Zero Punctuation: Godzilla - God-Awful-Zilla

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

ZZoMBiE13:
This Godzilla game is a bloody tragedy.

All they had to do was copy the game play from the old PS2/Xbox/GameCube Godzilla games from about 12 years back with new shiny graphics. That's all it would have taken to make a game I'd be proud to have in my collection. But instead, they make a pile of crap with awkward controls and pointless game play that drags on. It's very disappointing.

How about something else added to that, a scaled up/down (giant monsters you know, not sure if you scale up for more complex destruction, or down for miniature destruction) Red Faction destruction engine.

Ahahah, that's an amazing dick analogy Yahtzee! This was great as usual. Now what do we have...

Comments:
An entire page of American insecurity over their homeland's war crimes coming from one brief mentioning in a joke

This thread is going places.

Did I spy a Kitten Kong reference in there?

I actually really like the controls. Godzilla's turning feels like how a giant mosnter would turn.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:

It's not being a jerk at all doing exactly what you say the enemy will do to your people if they invade using propaganda, when the enemy has a record of not doing anything like that, but you do. Right, sure, America was being the jerk.

It was a while since I read up on the subject, (my last assignment for junior high to be precise) but I recall the main reason behind the bombings were either:

To create a possibility for the Emperor to surrender with grace because of the owerwhelming superiority of allied weapons. Japan at that stage was not just beaten, but bled white and the Japanese knew it. It was just that the honor of the Japanese did not allow surrender. Even this explanation acknowledges that the bombings were militarily utterly pointless.

The other theory was that the Americans wanted to send a message to the comintern. (Do not mess with "MURICA", damn Ruskies) Right at the onset of the cold war.

Hmm, that ended with a strangely irritating image in my head.

But yeah, it's shit. When everything just clips through everything with no sense of connection, you can tell no one could give a toss...

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:

Stupidity:

Michael Prymula:

Also I don't believe the bombings of Japan were "criminal" at all, they never would've stopped coming if we hadn't bombed them, yes it sucks that people died because of it, but we couldn't just sit around and wait for Japan to slowly kill themselves by going after us.

Yes, you could of.
It's what your doing in with the war in the middle East right now.

Did you just suggest that the United States should start using atomic bombs on the middle east?

For the record I never supported the Iraq war, but I did support the troops, and for your information, troops have already mostly withdrawn from Afghanistan.

Marxie:
Ahahah, that's an amazing dick analogy Yahtzee! This was great as usual. Now what do we have...

Comments:
An entire page of American insecurity over their homeland's war crimes coming from one brief mentioning in a joke

This thread is going places.

It's not insecurity, it's just that when someone makes accusations of war crimes they need to be answered and shown how while there were war crimes committed the atomic bombings were not war crimes.

Xan Krieger:
the atomic bombings were not war crimes.

Both cities were civilian targets. There is absolutely no way to fit the bombardments into Hague Conventions or any other treaty regulating conduction of warfare. It was a deliberate breaking of all the conventions of civilian immunity.
It can be argued that the bombings were morally justified in the scope of war, which does not however make them legally acceptable actions.

Xan Krieger:
It's not insecurity

Somebody: >Imperialism in Africa and India
British person: Yeah, overall that was a big pile of bad stuff. So?

Somebody: >Holocaust
German person: Sure, our grandfathers were acting out of line there.

Somebody: >Cultural revolution
Chinese person: Yes, that's one big can of worms. And?

Somebody: >Katyn, GULAG
Russian person: Da, that was a bunch of really fucked up shit. Whatever.

Somebody: >Nuclear bombings
American person: How dare you! Explain your accusations at once! Truman did nothing wrong!

Xan Krieger:
It's not insecurity

Now I really want DLC for this game where you play as a giant kitten, I'd love to play that.

Marxie:

Xan Krieger:
the atomic bombings were not war crimes.

Both cities were civilian targets. There is absolutely no way to fit the bombardments into Hague Conventions or any other treaty regulating conduction of warfare. It was a deliberate breaking of all the conventions of civilian immunity.
It can be argued that the bombings were morally justified in the scope of war, which does not however make them legally acceptable actions.

Xan Krieger:
It's not insecurity

Somebody: >Imperialism in Africa and India
British person: Yeah, overall that was a big pile of bad stuff. So?

Somebody: >Holocaust
German person: Sure, our grandfathers were acting out of line there.

Somebody: >Cultural revolution
Chinese person: Yes, that's one big can of worms. And?

Somebody: >Katyn, GULAG
Russian person: Da, that was a bunch of really fucked up shit. Whatever.

Somebody: >Nuclear bombings
American person: How dare you! Explain your accusations at once! Truman did nothing wrong!

Xan Krieger:
It's not insecurity

The difference is that in those other cases the accusations are legitimate, they were done and they were clearly wrong. If the bombings of other major cities was fine then of course the nukings are fine.

With a purposeful grimace and a terrible smile, he destroys the crappy game in his wild style! Helpless fans scream for mercy as he eyes their favorite game! He picks up a bus and throws it back down as he trods through a grey brown sewer hall! Oh no, they say he's got to go, Go Go Yahtzilla!

Thank you for the review : )

Maybe they should add a game + mode where we get spritely movement and special attacks like the MC Hammer side sliding. *cough* Well maybe not...

Yes that was almost an impulse purchase on my part as well, I kept thinking man, I sure loved Rampage, surely there is no way they could screw this up. Smart phone to the rescue, bad purchase avoided. I think this option has saved me many times the original value of the phone itself.

OK, I had to join to to post. I am most likely older than a lot of you here, seeing as I will hit 50 before the end of the year... Holy crap, I am old.

My father won a Bronze Star in the Battle Of The Bulge. He landed in Italy and I believe Omaha Beach. He told me that he was scared by the thought of invading Japan. This is a man who fell from a church steeple into a parking lot and cleaned up then drove himself home.

The American Government had forecasts of casualties in the millions for both sides if there was an invasion. This most likely would have included civilian losses as well. It was truly believed that dropping the bombs were the best option to end the war. As Xian pointed out, cities with civilians were bombed during the war, by all sides.

Now, with that being said, how do I feel about the bombings? They were a godawful tragedy. There can be no other description. Know what? The same is true for war in general. Were there other political motivations? Could be, it seems all governments have something going on behind the scenes. The truth is we weren't there during this time. We have no idea of the pressures these men were under to save lives, of the fear the soldiers had thinking about Japan.Would the Japanese people have fought to the end during an invasion? No one knows, but at the time the leaders believed they would.

Sorry if this sounds like a lecture. I just wanted to give an older person's point of view.

Peace

Marxie:

Xan Krieger:
the atomic bombings were not war crimes.

Both cities were civilian targets. There is absolutely no way to fit the bombardments into Hague Conventions or any other treaty regulating conduction of warfare. It was a deliberate breaking of all the conventions of civilian immunity.
It can be argued that the bombings were morally justified in the scope of war, which does not however make them legally acceptable actions.

Xan Krieger:
It's not insecurity

Somebody: >Imperialism in Africa and India
British person: Yeah, overall that was a big pile of bad stuff. So?

Somebody: >Holocaust
German person: Sure, our grandfathers were acting out of line there.

Somebody: >Cultural revolution
Chinese person: Yes, that's one big can of worms. And?

Somebody: >Katyn, GULAG
Russian person: Da, that was a bunch of really fucked up shit. Whatever.

Somebody: >Nuclear bombings
American person: How dare you! Explain your accusations at once! Truman did nothing wrong!

Xan Krieger:
It's not insecurity

Nuclear bombings were far better than what the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces had planned for their own citizens, the official Japanese war rhetoric called for ichioku gyokusai, 'the shattering of a hundred million jewels' - the beautiful martyrdom of an entire nation. That was literally part of their defence plan, martyrdom on a national scale.

Do4600:

Nuclear bombings were far better than what the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces had planned for their own citizens, the official Japanese war rhetoric called for ichioku gyokusai, 'the shattering of a hundred million jewels' - the beautiful martyrdom of an entire nation. That was literally part of their defence plan, martyrdom on a national scale.

This ideology did not survive the bombs. What makes everyone so sure it would survive simultaneous invasion by both US and USSR? Do Americans perceive the nukes as some magical devices that turned an entire nation's core ideology 180 degrees overnight, when nothing else could've done it?

And I wasn't even arguing for moral justification in that post. I specifically said that due to cities being civilian targets bombings WERE war crimes. Even if it can be rationalized that they prevented even greater casualties, and were not made just to prevent division of Japan into zones of influence with the USSR like it happened to Germany. And that Americans feel very insecure about it even though there is not much to be insecure about. It was another realpolitik decision which happened to contradict the international law, made among hundreds of others like it quite some time ago. Yet people need to defend it on all directions like it's the defining point of their entire life ideology.

Marxie:

Do4600:

Nuclear bombings were far better than what the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces had planned for their own citizens, the official Japanese war rhetoric called for ichioku gyokusai, 'the shattering of a hundred million jewels' - the beautiful martyrdom of an entire nation. That was literally part of their defence plan, martyrdom on a national scale.

This ideology did not survive the bombs. What makes everyone so sure it would survive simultaneous invasion by both US and USSR? Do Americans perceive the nukes as some magical devices that turned an entire nation's core ideology 180 degrees overnight, when nothing else could've done it?

And I wasn't even arguing for moral justification in that post. I specifically said that due to cities being civilian targets bombings WERE war crimes. Even if it can be rationalized that they prevented even greater casualties, and were not made just to prevent division of Japan into zones of influence with the USSR like it happened to Germany. And that Americans feel very insecure about it even though there is not much to be insecure about. It was another realpolitik decision which happened to contradict the international law, made among hundreds of others like it quite some time ago. Yet people need to defend it on all directions like it's the defining point of their entire life ideology.

Soviet strategy and japanese strategy would've not worked well against each other, both liked mass charges and it would've been a massive waste of men. Also like I said we bombed plenty of other cities specifically targeting civilians so if there was no legal problem there then why should there be one for the two cities involved in the nuking?

Xan Krieger:
Soviet strategy and japanese strategy would've not worked well against each other, both liked mass charges and it would've been a massive waste of men

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh. Always good to meet a fellow historic warfare buff. "Soviets warfare consisted entirely of mass charges of conscripts with one rifle for every two men against entrenched enemy positions! Seriously, I saw it in Call of Duty!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwantung_Army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria
Enlighten yourself. Would've not worked well against each other my ass.

Xan Krieger:
Also like I said we bombed plenty of other cities specifically targeting civilians so if there was no legal problem

Who can judge the victors?

No Soviet officer faced a tribunal for the Katyn massacre, so I guess that one is not a military crime either.

Marxie:

Xan Krieger:
Soviet strategy and japanese strategy would've not worked well against each other, both liked mass charges and it would've been a massive waste of men

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh. Always good to meet a fellow historic warfare buff.

Xan Krieger:
Also like I said we bombed plenty of other cities specifically targeting civilians so if there was no legal problem

Who can judge the victors?

No Soviet officer faced a tribunal for the Katyn massacre, so I guess that one is not a military crime either.

And that's why the laws of war fail, nobody fights to lose and only the losers get prosecuted. It's extremely regretful but I don't know how to hold countries accountable.

Xan Krieger:

And that's why the laws of war fail, nobody fights to lose and only the losers get prosecuted. It's extremely regretful but I don't know how to hold countries accountable.

Exactly. International laws lose all their possible power when they collide with a nation's interests. That's why almost every military conflict is filled to the brim with sanctioned military crimes. Hell, some people could argue that putting the interests of it's people above the demands of international community is a virtue for a nation, not a fault. And either way - it happened 3/4 of a century ago. Very few of those who took part in this act or even saw it are alive now to tell the tale.

But still - a lot of people get very defensive whenever the topic is even barely touched upon. Like in a joke. And believe it or not - that is actually fine. Most of peoples of Earth have very some touchy subjects that devolve into unpleasant discussion whenever they are even glanced. Ossi and Wessi for Germans, territorial expansion for Israelites, Soviet heritage for post-Soviet countries. The thing is - these people know that those are very sore points for them, and rarely have trouble admitting that they feel rather insecure over those topics. Except for many Americans. Even if something like that triggers - it HAS to be morally clean, comfy and clear as day for them. No confusion can be had even theoretically over any historical events. RATIONALITY ALWAYS PREVAILS! IT WAS ALL FOR THE GREATER GOOD SO NO HARD FEELINGS!

THAT was what originally pulled me into a discussion.

Alessandra Ambrosio, if anyone's curious.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.