with socialism. They put it in there because it sounded good to the working clase whom they wanted to get on board. You're confusing the surface meaning of words with the deeper meanings behind them.

[Ked]

Well that is a rather dumb statement, Nazi is the quintessential national socialism. I suggest you to drop down until you damage your ego even more.

[DJ]

No Kira, there's no general socialism in a totalitarian police state. You can call a party the Purple Nurple Party: it does not mean it subscribes to or promotes or pursues the ideology of Purple Nurplism. It's pretty horrendous you're getting this stuff wrong; it's even worse you claim his statement was dumb.

[Bomoo]

Originally posted by DJ Splendid:

No Kira, there's no general socialism in a totalitarian police state. You can call a party the Purple Nurple Party: it does not mean it subscribes to or promotes or pursues the ideology of Purple Nurplism. It's pretty horrendous you're getting this stuff wrong; it's even worse you claim his statement was dumb.

Pretty much.

Political parties are named arbitrarily according to what'll sound better to the plebs they're trying to get to support them. Indeed, "fascism" was so named to give a suggestion of populism and the early Roman republic (fasces). Right up to the modern day where the american democratic party, which is totally un-democratic, and the republican party, which doesn't give a rat's ass about the republic, are named to suggest warm fuzzy things the common people are perceived as being in favour of.

The two parties have nothing whatsoever to do with the concepts after which they're named, just like national socialism doesn't, and are nothing but mouthpieces for a network of sociopathic war-profiteering capitalists who pay their bills. Again, surprise, just like the nazi party. Only the leaders of the nazi party proved to be much less pliable and more eager to pursue their own genocidal agendas than the leaders of analogous parties today.