Xard

I FORGOT

Oh, right Yeah, it is at the graveyard

Well, for me "art" has automatically higher starting point scores wise than mere entertainment - it doesn't mean that entertainment product can't easily overcome "art" but it has to be quite top-notch stuff if the "art" thingie is good. Why I quoted Tarkovsky was because I saw this sliding once again to "I think it sucks so it sucks" and "well it's more entertaining so its better" - it wasn't specifically aimed at your PS:T comment. Last time this happened I accidentally managed to create that huge ****storm about what game can be considered art and what not... of course I managed to get Moderated Status back then so I couldn't even participate

I wish I'm not of the elitist type - but whenever it comes down to the "I don't like it so it sucks lololol" I see red. There's stuff I don't like but if it has its virtues I recognize them and don't slander it completely - something good reviewer is able to do. And if art done by humans must automatically be entertaining we've reached the point of amusing ourselves to death already

It's in Death God's Vault - in the furnace

Not liking something is ok. Slandering something without giving any credit for works objective virtues (in movies this could be interesting and enthralling camerawork and cinematography as whole, pacing, great acting etc. and in literature author's rich language and abilities to "rhyme"/pace the work) is for imbeciles I find it funny you're calling one of the most reverred directors of all time "art snob"

"The beautiful is hidden from the eyes of those who are not searching for the truth, for whom it is contra-indicated. But the profound lack of spirituality of those people who see art and condemn it, the fact that they are neither willing or ready to consider the meaning and aim of their existence in any higher sense, is often masked by the vulgarly simplistic cry,

And yet small buzz like Helldivers brought those mighty colosses down... or to be more exact under the water haw haw haw Waste of money

c - 1 d - 2

That explains a lot, thanks alanschu. I wondered how Bismarck was so effective when its brethen were basically junkmetal

Yeah, that's what I ment they were not just bunch of savages

But didn't Sand quit gaming forever?

Because they weren't stupid enough to do that? All monster ships and other

Jutland was very important strategic victory for brits - it ensured that blockade of German ports was to hold on and block all supplies. Which would turn up to be single biggest reason for Germany's defeat in WWI. If Germany had won Jutland things might've ended very differently. I'd say most glorious and greatest days of british navy (compared to its contemporaries) were from 1700 to end of 1800's... or something like that. They were still the greatest naval power in the world in WWI though. But isn't it clear why they were jealous over Germans building up their navy? I mean, it was all about power. And no superpower voluntarily lets other power to rise to threaten it. Navy armament race had been going for years already, it wasn't even near the biggest reason Britannia ended up in world war. It was one of the factors though edit: It took half the British Navy to defeat the Bismarck in WW2. I mean c'mon, a single ship? Mongolians were hordes of saber-rattling warriors, that's hardly an Empire. The Romans at least made important influences in life and culture. The British too, they gave us Americans! You by far underrestimate Mongolians. They were a lot more than "saber-rattling warriors". But yeah, it's not like they created an empire in sense of Persia, Macedonia, Rome etc. You have to remember that by WWII British strenght had been already reduced and Bismarck was monster for a ship - just like Musashi (and that other ship) of Japan. Which yanks killed with Helldivers, lol edit2: Helldivers, not bombers Yanks had best tactics in the naval warfare in WWII I'd say. Germans did have teh submarines but... *shrug*

It is more than a bit streching to call British Navy overrated due to one battle Roman Empire was as big as it could be. It covered most of the known world (well, for them known) and definetly all the important areas that were worth having. And as Mus? said Mongolian Empire wasn't much empire at all

I see what's the problem then

You've been on that board way too long That said I fear rise of the furries. I guess I need to go buy ammo and shotgun And I don't like this. At all

That is - of course - judging by how much land their rule covered In cultural, militaristic etc. bla bla bla importance Rome is still unrivalled (though British Empire is solely responsible for anglosaxon culture's domination in todays world) Morgoth: I could point out Austria-Hungary was under considerable internal stress all the time with all the oppressed minorities, secessionists etc. so you have to take that into consideration why it never became colonial superpower.

Volourn, You should know that giving a gun to depressed person and telling him to "do it ****" is criminal and utterly despicable activity. This wasn't much better. In certain ways this is WORSE

Big words make head hurt? Me understand. Me no talk silly things no more, OK? OK. Friends now? That would be more than welcome but considering your one man crusade here it won't happen

I can't believe random_n00b has started something like that Take your scientiphilia where sun doesn't shine, genius

Yeah, Avellone that guy whose name started R (gahh, Raynolds?) and ?

Kovalchuk was awesome GG Russia