Games -> Reality

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:58 am

http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/detail ... =424253690

Discuss.

Joe Camacho · Post by **Joe Camacho** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:23 am

I don't see what we have to discuss.

Other than it's a post made in a FFIII forum?

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:28 am

In the games I've played, the recurrent villains lost in the end, despite what they may have said. After we win the first round, we can implement reforms in their countries that will make their people less likely to be religious extremists. Actually, we've already done that, and it's working. The Iraqis and Afghanis overwhelmingly elected governments that weren't religious extremists.

He's trying to apply what happens in games to real life.

Panzer88 · Post by **Panzer88** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:35 am

wow a nutjob on gamefaqs! call all your friends, you don't see this every day!

ya ya, I know I'm a smartass today.

Joe Camacho · Post by **Joe Camacho** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 2:42 am

Deathlike2 wrote:
In the games I've played, the recurrent villains lost in the end, despite what they may have said. After we win the first round, we can implement reforms in their countries that will make their people less likely to be religious extremists. Actually, we've already done that, and it's working. The Iraqis and Afghanis overwhelmingly elected governments that weren't religious extremists.
He's trying to apply what happens in games to real life.

I fear for the bolded part.

And a huge "Wha?" to the underlined part.

corronchilejano · Post by **corronchilejano** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 3:23 am

In the games I've played, the recurrent villains lost in the end, despite what they may have said.

Wow, since obviously terrorists found an unlimited amount of magical energy that they used to subdue the world, and THEN the heroes make a comeback and kick their asses!

This kid needs a bit of reality. If we even make this parallel, usually the "bad guys" are the empires (Persians, Egyptians, Rome), and eventually they fall, due to usually random stuff and lots of corruption. Well, except for Bonaparte, he was just unlucky.

Anyone can write pages out of ignorant opinions, but who cares? It´s not like that kid is going to get any smarter. Somebody should tell him to read more history... more REAL history.

Joe Camacho · Post by **Joe Camacho** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 3:29 am

Corronchilejano wrote:
In the games I've played, the recurrent villains lost in the end, despite what they may have said.
Wow, since obviously terrorists found an unlimited amount of magical energy that they used to subdue the world, and THEN the heroes make a comeback and kick their asses!

This kid needs a bit of reality. If we even make this parallel, usually the "bad guys" are the empires (Persians, Egyptians, Rome), and eventually they fall, due to usually random stuff and lots of corruption. Well, except for Bonaparte, he was just unlucky.

Anyone can write pages out of ignorant opinions, but who cares? It´s not like that kid is going to get any smarter. Somebody should tell him to read more history... more REAL history.

Napoleon? Unlucky? Sure he was, invading Russia during winter, who would have thought that it was going to snow and be cold as hell, losing a bunch of useful men and supplies.

What an unlucky fellow. Why don't you read some history too?

corronchilejano · Post by **corronchilejano** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 3:48 am

Joe Camacho wrote:Napoleon? Unlucky? Sure he was, invading Russia during winter, who would have thought that it was going to snow and be cold as hell, losing a bunch of useful men and supplies.

Is this being confused with Germany trying to invade Russia?

As I recall Napoleon was forced to break an aliance with Russia after the Zar (that's in spanish, dunno in english) was pressured by his own council. The Zar admired Napoleon as much as many other governors in the world (such as half of south america´s liberator, Simón Bolivar).
The rest is history, Napoleon wasn´t thinking in invading Russia, made some quick moves, but DIDNT ENGAGE DIRECTLY in many of the "hit and run" ("escaramuzas" in spanish) combats that the russians made against his army. In the end, he invaded Moscou, trying to make the Zar sign a peace treaty. That never happened.

The fall never came from the battles themselves. For the first time we had a HESITANT Napoleon, and it was what caused him his fall.

Joe Camacho · Post by **Joe Camacho** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:05 am

Corronchilejano wrote:
Joe Camacho wrote:Napoleon? Unlucky? Sure he was, invading Russia during winter, who would have thought that it was going to snow and be cold as hell, losing a bunch of useful men and supplies.
Is this being confused with Germany trying to invade Russia?

As I recall Napoleon was forced to break an aliance with Russia after the Zar (that's in spanish, dunno in english) was pressured by his own council. The Zar admired Napoleon as much as many other governors in the world (such as half of south america´s liberator, Simón Bolivar).
The rest is history, Napoleon wasn´t thinking in invading Russia, made some quick moves, but DIDNT ENGAGE DIRECTLY in many of the "hit and run" ("escaramuzas" in spanish) combats that the russians made against his army. In the end, he invaded Moscou, trying to make the Zar sign a peace treaty. That never happened.

The fall never came from the battles themselves. For the first time we had a HESITANT Napoleon, and it was what caused him his fall.

Well, if Napoleon wouldn't had been such an Ass and would let other Countries trade with the United Kingdom, the Council wouldn't have had reasons to break ties with France.

You don't take 600,000 bad equipped soldiers to the farest and coldest lands in Europe to sign a peace treaty, no matter how good you think of your adversaries, the invasion of Russia was a dumb decision by Napoleon, not a matter of luck, it doesn't matter if he managed to get to Moscu, because he returned with less than 40,000; he also made a bunch of more enemies which ultimately allied and crushed him.

Were the Russian Army tactics honorable? Perhaps not, but they were effective. "scorching the earth" worked well, it even worked with the germans AGAIN in WWII.

And yes, Hitler made the *same* mistake Napoleon did, he ignore the peace treaty and invaded, fought against the Russian Army *and* the climate, just to return to Germany while the Red army was right behind him.

Hey, I'll even make you a favor and give you THE mistake Napoleon did, in spanish, no less:

Previendo una victoria rápida, Napoleón no suministró a sus tropas ropas contra el frío. La retirada rusa se alargó hasta la llegada del invierno ruso (conocido coloquialmente tras esta guerra como «General Invierno»), y los franceses no pudieron requisar de entre la devastación dejada en la retirada los suministros suficientes. En el momento de producirse las batallas decisivas, a finales de 1812, el ejército de Napoleón se hallaba ya diezmado a una cifra aproximada de 100.000 soldados, cansados y mal alimentados, lo que permitió a los rusos dar un giro a la guerra y conducirles de vuelta a las fronteras del país. Mientras tanto se producían revueltas en Prusia y Austria lo que finalmente condujo a la derrota de Napoleón en 1814.

Can you tell me with a straight face that it was a matter of LUCK?

corronchilejano · Post by **corronchilejano** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 7:19 am

Joe Camacho wrote:Can you tell me with a straight face that it was a matter of LUCK?

I hell sure can´t. Good to have those facts straight though. Thanks.

adventure_of_link · Post by **adventure_of_link** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:07 pm

Panzer88 wrote:wow a nutjob on gamefaqs! call all your friends, you don't see this every day!

he's not the only nutjob on gamefaqs though

Johan_H · Post by **Johan_H** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:54 pm

adventure_of_link wrote:
Panzer88 wrote:wow a nutjob on gamefaqs! call all your friends, you don't see this every day!
he's not the only nutjob on gamefaqs though

How about a jolly cup of understanding irony?