alanschu

Oh dear god....you're Canadian?

The thing is, I've seen parents faint without first checking on their child if they think their child is already dead. I guess it wasn't technically a faint, but my father froze up after seeing my brother's accident. The whole situation was just surreal and it was more just a stare of disbelief/horror at what just happened.

risking your life to save another's, and fighting to save your own, are two different things <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Did you actually read my post?

Right.

I don't think that it is necessarily purely socialist. I've seen the statement used in moral dilemmas and in similar decisions made by people in charge. If, say, a plane fell down behind enemy lines, would you send in a batallion against heavy odds to rescue them? Unlikely, because it'd be wasting the lives of the many in order to preserve the lives of a few. However, if that plane was, say, carrying a data stick that had detailed reconaissance of the enemy troop formations, which would allow you to save the lives of soldiers across multiple army divisions, then maybe a batallion of men is an acceptable cost. A pretty good example would probably be the situation that the soldiers were in in Saving Private Ryan. Did it really make sense to risk the lives of a platoon of men in order to save one soldier?

Why wouldn't they?

That is certainly the unusual thing.

That would certainly explain the deer in headlights look people get well before it's far too late. It's easy to say what you would do, without being in that situation. Unless of course you actually have had a child of yours in a life or death situation. As for cars blowing up, yes they are cheesy. Unfortunately, they've been cheesy for 60 years now.

Did you mean to type the same message three different times?

Does the game have to end in a single sitting though?

Yes I can, because they're available in 1943 But no, the American production system is set in stone. It'd make the American campaign far too easy as you already have an immense economical advantage. Powering through and getting Hellcats in 1942 and B-29s in 1943 would just tip the scales that much faster. I'm also not sure how exactly I get the atomic bomb. THere doesn't seem to be any "atomic bomb" factories. I think I just get them at set intervals. If I drop more than two though, the victory score is automatically tipped one score in favour of Japan (so instead of Total Victory, I'd get Decisive victory. Instead of a Draw, I'd get Decisive Defeat, and stuff like that). Going into 1946 tips it 2 points in favour of Japan, so the best possible score the Allies can get is a Draw.

You forgot something. You're hoping to convince people to not buy the game, because you state straight up that you'll consider it an accomplishment if you convince someone to not buy it. Plain and simple. Stating the "by himself/herself" is a moot point, unless you don't believe in free will or honestly expect that there is some way to coerce people into buying something against their will through an internet website. I don't need to include "by himself/herself" (BTW, the standard form of ambigious gender in English is to just use the male pronoun. The use of "himself/herself" is unnecessary), since I'm not brash enough to think you'd be forcing people to buy the game. Believe it or not, when a company goes on a huge hype campaign, people are still making the decision the buy it themselves. There's no coercion going on here. You hope to influence people not to buy the game, much the same way that Bethesda hopes to influence people to buy the game. Nitpicking the "by himself/herself" is simply grasping at straws. I never believed you (or anyone else) to be coercing anyone into doing anything else. But then again, I have poor reading comprehension. Why do you care if someone else buys Fallout 3? Wait a minute. I thought it was all for public service to ensure that people don't get ripped off? Impossible. You honestly expect a whole group of "true Fallout fans" that have been outspoken against Bethesda's involvement with Fallout 3 since they purchased the IP to give a truly objective representation of the game? Especially when true objectivity tends to not really exist? Look at the ideas they're tossing around. Creating multiple fake websites. Creating a "fanpage" that tows the party line and hypes the game up prerelease, then suddenly releases a review that just tells it like it is. Disinformation campaigns. Some even going as far as to suggest "cover forum operations" and even (albeit just a few) outright DoS attacks.

No, I believe that that is the Adventure Club. The Super Adventure Club is much, much different.

My "changing of production rate of standard munitions" is changing Japan's by reducing the amount of resources they can feed into their industry. As the Allies, you have no real input for your production. You get a standard supply rate of each type of planes, soldiers, guns, tanks, etc. Japan allows for the expansion of factories (and shutting down of factories) and so forth, but as far as I know they don't get the bomb.

Ah, The Super Adventure Club.

The thing is, is that you're using the term "I think" an awful lot.

Hardly "credible" evidence. It's a supposition. Especially when assuming that your site will provide the "truth" and doesn't just have a whole bunch of negative "PR Crap." Like a lot of websites (and information in general), those that typically read it, are probably the ones that already believe it. What's a "worthy" Fallout 3 though? All "we don't do isometric/turn-based well" means is that Bethesda's not looking on making Fallout 3 isometric, nor turn-based. Considering there have been successful games that are neither isometric nor turn-based, this is not damning to Fallout 3. Unless, your goal is to point out the differences, and why people should not buy Fallout 3 based on these differences. It rules out the possibility that maybe, even if it's quite unlikely, that these differences are actually an improvement of the game. Says the guy that takes "We don't do isometric/turn-based well" as being a full on travesty and unholy blight against the Fallout Universe. Mkreku stated straight up that it's not an influence. You stated he was wrong because "it's only natural" to make the comparisons. Your goal (as you've stated previously) is to convince people not to buy Fallout 3 (unless it's "worthy"). You've straight up stated that it would be an accomplishment to convince just ONE person to do so. Which means you're not just trying to promote the "truth," but rather to get people to not buy the game. But hey, keep attacking my reading comprehension. Then why did you phrase your comment as the site being an accomplishment if it convinces someone to NOT buy the game (you even italicized the word "not" to emphasise it!!), while at the same time, ignoring my comments as to whether or not you'd still feel you'd be satisfied if your site convinces someone to actually buy the game. Your goals are transparent. You phrase everything in the negative. You have stated that you hope to convince people to not buy the game (unless it's worthy), you've states that you do not feel that Fallout 3 is a good game, and that Fallout 3 will be an pox upon the entire Fallout franchise. Forgive me if I'm skeptical about you being purely about "educating" the people. Are you telling me that you're going to support this cause purely because you don't want uninformed consumers to buy games thinking that it's going to be just like Fallout 1 and 2, and that there isn't some other reason? If you're so altruistic, why only do this for Fallout 3? Surely there are other games that receive a lot of hype and will probably entice other people to buy the game and ultimately be unhappy. I know you're not the site creator/webmaster (what was that criticism you were sending my way about making assumptions). The term "You" can also be used as plural, as in the "you people" supporting this cause. In French they have a separate word for it ("vous" instead of "tu"), but I'm unaware of one that occurs in English. The thought had occurred to me that perhaps I should use "You people," but that is often used in a derogatory nature, so I opted not to. Since you're associated with the cause, "you" seemed appropriate. But as you say, I fail at reading comprehension. Consider not stating that you feel the site to be a success if it convinces people to NOT buy Fallout 3. Consider not stating that you, based on the "we don't do isometric/turn-based well," think Fallout 3 will be a poor game, even though that's all we know about it. It makes your biases transparent, and as I'm sure you've learned in life, your biases affect everything you do. You are clearly against the idea of Bethesda making Fallout 3 (based upon your comments about how not doing this would be akin to letting Bethesda ruin the franchise). When you state straight up that you'd consider it to be an accomplishment if it convinces a single person to not buy Fallout 3, it makes your goal rather transparent. On a final note, as you say, you're not going to have a direct hand in the website. Follow that link in your Codex link's first post, and see that goals very much include outright trying to reduce sales of Fallout 3. There's also a distinct anti-Bethesda feeling. The people there that support this cause are quite against Bethesda, accuse them of being liars, and so on. Even if you truly are altruistic and are doing this purely for the education of others, I doubt the rest of the people supporting this campaign are quite so sincere.

I think the was a lead in to help take people off their guard when . It's almost a given that something big will happen in an episode, and I think they tried to get people by making be that big thing. It fooled me.

Alan, that is like making a Dungeons and Dragons game without using the Dungeons and Dragons rules. No it's not. It'd be more like making Baldur's Gate without making the Dungeons and Dragons rules. SPECIAL was a ruleset created to drive the Fallout games. But Fallout doesn't require it. Just like I don't think I'd need Baldur's Gate to be a D&D game for me to enjoy it (ignoring the obvious licensing that would still be required since Baldur's Gate is set in the Forgotten Realms). I didn't enjoy Baldur's Gate (or any of the IE games) because they were D&D games (in fact, I'm not particularly fond of the AD&D ruleset), but rather because they were typically fun and interesting games. I enjoyed the setting and I enjoyed the characters. In fact, when I first got a chance to play Baldur's Gate, I didn't even know that it was a D&D game until I started creating a character. I see SPECIAL as merely a means to an end to drive the Fallout game. If it was made appropriately with d20, I doubt I'd like the game any less. Instead of doing skill checks to see if your Science skill is 40%, you check to see if your Science skill is 4. Feats and skills with weapons can be added as dice roll modifiers for your ability to hit with a weapon. Then I imagine that Llyranor's statements about the length is also good enough for you?

So you got Chaos Theory to be "playable" on a Celeron 533, with a 66 MHz system bus, and at best 256 MB of PC-133 memory? Also, the other games are just perfect "at times?"

I'm sure you would.

I made an edit.

He's making a point and you're missing it Vic. Hades made a comment about how Lionheart and Tactics are proof that realtime cannot work with SPECIAL. So Llyranor is using the same logic to prove that a long Fallout game cannot work.

Then maybe SPECIAL is the problem. If Bethesda can think of something superior, they can toss SPECIAL to the wind for all I care. Furthermore, I'd hope that someone with a University degree would know better than citing two case studies (Lionheart and Fallout Tactics) as being unequivocal "proof" of something. The fact is, you can't really prove that real-time SPECIAL can never be an improvement. You can only really disprove it.

Such as? I've read the RPGCodex link you provided. It's from that thread alone that my skepticism to the idea being in any way positive or constructive has grown. It's also where you have stated your support to spread the truth to people, and to show people "what they can really expect from Bethesda's upcoming Fallout 3." Sounds like you're already prepping to being [pernickety] criticisms for the sake of criticism. It's all about showing the people "the truth." You're making fallicious assumptions that people that enjoyed the original Fallout games won't possibly enjoy Fallout 3, and your goal is to convince them to not buy the game. People in that thread are stating that people such as this are not "fans," but just some "casual gamer." In fact, some of the people (such as galsiah) that were the ones to suggest that perhaps a moderated, constructive style be used instead, are people that in their very same post state that they don't think that this movement will have any real effect on anything. Exactly. And people such as yourself are already chastising the game, and creating websites with the specific goal to convince people to not buy the game.