Treblaine said:
CrazyJew said:
Agent Smith and his philosophy. -snip-
"The only way you can survive is to spread to another area."
Again. Wrong. How are there STILL humans living in Africa as they have lived for tens of thousands of years since the first humans came into existence. They don't strip the land bare and move on, the populations just expand and spread and in fact do form an equilibrium with the environment.
So the idea that the only way humans can survive is to spread to another area is wrong because people in Africa don't strip the land bare and move on they just expand and spread...
You, sir, make no sense.
If this is the case, why am I constantly assaulted by advertisements asking me to pledge money to feed children from these African countries when I'm up late watching television?
So much of what you have been posting in this thread is crazy. If you want to disregard the Star Wars prequel trilogy, that is fine, but not when you are trying to argue a point on Star Wars where the prequels can be brought into play. You keep mentioning Lucas' right to copy, as if that is all a copyright does.
From wiki: Copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time. Generally, it is "the right to copy", but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other related rights. It is a form of intellectual property (like the patent, the trademark, and the trade secret) applicable to any expressible form of an idea or information that is substantive and discrete.
So in this case, we can probably assume that Lucas has determined that you do not have the right to adapt his work in the way to exclude the prequel movies from existing as far as your argument is concerned.
For General Hummel from the Rock, he wasn't looking for honor or public recognition for the fallen soldiers, he just wanted their families to receive an explanation of how their family members died and to receive the benefits and medals due to them. I believe there are monetary benefits paid to the families of fallen soldiers, but due to the clandestine nature of the mission these soldiers died in, their families received nothing. Hummel wanted this corrected and he had tried. You can hear a voice over at the very beginnng of the movie of him bringing this up before the Special Arms Services Committee, and he also says at his wife's grave that he had tried everything. He has done all he can to correct this injustice legally. So, now he is escalating drastically in order to get what he feels is right. In this case, I think he fits the bill for this thread perfectly.
As for RDR, you can play it like you want and I can play it like I want. If you want outright redemption, then don't go and kill Ross. Don't hunt him down. I'm sure Ross didn't feel like he needed Jack's forgiveness to get on with his life. It would have been cool if Rockstar had made more options for the final duel, but they didn't so if you want an ending that makes you happy, then ignore everything after John is killed. After all, you seem to have no problem ignoring other things you don't like.
Ross promised John amnesty if he hunted down his former gang members. John did not commit any further crimes after doing so and as such should have been left alone. The fact that Ross brought the government troops in to kill John despite the amnesty just paints him as a villian, period.
It has been a while since I played the game and I certainly do not remember any lines word for word, but I do remember getting the idea that John's family was being held as hostages to ensure his cooperation. If they were just in prison, why the hell wouldn't John just bust them out and take his family into hiding? Seems like it would be a lot easier than traversing a large chunk of the Old West repeatedly and assaulting multiple fortified strongholds in an effort to kill or apprehend three criminals. This suggests that there was a definite threat to John's family involved.
For that matter, if Ross and the other government agents are "good", why did they not set stricter rules for Marston to follow? The honor system in the game allows you to be good or evil (meaning the redemption you mentioned is not necessarily the way the game is designed), so you can kill civilians and so on with virtually no penalty as long as you pay off your bounty so you aren't hunted constantly. You'd think there would have been a "follow all laws" or "commit no wrongdoing" clause in the agreement between John and Ross, but no. Ross didn't care what John did, as long as the gang members were brought down.
But, I apparently am disagreeing with you, so I'm sure you'll just ignore my statements as you are so willing to ignore anything else you don't care for.
