[004]
RysioPysio
Current Version
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
* FiveManBand: Then you never played the game, end of topic. Sorry, but if you insist with so much eagerness that those characters aren\'t treated in any special way by the plot nor recognise how much they interact between themselves and how those interactions drives the plot. It\'s obvious you never played the game in the first place. Or somehow was able to completely ignore it\'s plot.
* TheAtoner. They be better if anyone have MyGodWhatHaveIDone. And none of characters had. They simply realise all the wrongness in their missions, as the game heavily plays on \
* TheAtoner. They be better if anyone have MyGodWhatHaveIDone. And none of characters had. They simply realise all the wrongness in their missions, as the game heavily plays on \
to:
* FiveManBand: Then you never played the game, end of topic. Sorry, but if you insist with so much eagerness that those characters aren\\\'t treated in any special way by the plot nor recognise how much they interact between themselves and how those interactions drives the plot. It\\\'s obvious you never played the game in the first place. Or somehow were able to completely ignore it\\\'s plot.
* TheAtoner. They be better if anyone have MyGodWhatHaveIDone. And none of characters had. They simply realise all the wrongness in their missions, as the game heavily plays on \\\"military vs intelectuals\\\". And being atoner requires HeelRealization, so we land in DepartmentOfRedundancyDepartment. Again, go play the game, then edit article.
* BittersweetEnding. So you changed few minor grammar problems into mess that have nothing in common with plot of the game? That\\\'s how you correct things? Plus your entry is proving that you have no idea how the game ends, clearly messing the endings.
* HarderThanHard. If it was case of just one mission, it would end in YMMV as ThatOneLevel. But from what I\\\'ve understand from that entry was that that specific mission was just an example how the game escalates with difficulty level.
* InfiniteSupplies. Hence how it was handled - averted, description why averted and bulletmark about the ammo.
* InstantAIJustAddWater. It\\\'s called as such in both campaings, which you should know after reaching \\\'\\\'half\\\'\\\' of each of them. And the AI units perform task by themselves, without folliwing any kind of \\\"things to do list\\\" programming. If going more specific is a must, then it can be easily put under GrewBeyondTheirProgramming.
* NonIndicativeDifficulty. Yes, it\\\'s much harder no matter what you do and how you play it, not to mention difficulty setting (easy American campaign is still harder than hard Russian). You should know that after playing the game. Which you didn\\\'t.
* ProtectionMission. Sorry, but the objective is called \\\"Protect X\\\" (where X stands for either Joan or Burlak\\\'s tank). This is final prove that you didn\\\'t play the game.
At this point I find this discussion pointless. You keep talking about things that should be more than obvious with someone who at least reached half-point of any campaign. Which rise a question how you are suppose to write about the game or how were you able to create the article in the first place, as all I have is your word about it and it\\\'s more than apparent that you have no idea about the game\\\'s plot and basic mechanics. This makes you unreliable and that means your edits are invalid (as if having nothing in common with game in question wasn\\\'t enough). All you just achieved was convincing me that you never actually play the game.
If no article has ownership, then why you return with exactly the same entries you were trying to push last year? You were expecting that no-one will notice?
And this is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' TheOtherWiki, so stop reffering to it.
* TheAtoner. They be better if anyone have MyGodWhatHaveIDone. And none of characters had. They simply realise all the wrongness in their missions, as the game heavily plays on \\\"military vs intelectuals\\\". And being atoner requires HeelRealization, so we land in DepartmentOfRedundancyDepartment. Again, go play the game, then edit article.
* BittersweetEnding. So you changed few minor grammar problems into mess that have nothing in common with plot of the game? That\\\'s how you correct things? Plus your entry is proving that you have no idea how the game ends, clearly messing the endings.
* HarderThanHard. If it was case of just one mission, it would end in YMMV as ThatOneLevel. But from what I\\\'ve understand from that entry was that that specific mission was just an example how the game escalates with difficulty level.
* InfiniteSupplies. Hence how it was handled - averted, description why averted and bulletmark about the ammo.
* InstantAIJustAddWater. It\\\'s called as such in both campaings, which you should know after reaching \\\'\\\'half\\\'\\\' of each of them. And the AI units perform task by themselves, without folliwing any kind of \\\"things to do list\\\" programming. If going more specific is a must, then it can be easily put under GrewBeyondTheirProgramming.
* NonIndicativeDifficulty. Yes, it\\\'s much harder no matter what you do and how you play it, not to mention difficulty setting (easy American campaign is still harder than hard Russian). You should know that after playing the game. Which you didn\\\'t.
* ProtectionMission. Sorry, but the objective is called \\\"Protect X\\\" (where X stands for either Joan or Burlak\\\'s tank). This is final prove that you didn\\\'t play the game.
At this point I find this discussion pointless. You keep talking about things that should be more than obvious with someone who at least reached half-point of any campaign. Which rise a question how you are suppose to write about the game or how were you able to create the article in the first place, as all I have is your word about it and it\\\'s more than apparent that you have no idea about the game\\\'s plot and basic mechanics. This makes you unreliable and that means your edits are invalid (as if having nothing in common with game in question wasn\\\'t enough). All you just achieved was convincing me that you never actually play the game.
If no article has ownership, then why you return with exactly the same entries you were trying to push last year? You were expecting that no-one will notice?
And this is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' TheOtherWiki, so stop reffering to it.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
* FiveManBand: Then you never played the game, end of topic. Sorry, but if you insist with so much eagerness that those characters aren\'t treated in any special way by the plot nor recognise how much they interact between themselves and how those interactions drives the plot. It\'s obvious you never played the game in the first place. Or somehow was able to completelly ignore it\'s plot.
* TheAtoner. They might be better if anyone have MyGodWhatHaveIDone. And none of characters had. They simply realise all the wrongness in their missions, as the game heavily plays on \
* TheAtoner. They might be better if anyone have MyGodWhatHaveIDone. And none of characters had. They simply realise all the wrongness in their missions, as the game heavily plays on \
to:
* FiveManBand: Then you never played the game, end of topic. Sorry, but if you insist with so much eagerness that those characters aren\\\'t treated in any special way by the plot nor recognise how much they interact between themselves and how those interactions drives the plot. It\\\'s obvious you never played the game in the first place. Or somehow was able to completely ignore it\\\'s plot.
* TheAtoner. They be better if anyone have MyGodWhatHaveIDone. And none of characters had. They simply realise all the wrongness in their missions, as the game heavily plays on \\\"military vs intelectuals\\\". And being atoner requires HeelRealization, so we land in DepartmentOfRedundancyDepartment. Again, go play the game, then edit article.
* BittersweetEnding. So you changed few minor grammar problems into mess that have nothing in common with plot of the game? That\\\'s how you correct things? Plus your entry is proving that you have no idea how the game ends, clearly messing the endings.
* HarderThanHard. If it was case of just one mission, it would end in YMMV as ThatOneLevel. But from what I\\\'ve understand from that entry was that that specific mission was just an example how the game escalates with difficulty level.
* InfiniteSupplies. Hence how it was handled - averted, description why averted and bulletmark about the ammo.
* InstantAIJustAddWater. It\\\'s called as such in both campaings, which you should know after reaching \\\'\\\'half\\\'\\\' of each of them. And the AI units perform task by themselves, without folliwing any kind of \\\"things to do list\\\" programming. If going more specific is a must, then it can be easily put under GrewBeyondTheirProgramming.
* NonIndicativeDifficulty. Yes, it\\\'s much harder no matter what you do and how you play it, not to mention difficulty setting (easy American campaign is still harder than hard Russian). You should know that after playing the game. Which you didn\\\'t.
* ProtectionMission. Sorry, but the objective is called \\\"Protect X\\\" (where X stands for either Joan or Burlak\\\'s tank). This is final prove that you didn\\\'t play the game.
At this point I find this discussion pointless. You keep talking about things that should be more than obvious with someone who at least reached half-point of any campaign. Which rise a question how you are suppose to write about the game or how were you able to create the article in the first place, as all I have is your word about it and it\\\'s more than apparent that you have no idea about the game\\\'s plot and basic mechanics. This makes you unreliable and that means your edits are invalid (as if having nothing in common with game in question wasn\\\'t enough). All you just achieved was convincing me that you never actually play the game.
If no article has ownership, then why you return with exactly the same entries you were trying to push last year? You were expecting that no-one will notice?
And this is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' TheOtherWiki, so stop reffering to it.
* TheAtoner. They be better if anyone have MyGodWhatHaveIDone. And none of characters had. They simply realise all the wrongness in their missions, as the game heavily plays on \\\"military vs intelectuals\\\". And being atoner requires HeelRealization, so we land in DepartmentOfRedundancyDepartment. Again, go play the game, then edit article.
* BittersweetEnding. So you changed few minor grammar problems into mess that have nothing in common with plot of the game? That\\\'s how you correct things? Plus your entry is proving that you have no idea how the game ends, clearly messing the endings.
* HarderThanHard. If it was case of just one mission, it would end in YMMV as ThatOneLevel. But from what I\\\'ve understand from that entry was that that specific mission was just an example how the game escalates with difficulty level.
* InfiniteSupplies. Hence how it was handled - averted, description why averted and bulletmark about the ammo.
* InstantAIJustAddWater. It\\\'s called as such in both campaings, which you should know after reaching \\\'\\\'half\\\'\\\' of each of them. And the AI units perform task by themselves, without folliwing any kind of \\\"things to do list\\\" programming. If going more specific is a must, then it can be easily put under GrewBeyondTheirProgramming.
* NonIndicativeDifficulty. Yes, it\\\'s much harder no matter what you do and how you play it, not to mention difficulty setting (easy American campaign is still harder than hard Russian). You should know that after playing the game. Which you didn\\\'t.
* ProtectionMission. Sorry, but the objective is called \\\"Protect X\\\" (where X stands for either Joan or Burlak\\\'s tank). This is final prove that you didn\\\'t play the game.
At this point I find this discussion pointless. You keep talking about things that should be more than obvious with someone who at least reached half-point of any campaign. Which rise a question how you are suppose to write about the game or how were you able to create the article in the first place, as all I have is your word about it and it\\\'s more than apparent that you have no idea about the game\\\'s plot and basic mechanics. This makes you unreliable and that means your edits are invalid (as if having nothing in common with game in question wasn\\\'t enough). All you just achieved was convincing me that you never actually play the game.
If no article has ownership, then why you return with exactly the same entries you were trying to push last year? You were expecting that no-one will notice?
And this is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' TheOtherWiki, so stop reffering to it.
Changed line(s) 6 from:
n
* TheAtoner. They might be better if anyone have MyGodWhatHaveIDone. And none of characters had. They simply realise all the wrongness in their missions, as the game heavily plays on \
to:
* TheAtoner. They might be better if anyone have MyGodWhatHaveIDone. And none of characters had. They simply realise all the wrongness in their missions, as the game heavily plays on \\\"military vs intelectuals\\\". And being atoner requires HeelRealization, so we land in DepartmentOfRedundancyDepartment. Again, go play the game, then edit article.
* BittersweetEnding. So you changed few minor grammar problems into mess that have nothing in common with plot of the game? That\\\'s how you correct things? Plus your entry is proving that you have no idea how the game ends, clearly messing the endings.
* HarderThanHard. If it was case of just one mission, it would end in YMMV as ThatOneLevel. But from what I\\\'ve understand from that entry was that that specific mission was just an example how the game escalates with difficulty level.
* InfiniteSupplies. Hence how it was handled - averted, description why averted and bulletmark about the ammo.
* InstantAIJustAddWater. It\\\'s called as such in both campaings, which you should know after reaching \\\'\\\'half\\\'\\\' of each of them. And the AI units perform task by themselves, without folliwing any kind of \\\"things to do list\\\" programming. If going more specific is a must, then it can be easily put under GrewBeyondTheirProgramming.
* NonIndicativeDifficulty. Yes, it\\\'s much harder no matter what you do and how you play it, not to mention difficulty setting (easy American campaign is still harder than hard Russian). You should know that after playing the game. Which you didn\\\'t.
* ProtectionMission. Sorry, but the objective is called \\\"Protect X\\\" (where X stands for either Joan or Burlak\\\'s tank). This is final prove that you didn\\\'t play the game.
At this point I find this discussion pointless. You keep talking about things that should be more than obvious with someone who at least reached half-point of any campaign. Which rise a question how you are suppose to write about the game or how were you able to create the article in the first place, as all I have is your word about it and it\\\'s more than apparent that you have no idea about the game\\\'s plot and basic mechanics. This makes you unreliable and that means your edits are invalid (as if having nothing in common with game in question wasn\\\'t enough). All you just achieved was convincing me that you never actually play the game.
If no article has ownership, then why you return with exactly the same entries you were trying to push last year? You were expecting that no-one will notice?
And this is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' TheOtherWiki, so stop reffering to it.
* BittersweetEnding. So you changed few minor grammar problems into mess that have nothing in common with plot of the game? That\\\'s how you correct things? Plus your entry is proving that you have no idea how the game ends, clearly messing the endings.
* HarderThanHard. If it was case of just one mission, it would end in YMMV as ThatOneLevel. But from what I\\\'ve understand from that entry was that that specific mission was just an example how the game escalates with difficulty level.
* InfiniteSupplies. Hence how it was handled - averted, description why averted and bulletmark about the ammo.
* InstantAIJustAddWater. It\\\'s called as such in both campaings, which you should know after reaching \\\'\\\'half\\\'\\\' of each of them. And the AI units perform task by themselves, without folliwing any kind of \\\"things to do list\\\" programming. If going more specific is a must, then it can be easily put under GrewBeyondTheirProgramming.
* NonIndicativeDifficulty. Yes, it\\\'s much harder no matter what you do and how you play it, not to mention difficulty setting (easy American campaign is still harder than hard Russian). You should know that after playing the game. Which you didn\\\'t.
* ProtectionMission. Sorry, but the objective is called \\\"Protect X\\\" (where X stands for either Joan or Burlak\\\'s tank). This is final prove that you didn\\\'t play the game.
At this point I find this discussion pointless. You keep talking about things that should be more than obvious with someone who at least reached half-point of any campaign. Which rise a question how you are suppose to write about the game or how were you able to create the article in the first place, as all I have is your word about it and it\\\'s more than apparent that you have no idea about the game\\\'s plot and basic mechanics. This makes you unreliable and that means your edits are invalid (as if having nothing in common with game in question wasn\\\'t enough). All you just achieved was convincing me that you never actually play the game.
If no article has ownership, then why you return with exactly the same entries you were trying to push last year? You were expecting that no-one will notice?
And this is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' TheOtherWiki, so stop reffering to it.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
* FiveManBand: Then you never played the game, end of topic. Sorry, but if you insist with so much eagerness that those characters aren\'t treated in any special way by the plot nor recognise how much they interact between themselves, it\'s obvious you never played the game in the first place or somehow was able to completelly ignore it\'s plot.
* TheAtoner. They might be better if anyone have them. And none of characters had. Again, go play the game, then edit article.
* TheAtoner. They might be better if anyone have them. And none of characters had. Again, go play the game, then edit article.
to:
* FiveManBand: Then you never played the game, end of topic. Sorry, but if you insist with so much eagerness that those characters aren\\\'t treated in any special way by the plot nor recognise how much they interact between themselves and how those interactions drives the plot. It\\\'s obvious you never played the game in the first place. Or somehow was able to completelly ignore it\\\'s plot.
* TheAtoner. They might be better if anyone have MyGodWhatHaveIDone. And none of characters had. They simply realise all the wrongness in their missions, as the game heavily plays on \\\"military vs intelectuals\\\". And being atoner requires HeelRealization, so we land in DepartmentOfRedundancyDepartment. Again, go play the game, then edit article.
* TheAtoner. They might be better if anyone have MyGodWhatHaveIDone. And none of characters had. They simply realise all the wrongness in their missions, as the game heavily plays on \\\"military vs intelectuals\\\". And being atoner requires HeelRealization, so we land in DepartmentOfRedundancyDepartment. Again, go play the game, then edit article.
Changed line(s) 10 from:
n
* InstantAIJustAddWater. It\'s called as such in both campaings, which you should know after reaching \'\'half\'\' of each of them. And the AI units perform task by themselves, without folliwing any kind of \
to:
* InstantAIJustAddWater. It\\\'s called as such in both campaings, which you should know after reaching \\\'\\\'half\\\'\\\' of each of them. And the AI units perform task by themselves, without folliwing any kind of \\\"things to do list\\\" programming. If going more specific is a must, then it can be easily put under GrewBeyondTheirProgramming.
* NonIndicativeDifficulty. Yes, it\\\'s much harder no matter what you do and how you play it, not to mention difficulty setting (easy American campaign is still harder than hard Russian). You should know that after playing the game. Which you didn\\\'t.
* ProtectionMission. Sorry, but the objective is called \\\"Protect X\\\" (where X stands for either Joan or Burlak\\\'s tank). This is final prove that you didn\\\'t play the game.
At this point I find this discussion pointless. You keep talking about things that should be more than obvious with someone who at least reached half-point of any campaign. Which rise a question how you are suppose to write about the game or how were you able to create the article in the first place, as all I have is your word about it and it\\\'s more than apparent that you have no idea about the game\\\'s plot and basic mechanics. This makes you unreliable and that means your edits are invalid (as if having nothing in common with game in question wasn\\\'t enough).
If no article has ownership, then why you return with exactly the same entries you were trying to push last year? You were expecting that no-one will notice?
And this is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' TheOtherWiki, so stop reffering to it.
* NonIndicativeDifficulty. Yes, it\\\'s much harder no matter what you do and how you play it, not to mention difficulty setting (easy American campaign is still harder than hard Russian). You should know that after playing the game. Which you didn\\\'t.
* ProtectionMission. Sorry, but the objective is called \\\"Protect X\\\" (where X stands for either Joan or Burlak\\\'s tank). This is final prove that you didn\\\'t play the game.
At this point I find this discussion pointless. You keep talking about things that should be more than obvious with someone who at least reached half-point of any campaign. Which rise a question how you are suppose to write about the game or how were you able to create the article in the first place, as all I have is your word about it and it\\\'s more than apparent that you have no idea about the game\\\'s plot and basic mechanics. This makes you unreliable and that means your edits are invalid (as if having nothing in common with game in question wasn\\\'t enough).
If no article has ownership, then why you return with exactly the same entries you were trying to push last year? You were expecting that no-one will notice?
And this is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' TheOtherWiki, so stop reffering to it.
