The more progressive countries in the Middle East also happen to be the ones that aren't riddled with wars left and right, along with sectarian violence reaching a boiling point.

Their real opinions, how a Muslim country and military functions, their culture, their society.

Not the Americanized Islam.

They're* :^)

Anyway, I was using American Islam as the examples when I was providing them, because they're Muslim people in a secular country. Look at Turkey. They were perfectly fine being Muslim and sectarian before Erdoğan came in and messed things up and is promoting a dictatorship and a less secular government. Just 5 years ago Turkey was seen as what ME countries should aspire to be.

Theocracy running any nation, regardless of religion, is shit.

Now I think one of the few ME countries that isn't entirely ass backwards is Jordan. Maybe Dubai if you don't wanna count their human rights stuff.

Tabata BTFO SJWs and Eurocucks. This is why I have a bit more respect for Japanese devs, they stand by their principles.

I mean, Japs are obsessed with tits, let's be honest.

Remember, Conservatism isn't about rejecting new ideas, it's about preserving the fire.

I bet you thought lighting the Bonfire was the canon way to end Dark Souls. Heh......

Why do they wear it, then?

Because it ties into their culture? I said that before.

lmao

That's not the same thing. Not even the most hardcore bible thumping family in America is close to the fanaticism of a Muslim family.

I was only using an example. You don't have to be a fanatical Muslim to wear them.

"some slightly more liberal Muslim families in the US don't do this so you're wrong haha take that bigot"

I never said that. Let's not go down the route where we shove words in the others mouths, it's obnoxious.

It is black and white. There is no choice given to the female. She's forced to wear it or she'll be jailed and stoned. In Europe laws don't allow that, but they still enforce it for the most part within their communities. Same thing in America, albeit to a lesser extent because people actually have to assimilate.

Do you have any proof at all that actually shows they still force it within their communities and the only reason they keep them from doing so is because of European laws, or because American culture? Because you still see it in America and Europe. Hell an American Olympic female athlete did it just this last cycle.

This is very basic logic a lot of bleeding heart liberals just can't seem to grasp because they (you) believe it's too closely associated with "fascism".

Why is it that whenever a debate happens here, people instantly cast down what you say with a "lol libbie" insult? I'm not calling you an alt righter, and I'm sure as hell not as liberal as you might be thinking. So let's not dish out something name calling as common as "religion of peace" around here every time someone may disagree with you on something ideologically or morally.

Your culture/religion/society forces you to wear an article of clothing to cover your body. That's wrong because there's no need to cover the head/face or entire body.

The religion of Islam doesn't actually tell them to wear it. It just says dress moderately last I checked. Them covering their entire bodies is more cultural than it is religious. Theocratic states are wrong, especially Middle Eastern ones. However I don't think simply wearing something to cover your hair is at all that wrong. It's not really the same, but let me ask you a question since it got me thinking and I want your opinion on it. Is it oppressive to women that a Nun dresses the way she does?

As a moral society it's our duty to ban oppressive practices like that.

It depends on what you mean by "moral society", because the west has a lot of things that aren't really moral. Human rights wise? I guess you could say we are, but if someone wants to wear something, and has the option to but also has the option not to, then you shouldn't force it upon then. Just because you think it's morally on the right side at the end of the day, the way you're going about it is still just as bad as those forcing them to wear it. The ends justifying the means and all that.

is that meant as an arena type map? Seems awfully open with not alot of movement options.

Yeah I agree with this. I think more stuff needs to be in the middle if that's the feeling you're going for.

If you switched the US and France you'd still be leaving one of the biggest factors of the war out as DLC.[/quote]You're already doing that though by not including France right away is what I'm saying. They did far more in WW1 than the US ever did.

Games cost time and money to make and at some point a product needs to be shipped. It makes more sense to cater to your majority audience in your base game than it does to sell to a minority audience as well so you need to maximize profit. This is why you're seeing the US and UK being featured instead of France and Russia.

Fair point. Like I said, makes sense to include the faction the majority of your users are buying.

DICE is a Swedish company.

You're right. Completely forgot about that. EA being the American publisher though, and I'm sure a lot of say on things. Doesn't really matter.

I mean what I said. The Harlem Hellfighters were placed under the command of the French military during WW1. They were even awarded French medals and distinctions for their service to them. When playing as the US in BF1 you will not be under the command of the American military.

Oh that's rather interesting. When you put it that way, it makes a lot more sense. Actually as I was typing that up, I was thinking of Valiant Hearts which as Emile the American coming to fight under the French since the US was still neutral. That makes a lot more sense and allows us to see the campaign (and battles) much earlier with US factions. It's also an all black regiment, so if they do go all out with that, it'd be interesting.

Touche. And now I must sleep.

No I think they should be in it. I just find odd that one of the biggest factors in the war is DLC is all. My argument would be the US came in at the last two years so I'd easily see them being tied off as the DLC since there were a shit ton more battles to go from before they jumped in, as opposed to after. I'm not really complaining (I guess I am, but I'm not hating on them for it) since it's DICE/EA, and no some Euro company doing it. I can easily see why they make the US already main installments.

Also, what do you mean kinda playing as them?

Quote from: Luciana on August 24, 2016, 09:51:10 PM

Quote from: True Turquoise on August 24, 2016, 08:33:28 PM

That area easily had the best armour

That doesn't negate the experience of it. You could put the best armor at the end of an unenjoyable dungeon. It doesn't make it suddenly more enjoyable.

Where did I even say that?

Nvm, I thought it was in regards to the Fade part.

Quote from: Luciana on August 24, 2016, 07:36:50 PM

Well that was just focused on the American and Eastern Front (which rarely, if ever, gets covered). I'm talking about one that takes a bunch of factions in a world wide kinda view like CoD 2 or in this case, Battlefield 1.

Yeah a better comparison would be company of heroes

Bongs were DLC for that as I recall

Still I think they will be having as many factions represented in BF1 as they can, budget constraints are obviously going to limit the number they can include with the basegame

British, German, Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Ottoman, and American
Then add the frogs and the russkies and you have pretty much all of the major players covered

Plus you have the customisation for the soldiers which I've spotted bits and bobs for but that seems to allow you to cover British Empire nations/soldiers too (Sikhs for example). If anyone can complain about being forgotten in the history books it's the ~million indian subcontinent auxilliaries that fought for the empire and they rarely even get mentioned.

Yeah I like that they're covering them all. I just think it'd have been better if the USA was DLC and France wasn't. But muh freedom and money.

Telling somebody they have wear a blanket over their whole body since they're an infant isn't brainwashing?

They think it isn't oppressive cause that's what they're told. Successfully oppressed people don't know they're even being oppressed.

Uhh... I meant just the head scarf, bro. Unless you HAVE to wear the other cloth covering with it.

Well that was just focused on the Pacific and Eastern Front (which rarely, if ever, gets covered). I'm talking about one that takes a bunch of factions in a world wide kinda view like CoD 2 or in this case, Battlefield 1.

Quote from: Luciana on August 24, 2016, 07:20:39 PM

Just seems odd one of the biggest factions is DLC. That'd be like making Britain DLC in a WW2 game.

Or rather ignore us completely.

That too. Just wouldn't make sense.

Quote from: Luciana on August 23, 2016, 01:29:42 PM

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on August 23, 2016, 01:03:43 PM

Quote from: Luciana on August 23, 2016, 12:54:23 PM

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on August 23, 2016, 09:14:36 AM

Quote from: Ender on August 22, 2016, 10:59:07 PM

DA Origins dwarf quest line

bruh
the deep roads are great.

Yeah if anything, the dream land (forget the lore name) was a fucking chore. And it lasted SOOOOO LONG.

The Fade?

Yep. Only part of the game I really just absolutely hated. Well, the beginning was horrible too, but a lot of beginnings for big RPG's are. The Fade was something that stopped me from starting new games.

Which beginning, the one that you choose or the warden part?

Also at least they have a mod that lets you skip the fade.

The Warden part.

This is how you know they only have the USA in for money. I get the decision, but from a historical standpoint it rubs me the complete wrong way.