Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

I have terrible performance problems.

Looking at your current avatar, this is either understandable or not at all understandable, depending on how far out of context you take this... 

[overseer05-15]

I'm hard-pressed to think of a game that doesn't exist.

Golden Sun 4.
Game, set, match.

[Reelya]

https://videogamena.me/
"Jackie Chan's Sex For Kids"

To be honest, it's easy to think of virtually infinite possible games that don't exist. Because you just make something completely random or about a topic / mechanic nobody would touch.

If you can't think of any, that's because you're constraining your mental search space with too many criteria of what you think is a "proper game".

[Frumple]

Hell, some of it's just stuff people haven't gotten around to doing again. I'd love to see a 2017 ogre battle, or a new game inspired by chaos seed. More games that play hard off that one gravity switching NES platformer I can never remember the name of. All sorts of stuff like that. Prolific as games are, there's still a lot of shit they either haven't touched much or at all. Somewhat less applicable to mods, but the things still easily offer material that just isn't available outside modded games, or doesn't have something else out there of equal or better quality. Just because there's something available elsewhere that a mod does, doesn't mean that something isn't complete shite.

[overseer05-15]

Gravity switch?
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV, right?

[Frumple]

Uh. Not even remotely. Does have a similar mechanic but they're very, very different games in just about every other sense. One I was talking about was a platformer where your character was a mech with a gun that could invert gravity, probably from back in the 90s/late 80s. Old NES game, pretty bloody neat for its time. Never can remember what it was called.

[Antioch]

Here is one: Saudia Arabia's regime is worse than the Taliban.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Here is one: Saudia Arabia's regime is worse than the Taliban.

I don't know if thats even an unpopular opinion, just very underreported on. Why? Probably because of close ties with the US. It was the same way with Hussein. We didn't give a fuck that he was a dictator, we just got mad that he decided to stop fighting Iran--though he wasn't all that successful at that anyways.

[Reelya]

he wasn't all that successful at that anyways.

Perhaps the goal wasn't for him to be too successful. After all as soon as he got too stronk, we took him out. And USA was also caught selling anti-tank weapons to the Iranians during the war.

No, the goal as always was to embroil the region in permanent war as it makes a good market for one of the key US exports.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Perhaps. But keep in mind that it's still the Cold War at this point and both the USSR and the US supplied Iraq with arms. Its a strange situation to be sure, but it wouldn't make sense for the US to weaken its only ally in the area. Especially right on the back of Iran becoming essentially a Rogue State--most literally in this case, as it fell outside of both the US' and the USSR's spheres of influence. No doubt the US wanted to see Iran actually defeated and returned to a bastion of capitalism in the Middle East. The USSR also would have vested interest in seeing the revolution defeated--both the monarchy and the republicans weakened in the same few years? What better time to introduce communism.

The USA would not want an Iraqi occupation of Iran certainly--but it would want to see Iran defeated, and frankly, it seems more like inept tactics and officers are what drew out the war rather than arms supplied to either sides.

Also it would be far more lucrative (for the US) to see Iran returned to pro-American/western leadership.

[Helgoland]

There was a bit like that in Lord of War:

Simeon Weisz: I don't think you and I are in the same business. You think I just sell guns, don't you? I don't. I take sides.
Yuri: But in the Iran-Iraq War, you sold guns to both sides.
Simeon Weisz: Did you ever consider that I wanted both sides to lose?

Anyway, unpopular idea, at least around these parts: Supplying the Mujahedeen during the Soviet invasion was not only a good move politically, it was a good deed vis-a-vis peoples' right to self-determination.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

My unpopular idea regarding that is that people are really eager to equate the mujahdeen to the Taliban because it helps the "dae AmeriKKKa?" line and fail to recognize that the mujahdeen were a generalized group of resistance fighters who aren't all the same, and while they contained the proto-Talibs they also contained what would go on to become the Northern Alliance/United Islamic Front who were against the Taliban.

The NA also was partially lead by Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was probably the single greatest hope for Afghanistan. Well-respected and wanted to bring the country closer to modern standards. He was assassinated two days before 9/11 and attempted to warn the US that it was being planned, though he did not know the details. Incidentally, Osama bin Laden said of him that "as long as this man lives, we will never be victorious".

So by "idea" I more mean something along the lines of "fact".

[Reelya]

I don't agree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Afghanistan

The PDPA came to power through a coup known as the Saur Revolution, which ousted the government of Mohammad Daoud Khan. Daoud was succeeded by Nur Muhammad Taraki as head of state and government on 30 April 1978. Taraki and Hafizullah Amin, the organiser of the Saur Revolution, introduced several contentious reforms during their rule, the most notable being equal rights to women, universal education and land reform.

So the evil leftists removed a dictator from power (who had assassinated the previous dictator) then they did things that enraged the islamists such as women's rights and education funding.

So in other words backing the Mujahedeen as promoting "self determination" is in fact a red herring, as the other side in the war were in fact morally preferable.

The Russians in fact had desired to stay out of things, but they'd signed a mutual defense pact with the current government of Afghanistan, and when that government had come under attack, they had demanded Soviet aid. BTW:

Najibullah pursued a policy of National Reconciliation with the opposition, a new Afghan constitution was introduced in 1987 and democratic elections were held in 1988 (which were boycotted by the mujahideen).

Oh right, so they HAD democratic elections and power sharing even during the 1980s but the Islamists refused to get involved. So much for us supporting the forces of self-determination and democracy.

[ChairmanPoo]

To be fair, the Soviets did fall upon an Afghan president who stopped following the script. Much as they did in Prague.
Russians aren't big on letting neighbours do their own thing, regardless of whichever guys are in power. Were doing this shit back when they still had Tzars, and they keep doing it with Bad Vlad. Nothing new under the sun.

[Reelya]

Unfortunately that sentence works just as well if you replace Russia with America, and insert the names of places USA has meddled in, which is a bigger list.