So whats the deal with Cyberpunk 2077? Is it an RPG or an action game?

open world action adventure rpg

>Is it an RPG or an action game?
yes

Every game is an RPG. You're always a role

Attached: based.png (901x423, 378K)

This guy is based and diversitypilled. I wish more people were like him, but it's either /pol/ or ResetEra these days.

It's Witcher 3 with sci fi skin.

It’s a cinematic experience you virgin incel. Stop asking questions and having standards and just preorder the game.

>RPG
But they're not calling it an RPG anymore, in fact they removed the term "RPG" from its official description on places like Facebook entirely and are now calling it a story-driven action game or something like that.

Sounds like its just going to be like W3 again, not an RPG but instead a glorified visual novel with some combat.

I know this makes you uncontrollably mad, but Witcher 3 is indeed an RPG.

shut the hell up wh*Te boy

>based and diversitypilled
cringe

May as well wait until the game is released.A game can be story-driven, it can have action, and it can still be an action RPG.

As long as character customization in the way of stats/skills/etc. is there, it will be an RPG.

>Voiced protagonist
>Set backstory, personality, goals, etc.
>No classes/jobs, just a skill tree
>No party to manage or choose roles for
>No role-playing in combat

Where's the role-playing? Fucking Skyrim and FO4 give the player more room to role-play and Yea Forums does nothing but shit on them for being shit RPGs, which they are.

PROTIP: Adventure games have had dialogue choices for more than three decades, this doesn't make a game an RPG. If W3 is an RPG its a very bad one. Sorry, pretty visuals and sex don't make up for piss-poor gameplay and systems design and a near-complete lack of actual role-playing.

>based and diversitypilled

Attached: 1371603388453.jpg (1024x687, 426K)

...

>As long as character customization in the way of stats/skills/etc. is there
They've been slowly walking this back every time they show more of the game though, there will not be classes or anything like that, and just having a skill tree that lets you throw cyber-fireballs or add 25% damage to certain attacks doesn't make it an RPG. And again why would they suddenly stop calling it an RPG on all their official public media outlets/social media?

>No argument
>Just link to the same post again

>Skyrim
>the same dragonborn except you either use sword, bow or staff
lmao, but muh faction quests and mute character, its funny that you people can immerse yourself as super ninja mutant lizard wizard female but not when it has a voice, pretty funny
>FO4
i think you meant FO3, but the same thing as in skyrim

>Voiced protagonist
And?
>Set backstory, personality, goals, etc.
One of these is objectively not true. In The Witcher you can mold Geralt based on your choices on quests, which say a lot about your character's personality, or better said, your personality. That is key.
>No classes/jobs, just a skill tree
And?
>No party to manage or choose roles for
And?
>No role-playing in combat
What the hell is "role-playing in combat"?

>Where's the role-playing?
You make your own choices in quests and in building your Geralt's skills, letting you express your own version of Geralt. That's what an RPG does.

>Fucking Skyrim and FO4 give the player more room to role-play and Yea Forums does nothing but shit on them for being shit RPGs, which they are.
Because more options is pointless when:
- Both Skyrim and Fallout 4 give you a set backstory, and whatever you choose to be in-game isn't reflected at all by other NPCs. So much freedmo for nothing.
- No specific quests for specifics builds. Anyone can join any faction.
- No party to manage (unless you consider recruiting a companion "forming a party") or choose roles for either.
- I still don't know what "role-playing in combat" means.

Have sex.

...

>They've been slowly walking this back every time they show more of the game though, there will not be classes or anything like that
The existence of classes does not make an RPG. Fallout is an RPG, and yet it has no classes.
>and just having a skill tree that lets you throw cyber-fireballs or add 25% damage to certain attacks doesn't make it an RPG.
As long as you can specialize your character by way of gated skills/stats/etc., it is an RPG. As opposed to, say, "DOOM is an RPG because I can simply choose not to use most weapons".
>And again why would they suddenly stop calling it an RPG on all their official public media outlets/social media?
Beats me. They either don't consider their game to be "RPG enough", or they don't want to be associated with the label "RPG" for whatever reason.

>Voiced protagonist
>And?
Literally okay when CDPR does it

>And?
And its not a fucking RPG you shitsteamer.

Racism is bad

>As long as you can specialize your character by way of gated skills/stats/etc., it is an RPG
So Xcom is an RPG now?

>Literally okay when CDPR does it
Sure, if you choose to ignore the context behind each game and how Fallout has been a series about being a literal who, and yet Bethesda decided to not only go for a very specific background, but ALSO giving us a specific voice that pretty much limited who we can be.
>And its not a fucking RPG you shitsteamer.
Have sex.

>Literally okay when CDPR does it
its ok when anyone does it, idgaf if the character is voiced or mute

Poland is Polish, I don't understand how this is cause for such contention.

I have a set of rules to decide whether a game is an RPG or not, but the easiest way is for me to simply play the game. I haven't played X-COM so I wouldn't be able to tell you.

How is the gameplay dynamic in X-COM?

> Diversitypilled
Nice troll

>Witcher 3 is a bad rpg
>but Skyrim and Fallout 4 are good rpgs
If you want to be taken seriously, don't post stupid shit.

>there should be Cyberpunks
I don't understand, why is he arguing in favour of dystopic criminals?

yes

It's incredible how some games stir up so much shitposting from people who genuinely aren't actually even remotely interested in playing them and just want attention.

Poor Mike, it must suck having to deal with ingrates being offended on your behalf every day.

FO4 still offers the player more room to role-play than W3 does despite being a shit Fallout game.

W3 offends in basically all of the same areas Skyrim/FO4 do
>Dumbed-down character building to the point where it basically doesn't matter, in combat or during story-related scenes/dialogue
>Brain-dead combat
>Open, empty world full of the same copy/pasted camps and useless scaled loot
>Quests that solve themselves with markers/Witcher-vision, can't even complete them if you turn that shit off because the game just doesn't give you the information you need otherwise half the time
>Voiced protagonist severely limiting role-playing options outside of gameplay
>Next to no variation in equipment/weapons/etc.

>OH! But it has better graffix, that TOTALLY makes up for it being a piss-poor RPG and having garbage gameplay in general! Yup, I can ignore all the things I rail on other ""RPGs"" for doing/not doing because based CDPR! GOTY!

Its an action/adventure game with a skill tree. Its a well-made action/adventure game with a skill tree but that's what it is.

Again, have sex, incel.

Attached: 1554586805052.jpg (1591x3502, 983K)

...

Try reading next time you fucking CDPR muppet-shill

>but Skyrim and Fallout 4 are good rpgs
Where the fuck did I say that, you fucking moron? Oh, right, I didn't, I said the opposite in the same fucking sentence.

>Fucking Skyrim and FO4 give the player more room to role-play and Yea Forums does nothing but shit on them for being shit RPGs, which they are.
>which they are

>WHICH
>THEY
>ARE

WOW I SURE SAID THEY WERE GOOD RPGS :^))))

cope/seethe/dilate/have sex

Did I miss any? What's the next one? Do we have a new one yet?

The problem with your post is that you have said nothing that makes Skyrim and Fallout 4 better RPGs. You've only explained how they give more freedom, but not how that makes them better.

And now you are arguing I'm saying The Witcher 3 is some RPG masterpiece when I haven't even played the game. All I said Cyberpunk 2077 will be an RPG as long as the elements are there; whether it is a good one or not is yet to be seen. That Skyrim and Fallout 4 are shitty RPGs doesn't mean they are not RPGs. They are just shitty, because every RPG element in them is done poorly.

is it an action cRPG?

This. It's an OWAARPG

>whining about trannies and gays
>whining about the sun
>whining about them changing a few words on a twitter page
>whining about Keanu Reeves
I’m seriously beginning to believe you guys are paid “anti-shills” by CDPR to make people who criticize the game seem retarded.

Attached: D3634F8D-4986-4896-BC8A-9719CC6F865D.jpg (340x565, 56K)

Based retard.
If the multicultural society is free of hate, then why is there are a member of the Ku Klux Klan to begin with?

>The problem with your post is that you have said nothing that makes Skyrim and Fallout 4 better RPGs
They give the player more room to role-play in and out of combat, even if they're still bad RPGs relative to the gold-standard for the genre.

AGAIN, before anyone chimes in with
>lol y u praise Skyrim and FO4 y u say dey gud :^))))
I'm not, I'm explaining why that, despite also being bad RPGs, they're still better RPGs than W3.

You have more options when making a character, W3 doesn't even have this. You're not voiced in Skyrim, though FO4 got tons of shit for this when it limits role-playing in ANY RPG, not just FO4, it applies to W3 too. Voiced lines means less dialogue and fewer results. So right off the bat you have infinitely more room to role-play simply in the kind of character you're going to make and play with. The gameplay is more varied in both Skyrim and FO4, you have some variety of weapons to use, and their skill trees, while still dumbed-down, offer more variation in how you play than anything W3 offers.

W3 really only offers role-playing through its dialogue, which again is limited by having a voiced protagonist and a MC that is pre-determined and already has a backstory, goals and a personality. So while Skyrim and FO4 have been watered-down from previous entries in their respective franchises, they still offer the bare-bones of what constitutes an RPG, FO4 less-so than Skyrim.

>I'm not, I'm explaining why that, despite also being bad RPGs, they're still better RPGs than W3.
But you aren't. All you've said is that they let you do more things, but that doesn't say how well those things are done and, by extension, how good they are as RPGs. You've also gone on a tangent about TW3 being shit and so on. No one here brought up TW3 but you.

Are you a Reddit user by any chance?

>All you've said is that they let you do more things, but that doesn't say how well those things are done and, by extension, how good they are as RPGs.
Yes, they do more things that RPGs do, and W3 doesn't do them, so they're better RPGs by virtue of simply executing the bare-minimum to even be an RPG.

Again, having some dialogue choices doesn't magically make a game an RPG, adventure games have been doing this for decades.

do you even try bro?

Attached: Screenshot_2019-06-19-16-28-24.png (1080x2160, 594K)

The character-building in Skyrim allows, even if at the bare-minimum, to change how they approach combat and dialogue to some extent. If I go stealth-archer, I'm approaching and handling combat situations differently than if I were using a heavy-armor/heavy-weapon specialized build or a magic-user focusing on summoning pets/NPCs. The RPG systems result in varied gameplay situations. Can't really say this about W3, you approach and deal with combat largely the same way from hour 5 through hour 100, and your skill tree doesn't change this. Sure, you'll use Quen instead of poking with your sword sometimes, or you'll throw some potions, but this doen't fundamentally change how you play or how you approach situations. The systems related to character-building do not result in varied gameplay.

Don’t you ever call me white again

They changed this around/after E3, used to say RPG, now it says "action-adventure story"

Attached: action-adventure story.png (291x288, 11K)

I never said having dialogue choices makes a game an RPG, though. It lets you define a personality, but dialogue choices by themselves do nothing if you can select any choice at any time.
>Yes, they do more things that RPGs do, and W3 doesn't do them, so they're better RPGs by virtue of simply executing the bare-minimum to even be an RPG.
That's not how it works, but feel free to believe that.
You don't judge RPGs based on a subjective metric that is bound to change as more masive games are released, i.e. "this game does X Y and Z but this one only does X". You judge RPGs based on how well they do the things they are supposed to do.

In Fallout 4, I'm supposed to be able to be anyone. That is Fallout 4.
This is what Fallout 4 does about it:
>gives me a set background
>gives a set voice
>despite having a set background, I'm able to have ridiculous abilities that make no sense for said set background
In Skyrim, I'm supposed to be able to be anyone. That is Skyrim.
This is what Skyrim does about it:
>gives me a set background, everyone acknowledges me as the Dragonborn
>I can be literally no one else because no matter my set of skills, the only people who will REMOTELY acknowlege who I am are the guards
>can join any guild no matter how lousy my character is at said guild's preferred skills
>can become the master of any guild as long as I do their quests, no matter how do I get around solving them
>can become a jack of all trades fairly easily

cont

then every game is one and thus the term is meaningless

cont.
Let's take a look at The Witcher 1, shall we? I'm guessing not much has changed between it and The Witcher 3; your criticisms for TW3 are all present in TW1.
In The Witcher, I'm supposed to be able to be my own Geralt. That is The Witcher.
This is what The Witcher does about it:
>Every gameplay mechanic is tailored around my being as a Witcher
>I have a set voice, which is Geralt's
>Every ability I can acquire makes sense since I'm a Witcher
>Because I'm a Witcher, everyone acknowledges me as such; whether I specialize in certain skills or not is secondary; what's important is that I AM a Witcher and everyone knows it, as opposed to roleplaying as an evil necromancer and everyone treating me like THE DRAGONBOOOOORN
>it's impossible to become a jack of all trades

Like in Skyrim, I'm also allowed to express my character through dialogue. But in the case of The Witcher, this is done better because it is crucial to my character as a Witcher (every important choice has to do with this), and because this choices genuinely matter as opposed to working in a vacuum like Skyrim's do.

W3 is an action-adventure game my dude, I'm not even saying its fucking BAD, its just not an RPG. An action-adventure game with some dialogue choices is not an RPG, its no different than dialogue-driven games such as TWD or Monkey Island, you just also have gameplay and combat outside of that dialogue.

But dialogue choices are all W3 does in terms of systems that allow for role-pl;aying, it does not let you role-play through any of its other systems, and that's what we call an adventure game.

OP if you make another bait thread after this one I'll bait your mom with my cock

Last but not least, appealing to competent authorities is always a good argument.

This is what the RPG Codex has to say about The Witcher, The Witcher 3, Fallout 4, and Skyrim, in a voting where 278 games were nominated:

>The Witcher: #36 best RPG of all time
>The Witcher 3: #15 best RPG of all time
>Fallout 4: wasn't nominated
>Skyrim: wasn't nominated

Friendly reminder these people are extremely anal about RPGs and still play games most zoomers won't even dare to read the Wikipedia entries of.

twitter is run by PR people
changing gone handle and leaving several others shouldnt even be news
at e3 actual devs were talking about how much of an RPG it is in every interview

stop being obsessed with meaningless shit

Your posts only make sense if we ignore the game's skills-based combat and gameplay.

It’s called marketing, retard. “Action Adventure” sells better than “RPG”. They already have the attention of the RPG audience, and now they’re trying to hook in the casuals as well. Either way, the game has…
>Character Creation
>Levels and Stats
>multi-path quests and optional quests
Even if this game turns out to be shit, which given the rumors about it’s development is an actual possibility, it still would fall under the category of an RPG. This is just a retarded thing to argue.

it's sarcasm

You mean people are accepting and friendly of self-made, friendly, and polite individuals that they don't have to baby sit and don't have to feed taxes to through a funnel?
Inconceivable.

Attached: 1385521001858.png (807x690, 470K)

dude that screenshot was taken from Facebook about 30 seconds before I made my post.

So then what? Are tabletop based games like Baldurs Gate the only true RPGS?

>Its just PR!
>Its just marketing!

lol the damage control begins

It also says
>action-adventure story
Right fucking there, you muppet-shill

Where did I say that? Don't start with the strawmen.

W3 isn't an RPG, and if you want to call it an RPG I'm going to call it a bad RPG because it does not allow the player to meaningfully role-play through its systems beyond making dialogue choices.

>literally bring up how it’s rumored to have been through development hell
>damage control
Try harder

Attached: 84B8B7E3-4016-42C6-93F6-27267AD2A380.jpg (600x600, 45K)

What does this have to do with it not being an RPG anymore?

Oh, right, its damage control, excuse-making and hand-waving.

>"If I go stealth archer"
>"If"
It's Skyrim, everyone is a stealth archer.

Attached: 1546056856856.jpg (312x345, 21K)

But it literally is, by definition, regardless of what they call it. Stats. Customization. Quests. Upgradeable gear. How is this not an RPG? Why does this even matter? Shouldn’t the quality of the game be more concerning than whatever term they’re using to sell it?

yes

Attached: ck2meme.png (334x225, 121K)

>Stats. Customization. Quests. Upgradeable gear
How do these systems allow me to role-play though? The new God of War has stats, customization and upgradable gear/weapons, but its not an RPG. In a table-top RPG like DnD, all those things fundamentally change what my character can do and how they can do it, it changes how I approach and plan for various situations and encounters. I'm choosing my role through those systems.

Your stats, gear and customization do not change how you play in W3, that's the point, these systems do not allow the player to role-play in any meaningful way. It doesn't matter if I go for potions or Quen or whatever, doing so does not allow me to take on different "roles" in combat, they don't change how combat plays out or how combat situations are approached or planned for, the gameplay loop is still basically the same regardless.

>Shouldn’t the quality of the game be more concerning than whatever term they’re using to sell it?
Maybe, but that's not the discussion at hand. And I said before it may be a GOOD action-adventure game, but that's still what it is, and in being so is a "bad" RPG because it does not have systems that allow for proper role-playing. Just like FO4 may be a "good" shooter according to some, but a "bad" RPG. Again, if you want to call it an RPG, I'm going to call it a bad RPG for all of the previously discussed reasons. I just don't want the immediate future of WRPGs to continue this downward spiral in which graphics and dialogue are all that matter and actual, meaningful role-playing through actual gameplay systems is tossed to the side or even non-existent.

But they literally are, watch any of their press related stuff around E3.
Based

if you preordered this gay game, fucking kill yourself

cope

The only difference is in situation 2, the man became anti social and stopped interacting with anyone.

No its an RPG Action

Witcher 3 is an RPG, but almost every element of the game is harmed by being an RPG. Play it with the "no levels" mod. It's a fucking phenomenal improvement.

twitter.com/Uriyya/status/1138875418642018304

My heart is bleeding, guys.

I wish somebody explained to this Haitian man that he's wrong and shouldn't be excited for the game. White people are telling us it's a problematic representation, so it's then a safe bet that his happiness is most inappropriate, but you can't really blame him since he's not as intelligent and woke as us white liberals. Yeah, I heard Alex Navarro's spiel and I couldn't agree more with him, just saddens me to see that these poor men don't know any better. Thank god the world has white people to tell others how to feel about their own race.

I am such a good person. I am such a good human being.

Attached: Untitled.jpg (590x814, 94K)

Basically summarises the situation with all the outrage rn. Based post

Attached: basednigga.jpg (275x183, 8K)

Knowing CD Project it'll be a cut scene simulator, with some automated walking/driving segments between each cutscene.

Have you not seen the 48 min gameplay ? It wasn't that bad

I just hope we get to see full frontal female nudity. And that's for the female main player character.

It's just a shooter with lots of dialogue. There will be a ton of shooter classes with different types of shooting. RPG wise it'll be fallout 3/4 tier but with better dialogue and animation. It'll be fun but not a deep rpg by any means. You'll have to shoot hundreds if not thousands of people in mandatory combat encounters you can't bypass.

>Game can be completed without harming a single soul

Update your database user. it's gonna be more than run and gun :)

Based

In the current year "RPG" and "action game" are one and the same.

Would be a better game if they removed the nerd rpg level up and loot shit and just made it an FPS with dialogue choices.

Poor bespectacled nigger not understanding that the reason why people are unerringly friendly is because there are no niggers. But eventually they will, in their unerringly friendly way, invite some, and then some more, and then some more, until they're not friendly anymore.

Would be a dumb move. Since the game is based on cp2020, the core audience would love some or other rpg elements. Already nerdfags are crying cause they can't roll a die and get the outcome accordingly XD. So a right mixture of both would be the best way to cover most of the demographic

Do not ask Yea Forums. Do your own research if you want an actual answer to this question.

>naming your game after a genre
hey guys check out my new game "Alternative Rock 047" on steam. it's in pre alpha.

>but that's not the discussion at hand.
you being assblasted at a twitter screencap is not a "discussion"

>But they're not calling it an RPG anymore
why do people focus on their twitter page and ignore their E3 interviews where they still emphasize how much of a RPG it is
doesn't fit the narrative?

Because that would require doing their own research instead of following the outrage bandwagon.

From what we've heard and seen so far, it's gonna be a fully fledged RPG. I'm hoping they'll be good incorporation of ""immersive sim"" type gameplay too, where's a good variety to approaching missions and quests.

>faggot doesn't know about the 2020 original pen&paper game

It’s going to be like the witcher 3, outside the main quest, it’s going to be shit, since it’s not an CRPG, the rpg elements in the game are going to be generic and basic

>no augmentation runs are confirmed
>pacifist runs are also confirmed
I'm hearing good things so far. And the way origins affect the narrative throughout the game is also a nice touch.

or what whitey?

>anarchist

Attached: 1539198405558.jpg (352x351, 45K)

nationalism =/= cullture
and the africa comparison must certainly be trolling

Funny thing is Cyberpunk 2020 isnt even Cyberpunk

He INVENTED the fucking term shithead. Where do you think the term "Cyberpunk" comes from? It comes from Cyberpunk 2020.

You say that as if there's something wrong with it

Attached: blackflag.png (800x800, 27K)

>300 days away
>300 fucking days of bullshit identity politics everywhere because someone thought adding a stupid edgy and controversial advert ingame that was probably just 100% a joke was funny.
>even after release this is the only fucking thing people will talk about
I fucking hate videogames

Attached: 1527202388268.jpg (711x620, 39K)

Yeah its probably the single biggest red flag that someone is an idiot

Action game with RPG elements

I'm not pretending that Anarchism works, but given the alternatives, it's the best we got. Not like this "democracy" gives a shit about the individual anyways

It's probably going to be something like Deus Ex, you mostly play inside the city and have a few instanced areas inside some buildings or even outside the city and can do main and side quests, but you won't see respawnable enemies that you can farm items/money/exp for.

>He INVENTED the fucking term shithead.
You're joking right?
You know the genre of cyberpunk was around for about 6 years before Cyberpunk 2020 right?

Now this is shitposting.

Only if they’re anarchocapatalist. If they’re anarchocommunist then they’re just very idealistic and naive

But what if
Hear me out
Neither and just pure anarchism?

>its the best we've got
Nobody has "got" anarchism, it can never exist, ever. Its a literal fantasy based on utopian thinking.
If you hate democracy then support monarchy or dictatorship or something. Blaming the concept of government for the actions of modern institutions is the smallbrain thing to do.

It'll be gone in a week and then will resurface again for a week when they show the recent demo. This shit doesn't last long.

I’m not sure what that would be. Just like tribes and shit like native Americans? Isn’t that just some low tech broken up anarchocommunism?

Or are you being funny like demon invasion anarchy

Two flavors of retard
Communists are slightly less retarded than AnCaps but only barely, they still fall below the 80iq range.

Attached: unknown-4.png (591x580, 105K)

Cyberpunk =/= Punk Rock
Punk didnt always mean what Mike thinks it means.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_Zapatista_Autonomous_Municipalities

Yeah, okay.

>less as opposed to none
stop projecting your weird pedophilia.

technically you have to get the grip thing and the eye aug. but those don't really count since they don't seem to affect gameplay.

>when you're literally ruled by a dictator but still an anarchist
Top fucking kek

The zapatistas exist along with several other anarchocommunes around the world. The idea that’s possible is just demonstrably false. Whether you think it’s better or sustainable for larger crowds is the real argument being had.

>As long as character customization in the way of stats/skills/etc. is there, it will be an RPG.
Wrong

Uh elaborate. Talk about the leader of the zapatistas

It's an action game masquerading as an RPG, kinda like witcher 3 was an action adventure game masquerading as an RPG as well with tacked on level upgrades and whatnot. It's a trend since the 7th gen that games use to have a faux sense of depth. Even CoD does it nowadays.

Attached: RPG.png (201x114, 10K)

Think he's talking about Makhno, mate

Was talking about your first link
I couldn't give a shit about a few thousand violent hispanics who decided to LARP in their little commune, they have no impact on anything and will be crushed as soon as a state decides to conquer them.
Anarchist societies never last for any meaningful amount of time.

Show me these several others

LOL

Attached: 60584130_2500518683300916_502790372276043776_n.jpg (680x598, 44K)

HAVE. SEX. YOU. FUCKING. OBESE. UGLY. FAT. FUCK. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The state tried to get them. They were defeated militarily when they went on an offensive, but so far, the Mexican state cannot conquer them.

Also, here's that list
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

HAAHAHAHAHAHSAHA, INCEL, HAVE SEX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am disappointed but shouldn't be surprised.

>Show me these several others

Just do a little research. This stuff isn’t hidden but you request it like it’s impossible

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

Scroll down to find the list of active communities. One dates back to the 1950s. And the idea that none last that long is fallible in itself since the industrial revolution only happened less than 300 years ago vastly changed the world and society. Before that communes were a plentiful. Who knows if anarchocommunism could exist in the modern post industrial world but you’re arguments against it sound like you’re very lacking in historical context or any kind of knowledge on the topic in general. I’m not even an anarchist, I’m not even a socialist, I’m just tired of seeing such kneejerk reactions online to shit like this from people with no knowledge of anything.

HAVE. SEX. YOU. FUCKING. FAT. UGLY. OBESE. DISGUSTING. DEGENERATE. LOSERS. OR. DIE.

I'm actually impressed, but I notice that they all seem to be in war torn countries or unstable regions. I stand by my statement. Anarchism can never exist in any meaningful way, its fighting human nature. A state will always form, eventually, and people with their crowd mentality will follow it.
Denying the state is just the height of stupidity to me. Instead of trying to rebel against it so the same shit can happen a few generations down the road you should instead try to improve the state. Or reform it. All meaningful societies in history that propelled humanity forward have been authoritarian states.

>>Show me these several others
>Just do a little research. This stuff isn’t hidden but you request it like it’s impossible
>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities
>the idea that none last that long is fallible in itself since the industrial revolution only happened less than 300 years ago vastly changed the world and society. Before that communes were a plentiful.
No they weren't "plentiful" lmao. Before modern Capitalism we had Feudalism, Kingdoms and Empires. Absolute monarchy. Some obscure Christian village where people lived like anarchists is meaningless. They never controlled large amounts of territory or accomolished anything of any historical or cultural worth.
I'm being hyperbolic when I'm saying Anarchism can't exist. Sure, it can "exist" among a small group who agree on some social contract, but it never lasts. They are always absorbed by something stronger. I guarantee you every one of those communities will not exist in 100 years. I gaurantee you the state will exist in 10,000 years.

Pick one

Attached: 1560831180297.jpg (1920x711, 318K)

>Some obscure Christian village where people lived like anarchists is meaningless. They never controlled large amounts of territory or accomolished anything of any historical or cultural worth.

Why? I mean at this point you’d have to start defining things like cultural and historical worth. Why were Native American tribes worthless? The value of land size, military power, affect on other societies whether good or bad is naturally a product of hierarchy, even an anti-anarchist should understand that. If a commune of 5000 people didn’t affect the world but 99% had their needs met and lived fulfilling lives i’d call that a society worthy of something although an empire may not because they didn’t conquer other nations.

I don’t think you were being hyperbolic either. I genuinely think you didn’t know about these things and are backpedaling.

3

Pre-Industrial Revolution villages or towns existing in some form that you would call "anarchist" is not the same thing and calling them such is dishonest. There are many examples of these kinds of communities, the American Indians for example, but they were that way because they had no other options. The indians lived off the land, and this required them to constantly be on the move and struggling to survive. They didnt have the technology or institutions available to them to build more complex forms of government, nor did they need more complex forms of government.
They weren't idealistic anarchists they were barbarians (i dont mean that in the derogatory way) trying to survive with what they had.
Societies that actually advanced through competition and war all formed states, usually highly authortiarian or totalitarian ones. This is why Europe was so far ahead of everybody else in development and conquered the known world.
>>Some obscure Christian village where people lived like anarchists is meaningless. They never controlled large amounts of territory or accomolished anything of any historical or cultural worth.
>Why were Native American tribes worthless?
I say this with all respect to them and their legacy, they were destroyed and they have left no meaningful legacy whatsoever beyond the tobacco industry and some memories. So yes in the grand scheme of things they are worthless to history. History has moved on without them and they are slowly going extinct.
>naturally a product of hierarchy
I dont see what this has to do with anything or why you're mentioning the obvious

(cont)

>If a commune of 5000 people didn’t affect the world but 99% had their needs met and lived fulfilling lives i’d call that a society worthy of something although an empire may not because they didn’t conquer other nations.
This is the classic argument that Socrates had with Glaucon. An Empire doesnt achieve its worth by conquering land, like you're implying. It advances humanity with technology, thought, art, and conquest. It also affects a whole lot more people than a 5000 people commune of roleplayers. If you think a glorified tribe that simply exists for a period of a few decades is more important to history than the Roman Empire then we are just going to have to end this argument here.
A simple society may exist in a bubble. But in the real world of competition between governments there is no way anarchists could survive outside of very isolated circumstances, and even then only momentary.
>I don’t think you were being hyperbolic either. I genuinely think you didn’t know about these things and are backpedaling.
Then you're genuinely wrong. I stand by everything I've said. Its also pretty funny that you're lying about not being an anarchist. You're obviously sympathetic to it, or most likely a Communist. Which is close enough.

can someone expand on Navarro's comment? I missed it completely