Lionhead's #1 Revolutionary is Joan of Arc

[SomeBritishDude]

It you look at the web address you can see it says either /Followers or /Subjects, depending on whether you choose thumbs up or thumbs down.

I despiratly hope this is a new IP, but I could this being some sort of pointer to Fable 3.

Though, then again, this is not a choice between good or evil, but rather between "Followers" (revolutionary supporters) and "Subjects" (revolutionary objectors), so maybe this is something entirely new.

 

[HobbesMkii]

He abolished slavery in all of the U.S.A., how is that "preserving the status quo"?

Well, he did reuinite the U.S., which is what everyone wanted. And he was "the man", putting down a revolution.

Thats all I can think of.

But he freed the slaves. Although, at that point, pretty much every other country on the face of the earth had done it, so maybe... eh.

That's the part that I get hung up on. Yes, he freed the slaves - revolutionary for the US, but not for the rest of the world - but he also was involved in suppressing the South's attempt at their own revolution, keeping the nation together (which would be preserving the status quo).

It might be considered "revolutionary" for stressing the powers of Federal Government over State Government. Prior to Lincoln, the United States essentially were a concert of states that worked together in the Federal Government (except during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson), to decide only the most complicated and nuanced of disputes. After Lincoln, the Federal Government became the supreme power in the land, dictating policy to the states. One might argue, considering the importance of the United States' presence in world history, by protecting the integrity of the Union (and thus the Federal Government) Lincoln handed America the ability to become the preeminent superpower by the 21st century.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

He abolished slavery in all of the U.S.A., how is that "preserving the status quo"?

Well, he did reuinite the U.S., which is what everyone wanted. And he was "the man", putting down a revolution.

Thats all I can think of.

But he freed the slaves. Although, at that point, pretty much every other country on the face of the earth had done it, so maybe... eh.

That's the part that I get hung up on. Yes, he freed the slaves - revolutionary for the US, but not for the rest of the world - but he also was involved in suppressing the South's attempt at their own revolution, keeping the nation together (which would be preserving the status quo).

It might be considered "revolutionary" for stressing the powers of Federal Government over State Government. Prior to Lincoln, the United States essentially were a concert of states that worked together in the Federal Government (except during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson), to decide only the most complicated and nuanced of disputes. After Lincoln, the Federal Government became the supreme power in the land, dictating policy to the states. One might argue, considering the importance of the United States' presence in world history, by protecting the integrity of the Union (and thus the Federal Government) Lincoln handed America the ability to become the preeminent superpower by the 21st century.

How you see it, it's just a matter of oppinion. It's not a fact that Lincoln was a revolutionary or not. Maybe Lionhead just saw it that way, or more than lightly, they couldn't think of any other better revolutionists that people would know with great quotes.

 

[jad4400]

Sure Lincon was awsome and all, but Franklin Roosevelt was even more badass. I mean come on he got the country out of the depresion, was elected to the presidency four times, created enough reasonable economic regulation that we would not be screwed by the large corperations (eventhough the great Reagan got rid of most of it), insured the banks, led our country through the secound world war, and he did all this while being crippled with polio. I mean seriously the only way he could be more badass is if he had a flying steam powered flying wheelchair!!!!!!

 

[Sparrow]

I don't care anymore, Peter. Just give me Fable III.

PUH-LEASE.

 

[HT_Black]

It seems like all of these revoloutionaries had something they believed in, and in most cases went to the grave for that very reason-- perhaps belief will be a central theme in whatever the project is...?

(NOTE: There would be a hilarious photo of the the head of the guy from Fable photoshopped onto Master Chief's body on one of those "Believe" ads, but I'm too lazy to upload it.)

Wait...hang on...belief...as in gods? Maybe we know where this is going after all...

 

[TheLastCylon]

At first I thought it would be something Black and White related, because of the background color change the first couple of days. But now, because of the quotes and such, I'm leaning towards Fable 3.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

'Honest' Abe Lincoln (this was always sarcastic at the time) was a butcher. His lust for power led him into a mad crusade to crush anything that ever was liberal in the new world and found a tyrannical empire which even today suppresses liberty, at home and abroad. Lincoln's reorganization of the previously federated Union truly was a Jacobin revolution. One does not preserve a union by abolishing it. It is well known that Lincoln was mentally unsound- perhaps this is why he felt it necessary to kill one million of our countrymen.

The American Caesar never freed a single slave even when it was in his power to do so. All great empires begin with great morality plays. But was Lincoln a revolutionary? Certainly.

 

[notsosavagemessiah]

'Honest' Abe Lincoln (this was always sarcastic at the time) was a butcher. His lust for power led him into a mad crusade to crush anything that ever was liberal in the new world and found a tyrannical empire which even today suppresses liberty, at home and abroad. Lincoln's reorganization of the previously federated Union truly was a Jacobin revolution. One does not preserve a union by abolishing it. It is well known that Lincoln was mentally unsound- perhaps this is why he felt it necessary to kill one million of our countrymen.

The American Caesar never freed a single slave even when it was in his power to do so. All great empires begin with great morality plays. But was Lincoln a revolutionary? Certainly.

I'd venture to say you're from the south. Also, what do you mean by jacobin revolution? Jesus, seems to me like you may be a rascist who can't seem to let go of the fact that the south lost the civil war that they started when they decided to split from the union. The united states as a nation would not have survived were it not for lincoln. What Lincoln did was best for the country and for it's people. Lincoln did not abolish the union, the south did. As for liberal, slavery is anything but, and truth be told, that is the main reason the south attempted to secede. They needed slaves to maintain their economy. Lincoln sought to free them. Don't blame a long dead president for the faults of southern thought at the time, the war happened, the south lost, the country remained as one. As it should be.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

Wait...hang on...belief...as in gods? MAybe we know where this is going after all...

I see where your going with this and I wish you where right, but seriously, I don't see the relation, plus Black & White 2 was a complete flop (for good reasons) and PM has pretty much said he's not going to continue with the series.

Now a SPIRITUAL sequel, that I can see, like Bioshock is for System Shock.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

'Honest' Abe Lincoln (this was always sarcastic at the time) was a butcher. His lust for power led him into a mad crusade to crush anything that ever was liberal in the new world and found a tyrannical empire which even today suppresses liberty, at home and abroad. Lincoln's reorganization of the previously federated Union truly was a Jacobin revolution. One does not preserve a union by abolishing it. It is well known that Lincoln was mentally unsound- perhaps this is why he felt it necessary to kill one million of our countrymen.

The American Caesar never freed a single slave even when it was in his power to do so. All great empires begin with great morality plays. But was Lincoln a revolutionary? Certainly.

I'd venture to say you're from the south. Also, what do you mean by jacobin revolution? Jesus, seems to me like you may be a rascist who can't seem to let go of the fact that the south lost the civil war that they started when they decided to split from the union. The united states as a nation would not have survived were it not for lincoln. What Lincoln did was best for the country and for it's people. Lincoln did not abolish the union, the south did. As for liberal, slavery is anything but, and truth be told, that is the main reason the south attempted to secede. They needed slaves to maintain their economy. Lincoln sought to free them. Don't blame a long dead president for the faults of southern thought at the time, the war happened, the south lost, the country remained as one. As it should be.

1. I am from the South.

2. Your knee jerk accusation of racism is laughable. The implication that opposing the Lincoln administration is equivalent to condoning racism or slavery is a false dichotomy and historically inaccurate.

3. Wars are often coached in moralistic terms to obscure the self-aggrandizing motivations of those who wage them. To ignore the implications or beneficiaries of the bloodshed is a mistake. Lincoln was a corporate hack all his life. He considered abolitionists his enemies and they him. As I said, Lincoln never freed a single slave. I don't mean to be baited into making excuses for slavery.

Here is Spooner, classical liberal and abolitionist extremist on the issue:

All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats- so transparent that they ought to deceive no one- when uttered as justification for the war, or for the government that has suceeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want.

You do not have to choose between slavery and empire. You can reject both.

 

[Joeshie]

'Honest' Abe Lincoln (this was always sarcastic at the time) was a butcher. His lust for power led him into a mad crusade to crush anything that ever was liberal in the new world and found a tyrannical empire which even today suppresses liberty, at home and abroad. Lincoln's reorganization of the previously federated Union truly was a Jacobin revolution. One does not preserve a union by abolishing it. It is well known that Lincoln was mentally unsound- perhaps this is why he felt it necessary to kill one million of our countrymen.

The American Caesar never freed a single slave even when it was in his power to do so. All great empires begin with great morality plays. But was Lincoln a revolutionary? Certainly.

Woah, someone has quite the distorted view of history.

 

[notsosavagemessiah]

Well, I'm not going to say you're wrong, because well, you're not. Aside from the fact there was something called the emancipation proclamation that basically said that slavery is illegal.

'Honest' Abe Lincoln (this was always sarcastic at the time) was a butcher. His lust for power led him into a mad crusade to crush anything that ever was liberal in the new world and found a tyrannical empire which even today suppresses liberty, at home and abroad. Lincoln's reorganization of the previously federated Union truly was a Jacobin revolution. One does not preserve a union by abolishing it. It is well known that Lincoln was mentally unsound- perhaps this is why he felt it necessary to kill one million of our countrymen.

The American Caesar never freed a single slave even when it was in his power to do so. All great empires begin with great morality plays. But was Lincoln a revolutionary? Certainly.

I'd venture to say you're from the south. Also, what do you mean by jacobin revolution? Jesus, seems to me like you may be a rascist who can't seem to let go of the fact that the south lost the civil war that they started when they decided to split from the union. The united states as a nation would not have survived were it not for lincoln. What Lincoln did was best for the country and for it's people. Lincoln did not abolish the union, the south did. As for liberal, slavery is anything but, and truth be told, that is the main reason the south attempted to secede. They needed slaves to maintain their economy. Lincoln sought to free them. Don't blame a long dead president for the faults of southern thought at the time, the war happened, the south lost, the country remained as one. As it should be.

1. I am from the South.

2. Your knee jerk accusation of racism is laughable. The implication that opposing the Lincoln administration is equivalent to condoning racism or slavery is a false dichotomy and historically inaccurate.

3. Wars are often coached in moralistic terms to obscure the self-aggrandizing motivations of those who wage them. To ignore the implications or beneficiaries of the bloodshed is a mistake. Lincoln was a corporate hack all his life. He considered abolitionists his enemies and they him. As I said, Lincoln never freed a single slave. I don't mean to be baited into making excuses for slavery.

Here is Spooner, classical liberal and abolitionist extremist on the issue:

All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats- so transparent that they ought to deceive no one- when uttered as justification for the war, or for the government that has suceeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want.

You do not have to choose between slavery and empire. You can reject both.

First off, I would like to apologize about the rascist comment. I was mistaken on something.

Well, you're not wrong on a good portion of this. I'll concede that. But you're fogetting the immancipation proclamation. You know, the document that basically said that slavery is illegal. As for our government suppressing liberty, friend, you are sadly very very mistaken. Our society is one of the most vibrant and expressive in the world, all opinions are allowed to be voiced. Tell me friend, if it weren't for keeping the union together, then why did the civil war happen? This country is far from an evil empire and lincoln was far from the mass murderer you would like him to be. You are free to think and say what you want, but that doesn't make you correct.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

'Honest' Abe Lincoln (this was always sarcastic at the time) was a butcher. His lust for power led him into a mad crusade to crush anything that ever was liberal in the new world and found a tyrannical empire which even today suppresses liberty, at home and abroad. Lincoln's reorganization of the previously federated Union truly was a Jacobin revolution. One does not preserve a union by abolishing it. It is well known that Lincoln was mentally unsound- perhaps this is why he felt it necessary to kill one million of our countrymen.

The American Caesar never freed a single slave even when it was in his power to do so. All great empires begin with great morality plays. But was Lincoln a revolutionary? Certainly.

Woah, someone has quite the distorted view of history.

Needless to say, I think my view is the correction of the distortion. I mean, of course I think I'm right. hehe.

But my views on the subject are quite unconventional, I'll give you that.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Well, I'm not going to say you're wrong, because well, you're not. Aside from the fact there was something called the emancipation proclamation that basically said that slavery is illegal.

It said the enemy's slaves are now free, but our slaves remain in bondage. It literally freed no one. Many took it as a blow to the institution of slavery, but many, apparently including Lincoln's vice president, concluded it was simply a war measure to convince the Europeans that the U.S. was taking a stand against slavery, while encouraging uprising in enemy territory.

First off, I would like to apologize about the rascist comment. I was mistaken on something.

Thank you, that is an unusual kindness.

Well, you're not wrong on a good portion of this. I'll concede that. But you're fogetting the immancipation proclamation. You know, the document that basically said that slavery is illegal. As for our government suppressing liberty, friend, you are sadly very very mistaken. Our society is one of the most vibrant and expressive in the world, all opinions are allowed to be voiced. Tell me friend, if it weren't for keeping the union together, then why did the civil war happen? This country is far from an evil empire and lincoln was far from the mass murderer you would like him to be. You are free to think and say what you want, but that doesn't make you correct.

First off, it would be incorrect of me to say that no one supported the United States because they wanted to abolish slavery. Clearly, many did. As for the U.S. government, I think its history is quite ugly. We grimly acknowledge the failures of it, but then sweep the problems under the rug and justify it with comparisons to foreign lands.

"Keeping the Union together" was a big motivation for war in the sense of preserving the territorial boundaries of the United States government. But the normal understanding of 'union' implies a degree of separation between parts, and I would say voluntarism. In that sense, a body that abandons those qualities ceases to be a union at all and becomes a singular entity.

As for civil liberties, the state appears at the margins. The voices of most radicals do not threaten the status quo- those who do run into trouble.

I would also like to qualify, that I consider all states in the lower case sense to be criminal enterprises, so that may clarify my position a bit.

Other causes for the war include tariff and economic policy disputes that had already almost become violent on several occasions. But, as I said, there certainly were those who fought for the union specifically to abolish slavery. But this is not sufficient of itself to justify anything.

 

[Superlordbasil]

Whatever happens Peter Molyneux will come across as an arrogant bastard in my mind if he try to compare one of his substandard creations to the success of these sort of people.

unless these people have a point in his next project

 

[Andy_Panthro]

Perhaps he's having a go at a "Civilization" type of game. Thats pretty much what I've considererd since Che on day one.

 

[eggcarrier]

That's the part that I get hung up on. Yes, he freed the slaves - revolutionary for the US, but not for the rest of the world - but he also was involved in suppressing the South's attempt at their own revolution, keeping the nation together (which would be preserving the status quo).[/quote]

If your argement is that Abe wasn't revolutionary because what he did had no bearing on, say, France -- then how did anything Joan d'Arc did have any bearing on China?

Also, keep in mind, that the South's "revolution" was to preserve their way of life, their status quo. Lincoln actually took a stand and abolished slavery, an issue that the previous three or four presidents just pussy-footed around. Bringing a nation back together after it being torn asunder, under laws that previously did not exist -- I don't believe is the definition of status quo at all.