 News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register |
Log in |
|
|
I have spent few hours repopulating e4m1 with medieval monsters. I think the result is interesting in gameplay terms. On hard the play is very brutal and maybe you should consider using all the secrets you know from e4m1.
I didn't change any textures and made only some very small changes to the brushwork. Hope someone will enjoy it :) http://quake_1.republika.pl/ssm.zip I enjoyed your remake, nice carnage.
Though the spawning Knights made it somewhat awkward to get a good demo, there seemed to be always 1-2 kills missing. Would be cool if you made more of those. Here is a passable 100%: http://shub-hub.quaddicted.com/files/demos_singleplayer/ssm_sw257.dz how that makes it different from all the others?
Headthump's ratings: Bush 43: terrible Clinton: mediocre Bush 41: terrible Reagan: acceptable, but expensive Cousin Jimmy: pretty bad, Zbig was cool though Ford: place holder Nixon: scary, but entertaining Johnson: 3rd worse in Modern History Kennedy: Overrated Eisenhower: acceptable, great farewell address Truman: 2nd Worse, #1 war criminal in human history FDR: worst and still chipping away at our SOL Hoover: Terrible Coolidge: awesome, my kind of guy Harding: best prez evah! It seems that the level wasn't hard enough for Trinca :).
Sielwolf your demo is awesome. I have tried to make a simmilar run but always died while trying to hold your pace. More new map reviews:
phantom: Phantom Polly tpof: E4M4 Quoth Remake http://underworld.planetquake.gamespy.com/index.html Court historians rank presidents by the degree to which they have increased the power of the executive and engaged in political messiahism no matter of the long term consequence of their actions, I rank them by how well they 1) left the American alone, 2) did not threaten the general peace, 3) or impede the prosperity.
Here is a quote to chew on: http://www.mises.org/story/2491 Harding's Teapot Dome affair is but a drop in the ocean compared to the global horrors set in train by Wilson's decision to take the United States into World War I: Allied victory, a harsh Versailles treaty, German resentment, the rise of Nazism, and World War II, not to speak of the rise of Communism, which also followed in World War I's wake. Why do the historians, and following them the public, place on pedestals the leaders responsible for such utter catastrophes? So to say we could not have had a worse president than Harding is nonsense for the reason that the long term consequences of his presidency were minimal. but that quote is bullshit. a harsh Versailles treaty, German resentment, the rise of Nazism, and World War II, not to speak of the rise of Communism, which also followed in World War I's wake were the results of decades of complicated history and the actions of millions. Blaming Woodrow Wilson for not seeing any of that coming is a little myopic, don't you think?
at me on purpose? I like you too but I would never give an easy means of grandstanding to a debate opponent, but I'll take it if you insist ;)
Yes, Wilson is responsible for those things by getting us involved in the First World War because without our presence the parties involved would have been forced to reach a far more equitable truce. Instead, we tipped the balance to the British and the Germans had to take the enormous strain of the entire war debt which they were only partly responsible for creating in the conflict. As the living standards of the German populous was greatly affected by this economicaly, that certainly lead to the radicalization of the beerhalls in the 20's and 30's. The caveat I would add is that Communism was already on the rise in Russia at the time and Wilson doesn't bare responsibilaty for that. Another quote, to answer the one that usualy comes up, regarding the Lusitania: The well-publicized May, 1915, German sinking of the British ocean liner Lusitania is typically cited as one of a series of outrages to which President Woodrow Wilson reacted with restraint and patience. Eventually, so the story goes, even Wilson, a devout, peace-loving man, was forced to make war upon the Germans in order to protect the people and land of America. Yet few in America at the time suggested the nation should go to war because of the sinking of "a British ship flying a British flag." In fact, that British ship carried over four million rifle cartridges and 1,250 cases of shrapnel shells � destined for use against German soldiers. Wilson got us in the war so he could have a say in its outcome. That's an oversimplification. (Surely that's why everyone gets involved in wars: at the outset even the eventual 'losers' thought that they would have a say in the outcome?)
In Wilson's case, I think you need to explain why he reversed the initial declaration of US neutrality. Were there somewhat more valid reasons afoot than just "so he could have a say in its outcome"? Also, what would have been wrong from the US standpoint if the parties had of reached an "equitable truce"? During the first two years of the war, the US exports increased four-fold as neutrality allowed them to trade with both sides. Why was it important to America to concede this position; one that was having a fairly beneficial effect on the US economy and that would have almost certainly continued after the war had ended? You say "so he could have a say", but why did both houses give him such overwhelming support to declare war on the German government? Was the heavily biased media coverage in the US significant in the decision? (Britain and France in particular had the monopoly on transatlantic cables at the time so I expect that coverage would have been a bit one-sided.) What about the US citizens aboard the Lusitania; what was the mood of the man-in-the-street over that? And just how significant was the Zimmerman Telegram in all of this? Was the content seen as a genuine threat to US territory? By the way, Germany did not take on the whole of the war debt. Most of the outstanding loans made to Britain during WW1 were written-off in 1931. However, Britain did, in 2007, finally pay-off the US and Canadian loans for WW2, so that was nice. Reagan was acceptable, he had the qualities of being a gentleman, and at least rhetoricaly, saying many of the right things, and also suceeding in getting some tax relief from the oppressive disensintives towards being a productive human being that our tax system grew into from FDR to Ford.
Though his administration did nothing in the way of reducing spending (despite claims to the contrary by his critics who still to this day harp on phantom budget cuts that never occurred). Also, the drug war which originaly started with Nixon got a boost during the Reagan administration. This is pretty much a welfare scheme for the bully asshole types who go into law enforcement(as a personal note, the only person who has ever shot me so far in my life is now an officer in the NYPD, then he was a punk teenager with a pellet gun). So that is a big negative on his record. Neolib, nope. That ideology is basicaly a mercantilist varient. I'm a paleolibertarian in politics and a Rothbardian in economics. The political philosphy really has its origins in Lao Tsu, who stated: "The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished�. The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be." I doubt if there is really a similar ideology in England. Here, Senator Taft, Barry Goldwater, H L Mencken, discordian Robert Anton Wilson and Clint Eastwood fit the mold. The French had Frederic Bastiat who also fits us to a T., but Briton libertarians tend to be utilitarians too, and that is an entirely different spirit.
|
|
| You must be logged in to post in this thread. |
|
| Website copyright © 2002-2025 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors. |