[Fallout 3]

No, I don't.

Ah, well. It was worth a shot - you'll have to live not understanding, then... I don't think I can help you if you fail to realize that people are free to think whatever they wish, regardless of how sick and perverted you deem it to be.

 

 

And Bethesada doesn't have to cater to tastes they find unpleasant.

That's right. They don't "have" to do anything. They don't have to make their game internally consistent, they don't have to try and think of something better than lame workarounds for "difficult" problems, they don't have to be brave and go with what they believe should be in an RPG, as opposed to what other people think - people which will, most likely, never play their game at all.

 

Yep, they don't have to do anything. But not doing anything isn't the best way to do great games.

 

 

Yes, in the real world, setting off an atomic bomb is worse than killing a child. In a game, pressing a button and seeing an explosion is not as bad as watching a child getting their head blown off in slow motion.

"Isn't as bad"? So, all of the content in the game, including (but not limited to) using nuclear weapons on innocent people is just fine, but shooting kids isn't? Care to explain why? Where does this "totally unacceptable" business begin? Did I mention that these kids are NOT REAL? That all this utter moral perversity is imaginary? That there is no harm being done, to anyone, what-so-ever? Please, please, show me your uncanny moral compass that helps you find your way, the right way, on the unforgiving sea of fictional entertainment.

 

Bear in mind that in FO/2 you were not forced to kill any children, nor was it the point or focus of the game, and it didn't return any particularly remarkable benefits. Further, you were actually discouraged from doing so, in a way that worked ingame. THAT is good design.

 

 

FO 2 didn't have any children at all for that same reason

That was the Euro version only, if I'm not mistaken.

[Fallout 3]

And anyone who thinks about killing children in his mind is one sick pervert.

Most likely, yes. But that doesn't give you or anyone else the right to tell people what they can or cannot think. Do you get it yet?

 

 

There is a matter of good taste, and I fail to see how headshotting children is in good taste.

Yeah, because everything else in FO3 is becoming of the most highly refined taste, and therefore such a thing would obviously be out of place!

[Fallout 3]

Nuking a city full of innocent people isn't controversial enough to you? Selling children to slavery isn't controversial enough to you?

You know, that's exactly the wrong attitude. It shouldn't be controversial because, you know, it's a game. It's not real. It's no different from killing children in your mind, and far less worrisome. Catering and bowing down to the absurd sensibilities of idiots who can't tell the difference between fiction and reality puts one at the same level of those idiots. And, for many people, controversy is just another hobby.

 

And then there's the silly double standards you mention, and the fact that seems to have escaped Todd & Co, that nuking a town will result in the deaths of the children therein. Oh wait, it won't - they have godmode!

 

But the saddest part is that we are actually going backwards. You had functional hookers (fade to black, at least), child killing and other naughty things in both FO1&2... but stuff got toned down for 3, so the folks with the short tempers and zero tolerance don't get too angry.

[US Presidential Elections 2]

But I think you should enforce nation wide laws about guns when it comes to who can own it and what firearms can be bought. So one that buys a gun has to pass a psychological test, have no criminal history, things like that and not like in some states as I remember all you have to own is a membership of a gun range facility so the usage and purchase is 'justified'.

With some clear restriction like that OK, if a person owns a sidearm and has it registered, fine. And why wouldn't they for an example restrict the number of guns one can own and register, what's with those psychos that own 10+ firearms? Why can one order without much trouble a thing like M82 online with little oversight? Yeah I'm a hunter and I use .50 anti material sniper rifle to shoot ducks. Why are firearms like that, like the M4, CAR-15 and similar even in the store?

Full auto weapons are already banned from non-law enforcement sale, and how many people are killed with anti-materiel rifles? Do you really think it's a criminal or a school shooter's weapon of choice? The problem are the short, easily concealable and readily available guns. And those aren't going to go away anytime soon.

[Which Fallout was the greatest?]

I mean, a talking radscorpion with glasses? Really?

 

How regularly did things like this appear in the game?

Every five minutes. It almost ruined the game.

 

Ouch, that does sound very over the top. I mean, I don't mind occassional humor (anybody remember the spectator beholder from Baldur's Gate II?) of the game not taking itself seriously, but if it appears too often, it would ruin the experience for me.

Only it wasn't a talking radscorpion. It was a lockpicking, chessmaster radscorpion. The plant in the lawn next door did the talking. Folks are blowing the issue out of proportion, I think. The game does have a lot of silliness, but it's a huge game and it's not cluttered by that. I think it's very significative that this alleged excessive cheesiness is the only fault people can find with Fallout 2. 3 is more like 1 in this regard... the over-the-top humour is almost non-existant. It goes with the tastes, I guess - I know I miss it sometimes, but some people are grateful that Beth didn't go that way.

 

I'm having fun with F3, but I don't think I'll be able to replay the game as many times as I have its predecessors. It's a fun RPG, but a very crappy shooter. I'm not casting a vote because it's comparing apples and oranges, anyway.

[Fallout 3]

Alright, I don't use VATS, but like, sniping is weird. Like, the sniper rifle doesn't zoom in too much, and it doesn't seem as accurate as it should be at all.

Sniping is gimped. For some reason, not only do sniper rifles not zoom in too much, but also they seem unable to hit targets at extreme distances, or at least, as extreme as the zoom permits. The hits simply don't register, which forces you to close in - which kinda defeats the point of a sniper rifle to begin with.

 

The viewpoint is UTTER CRAP, as well. It's impossible to shoot from cover, because you are either not behind cover at all, or hitting whatever it is you are using for cover instead of the target, nevermind that there's a clear line between the barrel of the gun and the target.

 

VATS + missile launcher = luv

[Branching and diverging storypaths]

However I think that True Crime: Streets of LA actually did a fairly good job of giving you a divergent storyline. Basically the way it was set up was that there was a main plot that was like a line. if you got stuck and wanted to do a different story mission you could select an easier story that would take you down a branch that usually ended badly.

Yeah, that was awesome. But, while the story developed in a completely different manner in each branch, there weren't so many "alternate" paths (2 or 3 IIRC), and they did shove it in the player's face, so to speak, and made it pretty obvious that she had either missed a diverging plotline or made the wrong choice. Not elegant at all, and by no means seamless. The game wasn't an RPG, though, and it's one of the few games I can think of that does present a choice that isn't fake.

 

As for the MMO having any real choice, I can very easily seeing it happen, what with all the bragging about how huge the game is in terms of content and all. How much of that will be directly affected by one player as opposed to being diluted by the input of the masses remains to be seen, though.

[Could Bethesda outsource Fallout to Obsidian?]

From solid long term research, I've determined that...

Hahaha.

[Things you irrationally fear]

I fear leg workout day. Knowing I won't be able to sit to take a crap for the rest of the week... *shudder*

 

And WTF is up with those post-nuclear hornets?!

 

 

Im mildly afraid of praying mantis and those other ones that look like sticks but arent sticks at all. I dont know why, I know they cant hurt me. Funny story. A few years ago I was out back at work on my way to my car and there was a small (5-6") praying mantis just chillin on the top of our dumpster. So I go back in and call a few of my coworkers back to see it. This one dude leans in real close and the mantis jumps at him. He turns and bolts with the mantis in hot pursuit, arms flailing and a not-so-manly scream welling up in his throat. Oh we laughed and laughed.

Gold!

[US Presidential Elections 2]

Much like other banned sexual/marital practices, such as incest, bestiality, and marriage of/sex with minors-- but unlike homosexual relationships-- polygamy correlates strongly with abusive relationships and near-abusive relationships where one "partner" has a domineering level of power over the other's life and choices.

You are an intelligent fellow, so I assume you don't need me to explain how it's impossible to establish any direct links between polygamy (exclusively, and in principle), and abuse, any more than it is possible to establish such links with any other form of cohabitation.

 

I'm much more inclined to believe that the correlation stems from the kind of people that practice polygamy, than the practice itself.

 

 

Because they're your trade partners, and military allies, and potential enemies.

They'll continue to be "friends" with regards to the first two points as long as there isn't a direct conflict of interest. As for the last... keep flexing your military (and nuclear) muscle, and it's a non-issue...

 

So, yeah. Despite all the h8 that the US seem to earn, I'd say they've got it just about right. Or, how taks put it so eloquently, **** envy.

[Missing Black Isle]

I say Bethesda's Fallout 3 is indeed a proper Fallout game.

**** ME.

 

Now I know all there's to do is sit and wait for the universe to collapse in on itself or something.

[Things you irrationally fear]

I fear commitment.

[What are you playing now?]

And tell us, how much do you hate yourself for enjoying it?

[We did WHAT!?]

I'm as rational as your next neighbour, or your next forum member here. I was educated in German High School, and there was a big focus on rational and critical thinking. Something you obviously lack. *plonk* Sorry, about that.

Yeah, it's a shame they didn't teach you to read in that German High School of yours, though. See if you can get your money back.

 

 

Again, just so you get it into your thick head. There is terrorism in Iraq, which has no regards to civilian casualties, and which is condemnable. The invader is an invading army or more precisely a coalition of allied forces. That's a fact, no way around that. Everything else is bending logical definitions.

No. Just because your mind cannot fathom the intricacies of a reality that's not black and white, it doesn't mean they don't exist. Terrorism in Iraq isn't focused solely on "the invader" without regards for civilian casualties. It does specifically target civilians - that's the key difference. Further, their aim is not to expel the Coalition forces, but complete destabilisation, as evidenced by their threats during the 2005 election, and their systematic attacks on local law enforcement units. I know that painting the US as the evil nazis and the Iraqi insurgents as romantic freedom fighters helps shoehorn that ludicrous vision of the world into your malnourished mind, and hey, it's your mind after all - but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

 

To impose economic sanctions you will need to employ diplomacy. Am I right or am I wrong?

You are wrong, as per usual. The Cuban embargo is proof of this. But in most cases, economic sanctions are enacted AFTER diplomacy fails, under the guise of an UN Resolution, in which the target of the sanctions has no say whatsoever.

 

 

And if you are implying that I am a propaganda drone, you have proved for all to see that you are not capable of having a civil and rational discussion on a www forum.

You fail at reading comprehension, miserably. Unless you talk to yourself on a frequent basis, that is.

 

 

I feel sorry for you. End of line for now.

Hey, for somebody who so easily accuses others of not addressing your points, you do that yourself quite a bit, and rather inelegantly, too. Go ahead, you have your work cut out for you. Don't try too hard, though - thinking isn't something you are accustomed to (whatever they taught you at the German High School was most definitely not thinking), and I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.

[We did WHAT!?]

Logic is governed by the rules of the respective scientific discipline. doh

It's the other way around, actually. Logic is a self-contained system with a set of isolated general principles. Science or partiality have nothing to do with those. But it's good that you admit that logic isn't universal, as it explains your squirming when faced with arguments that you cannot defuse.

 

Any other fundamental misconceptions you need cleared (beside those already discussed)?

 

 

Facts, have to be examined, as to whether they are real facts or propaganda lies. doh

Yep. The only "facts" I've referenced in this discussion are the massacre of Iraqi civilians by the insurgency and the failure of economic sanctions. Those are both well documented. But I guess those, as with logic, aren't universally valid.

 

 

I abide by the rules of logic as outlined in the respective scientific discipline. Mostly anyways.

Yeah, mostly, except when it doesn't suit your purposes. You've made it pretty clear so far, but again it's good that you make an explicit admission.

 

 

The so called fact that the former Secretary of State presented to the UN to get an alliance of Operation Iraqi Freedom, was a fabricated propaganda lie. Proof: no WoMD have been found since the start of the invasion in Iraq. And that's a widely accepted fact internationally.

Your point? I already conceded that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal. Stop trying to deviate the attention from the present situation on Iraq. The war ended in 2003. Elections were held in 2005. What you have now is essentially an international peacekeeping force that's under constant attack from sectarian terrorist groups whose aim is to destabilise the country as dictated by their ethnic hatred.

 

 

Seriously though, it is an internationally widely accepted fact that fanatical religious schools are recruiting ground no. 1 for Al Qaida. I've seen even the BBC report about it, if I'm not mistaken. And if I find the time, I'll be glad to provide you a link.

Yeah, great going there bub. I ask you about ethnic problems as the real underlying reasons for terrorism in Iraq, and you answer with some drivel about islamic schools. Any other irrelevant or incoherent gibberish you want to add? How about talking about the World Cup while you're at it?

 

 

I just question why it was so important to get rid of Saddam, when there are numerous other ruthless dictators around with or without the potential to endanger the security of the US. That's one question you dodge repeatedly.

Yep. I've dodged it repeatedly by answering and talking about it, as much as you wanted. Read the thread instead of assuming what I'm going to write (or not write at all).

[Fallout 3]

*sigh*

 

Looks like I'll have to pump barter for a few levels. How silly of me to think I could make money with barter 10 and CHA 2...

[We did WHAT!?]

I agree that it is the civilian population that suffers most from economic sanctions. The trick is to make the population rally against its incompetent government instead.

Oh, wow, that's great! So, how does one implement "the trick"? Don't you think if it was so simple, economic sanctions would work much better than they have, looking at historical results? Nevermind that I just explained HOW they cannot work, in principle.

 

 

Right, yeah, and all that preemptive strike crap alongside that ...

Yup. You're finally starting to get how it works. Perhaps you're not quite as dense as you appear, after all.

 

 

And I have to take your word for it, right? You, of course, as the Grandmaster of Logic and Facts don't have to prove anything; you can claim things and expect them to be accepted as the universal, undeniable truth. Doesn't change the fact that an unauthorized police act like that still constitutes legally a casus belli. I'm pretty sure that if the same thing had happened in Greek territory, but by let's say Russian military forces, we would loudly protest and consider it a casus belli. We wouldn't go to war with Russia of course, but we definitely would bring the matter to the UN.

No, you don't have to take my word for it, as this point in particular is just politics, not logic or facts. Therefore it's ultimately a matter of opinion. I think you just proved you cannot tell the difference betweeen those things.

 

 

... which you actually haven't proved; we [there is no we!] must actually take your word for that ... It's a well known fact of world politics that terrorists and rebel, "revolutionary" armies don't concern themselves to comply with the Geneva Conventions on Conduct during War.

Does this make them exempt from the law, somehow? And if so, please explain how THAT aren't double standards?

 

 

Any civilized country and its army, however, should sign said conventions and abide by them. Again explain the toleration of fanatic religious schools in Pakistan, whereas it is a known fact that these religious schools are recruiting ground no. 1 for Al Qaida and other militant muslim organizations.

Pakistan has acted in the past against terrorists operating within their borders, and is happy to collaborate with the US on matters of terrorism. I'm sorry that your solution to everything is to bomb schools to rubble, but there's room for other things before that becomes necessary.

 

 

And boy, do they have a repressive dictator governing them, but I forget, he is a friendly one, he gives the US exactly what it wants.

No, more likely it's because Musharraf is stepping down from power and allowing a step by step transition to democracy to take place. You really need to check your facts before making these specious claims.

[We did WHAT!?]

Not the logic and facts of a war supporter, no, sorry won't work

Ah... so logic and facts only have value for you depending on who puts them in front of your face, as opposed to their intrinsic value. Yeah, it's all starting to make sense now.

 

 

I don't see why I have to bend to your logic and your (mostly fabricated) facts

Yeah, I mean, why would you take off your blindfold? You're so much better off on Gingerbread Land, anyway. And that way you don't have to deal with the unpleasant feeling of having a different opinion than that of your usual "peace-loving" (who doesn't love peace, anyway?) lot - the only people whose logic and facts matter to you.

 

 

Yeah, jeez. Now explain Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to me.

What's there to explain?

 

 

Trust me, for an invaded country and its people it doesn't matter much who the invader is. Go ask an Iraqi who has lost all his family due to indiscriminate carpet bombing of civilian areas and report back what he will tell you.

But it does. Another ignorant comment which has very little basis on facts - shouldn't expect anything else from you. But, you see, to the Iraqis it does matter, as Saddam was a Sunni dictator who systematically oppressed and brutalised the Shiite majority of the country. Incidentally, the insurgence in Iraq are mostly butthurt members of the Sunni population, which didn't take to kindly to their status reversed.

 

But of course, these facts don't matter to you, because they came from a "war supporter"! Go go rational conversations!

 

 

Against the invader, simple as that. If you believe the invaders are liberators and should be greeted with open arms, it's your right to do so, but don't go demanding that everybody should share it and embrace it as the ultimate truth.

I guess the native Iraqi folks who just happen to be walking in front of the US embassy are to be considered "the invader", seeing how they are mowed down when the embassy is attacked... as are the diplomats and civilian personnel inside. Oh, and the people at the market are "the invader" too.

 

Yeah, there's a degree of subjectiveness in any truth, but you take that to ridiculous levels.

 

 

When countries negotiate, they usually sign legal binding contracts at the end of them. It is nevertheless undeniable that this is a case where diplomacy did work and the US got what they wanted, at least that's my take on it. You are welcome to disagree.

Yes, but we weren't discussing the merits of diplomacy... but the merits of economic sanctions. Starting to lose track, already? Feeling dizzy? Don't worry too much, it's probably the side-effects of having a conversation with someone who isn't a propaganda drone, for once.

[Fallout 3]

This game is the most fun I've had since KotOR 2 or something... damn is this thing addictive! The crafting system, while limited, is pretty cool. That

Nuka Cola bomb

is insane. It's cool that you can gather random pre-war junk and sell it, too, even if it's worthless to you. Bring out the scavenger in you!

 

Anyway, has anyone else experienced missing NPCs? I lost Walter in Megaton and had to bring him back via console... he had managed to fall off the map somehow. And now I fear Sentinel Lyons has suffered the same fate, as she's gone

after I spoke to that wacky Three Dog bozo at the top of the GR building

. I'd appreciate if somebody could post her ID, I don't have any saves before meeting her.

 

Also, how are you guys managing money? I can hardly make ends meet. I have been unable to buy any stuff for the house, and I'm quite meticulous when it comes to looting. Is it better to sell a few items in good condition or a crapload of banged up stuff? Is investing on the barter skill worth it? I remember I never needed it in the old FOs...

[Fallout 3 First Impressions]

Ya, I found out that as well - after some super mutant blew up the car I was using for cover.

[Fallout 3 First Impressions]

Anyone else getting mouse lag? It's not graphics lag as it's independent of settings, but it's driving me mad... Why can't ported shooters have 1:1 linear mouse controls, or at least the option to let me make the choice?

 

So far, it's my only complaint. The game is great otherwise. VATS is quite fun to use, but it makes the game too easy. It's a clever way of bypassing player skill completely and taking only character skills into consideration, so even Hades can play it no problem!

 

I'm stuck with the crappy dubbed version (they even removed the English VO from the build FFS), so I'll be torrenting me a proper, unadultered English game. Oh how I love living in a country full of uneducated idiots!

[Mr. Chris A., you out there? Can you spill the beans now?]

...wow. Another old timer.

 

As for the topic, I'd love to know too. But MCA hasn't posted here in a long, long time.

[Fallout 3]

Nah, I just found out that they've had it available at the mall for at least two or three days... but at the local "specialised" game store, they wouldn't release it until today, the asshats. I mean, nothing ever works as it should in my country, everyone's willing to bend some rule or another to make an extra penny, except for, conveniently, the morons at the game store.

 

Idiots.

 

And yeah, the official release date for Europe seems to have been the 30th... so they actually got it wrong.

 

*rants away*

[Fallout 3]

Bobblehead Medicine = Vault 101, Dad's office

Bobblehead Science = Vault 106, Lab level

Spoiler tags, please.

 

And every other Euro on the boards seems to have the game already. DD or what? I was told at the local store that it didn't come out until today.

[I have a question...]

My point becomes this, something unobservable and that lacks experimental ability is not science as popularly defined (systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation).

I'm afraid you got your definition wrong. A fundamental part in the scientific method is that of hypothesizing - making more or less wild guesses in order to find a plausible explanation to an unexplained phenomenon. If those guesses contradict observed evidence, they are discarded. If not, one keeps guessing and gathering evidence and data, until either the guess becomes impossible or the phenomenon is explained satisfactorily.

 

Science in general does not necessarily entail mathematical formality in reasoning, nor are its truths derived in the same way. While it's systematic too, it's much more flexible.