Longknife

Was this sarcasm?

Play this song at my funeral pls.

Longknife, take some advice from from me. Quit looking into it and go in without comparing it to the older titles. Should you do this? Ethically no because I agree with everything you've been saying, but for me to get any enjoyment outta it I'm gonna go in expecting and thinking its a new IP. Bethesda has this thing about reinventing the wheel every single time and cutting corners. We can sit here and bitch and moan, buts it's Bethesda and right now besides witcher 3 there isn't really any RPGs out so even if we vote with our wallet, they won't notice our lack money throw at them. It's like fallout 3. Very fun game but a very horrible "fallout" game. I have a feeling fallout 4 is gonna be the same, whereas Bethesda wants each game to be judged by its own merits but because it's part of a series we the customers are gonna compare it to the others. Don't compare it to the others such as fallout new Vegas and hopefully we both will enjoy the game for simply being a fun game and won't get hung up on the "fallout" part because we know it will be lacking. So my advice is to simply go in thinking brand new ip and don't think of the older titles and hopefully we both will find some enjoyment outta it. We can then sit and pray that obsidian will get a second shot and make the next fallout game a fun but also a good "fallout" game. Otherwise we are just setting ourselves up for justified disappointment. Your argument is "we have to settle for less." No we don't wtf. I don't need video games to be happy. I enjoy them, but I can entertain myself with or without Fallout 4. It'd be nice if it were entertaining, but if it's not, then I'll get my entertainment elsewhere. That's what I don't get: everyone's so ready to settle for less. WTF no just bail on the gaming industry for a year or two if it's being so crud, they'll get the hint and then you can come back. Money talks with companies. And if you think your money won't talk? Let your voice. That's part of the reason I refuse to shutup and continue to voice criticism, no matter how painfully obvious it feels at times that people aren't fond of my criticisms. I like to think that, even if people consider me an idiot and some ass who just wants to bitch and complain, that maybe, just maybe, 2 years down the line or whatever when they play a game and know the feeling of noticing a drop in quality, they'll remember some of the things I said and maybe become a bit more critical themselves. Find the whole topic very depressing. Not just with video games, but with capitalism in general. So many people seem willing to settle for less just cause they feel powerless vs. a big company. :/ And just for clarity because people forget: I am not an oldschool, hardcore Fallout fan. FO3 was my first Fallout game. I am a hardcore New Vegas fan; Fallout as a series has the potential to follow up on it's quality, but I would definitely consider New Vegas in a league of it's own amongst the series. Not to say the others aren't good, but New Vegas was a masterpiece. In the span of two years, I saw the best game I've ever played and the worst game I've ever played (wouldn't call it the worst game ever by a long shot, but the worst I've purchased...? Yeah actually) released by the same publisher. It's very clear we can get outstanding quality today and there's nothing hindering that....except for customers bending over and taking it.

Again I'm frustrated, because your implication is that you think I want to be skeptical or want to hate what I see, or want Fallout 4 to fail. I really loathe this attitude of yours and that of others, because it highlights how people falsely associate criticism with hate. Of course not wtf, I want it to succeed (if it deserves to). But I'm not so blindly loyal to that desire of mine that I'll let it cloud my perception of reality. What purpose would that serve, lying to myself so that I too pre-order it and pray for an amazing game when my gut expects otherwise? I wanted a decent Fallout game, and I wanted to play one, so of course I pay attention to the news. But no matter how much new info we get, nothing seems explained or like it was thought-out. Instead it feels like the game is focused more on sales than on being an exceptional experience. I don't want a 6/10 game, I want a 10/10 one. I will be here to watch a Let's player play the game and either confirm or deny my suspicions that the game sucks. And if it sucks...? Then that's probably the nail in the coffin for my history with Bethesda. That'll probably be my final sign that it's time to stop following their work or bothering with them. If I wanted the game to fail, I wouldn't be around discussing it like the rest of you. Just because I'm not practicing 20 different ways to kiss it's ass as I wait for it to release doesn't mean I don't want it to be a good product, I just don't see how blind praise is the superior alternative to a critical eye. Aside from that, this is becoming a fascination of mine. Not just Fallout, but games in general. Hype, marketing, pre-orders, and the cycle of disappointment. It amazes me to watch this happen over and over and over and over. I'm tempted to ask for the age of every person in this thread, wondering if it's my age and experience that makes me so critical while others are still young (16 or so) and have yet to be burned by a lackluster product that regresses in quality, and thus such companies feed off of that inexperience to make more money for less effort. Fallout 4, Skyrim, Sims 4, every Call of Duty release ever, Bioshock Infinite...these are all games that I'd follow moreso out of astonishment to watch people fall for their hype trains and try to understand why. Let me say this, and try to refute this if you can, just for the sake of making a point: We would have better quality games if the general audience were more critical and cautious with purchases. If people were quicker to focus on flaws that might discourage a purchase rather than to focus on the EXACT flashy features the developers make a focal point of their presentation, then it would demand higher quality from the developers if they truly wish to make a sale, no? So why are people so turned off by my critical approach to gameplay releases...?

VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

So being negative for the sake of being negative is ok. Got it. It would be great if people could just focus on the context of what's said without responding with useless rhetorical questions or strawman arguments. It will never cease to amaze me the kinds of responses one can expect when being critical of a beloved game series or a game many are looking forward to. There are a multitude of reasons I am skeptical and pessimistic about FO4. If you're at all familiar with my post history at the Bethesda forums (not expecting you to be), you'd know I've listed them and I'm not just "being negative for the sake of it." I've posted extensively on reasons I suspect FO4 will be very much akin to the quality of Skyrim based on what little we've seen from FO4 and based on Bethesda's track record in general. I would be more than happy to break down all my reasons in great detail and have even considered making a youtube video on the subject matter (something accessible to people across all forums). For the moment? Forgive me, I'm a bit "fatigued" about the subject matter, what with being banned and all for "flaming" while discussing the subject. For a very brief summary of some issues and fears I have with FO4 without going into great detail...? -Check the footage of the deathclaw fight. Check the damage taken by a singular swipe, check how much damage the deathclaw takes from a minigun. Entire fight seems more akin to a dragon fight in Skyrim rather than a deathclaw fight in New Vegas. Too much HP, not enough damage. Seems Bethesda is in their old habit of thinking more HP = harder, rather than actually giving enemies more damage. Very same fight also suggests damage resistance is still the major form of defense, and balancing a game when there's a 0-80% damage reduction gap across characters is definitely difficult. -Very same clip, deathclaw seems to perform a killcam move on the player. Dunno about you, but I loathed killcams. If we're getting those again....? Oh boy.... They were so lazily programmed in in Skyrim, and often resulted in enemies killing you twice as fast as normal, simply cause you'd get locked into one the moment they had the potential to oneshot you, with the game not even bothering to check if you dodged or resisted the damage in some way. -As stated, the game exhibits similarities to popular game franchises such as Mass Effect and Bioshock Infinite. I hardly think this was someone saying "let's use these systems because they're clearly superior," but rather an instance of "let's copy popular franchises cause that'll definitely attract new customers." You could write a book about all the ways the new dialog system seems less flexible or more tedious at the very least (thumbing through speech checks IF they even exist now) compared to the old one. -Voiced protagonist. Initially? I didn't really care, cause I'm usually interested in seeing what the intent behind the canon protagonist was in these kinds of games. Over time it dawned on me though that while I do do this out of habit with such games, I still roleplay several other characters after. I do feel voiced protagonist will limit this or encroach upon this for me, which is unfortunate. Why did they opt to have one...? They do claim it helps with their writing, but I for one can't recall a convincingly voiced character in Bethesda games (beyond those that get killed off almost immediately and are played by big name actors...) and wtf, there's still rocket engines on the USS Constition. No clue if this is them trying to pander to popular titles again or if they truly believe this means better writing, but I have my doubts it'll be worth it, given their track record with writing. On the contrary, I would think voice acting demands a good script, not that voice acting covers up for bad writing. Need we go over Skyrim's Thieves' guild as an example of how abysmal their writing is? -The scale and scope of perks and weapon mods. It's too much. In New Vegas I sometimes catch myself wishing for more weapons, but then realize I struggle to name new ones that don't suit a job that isn't already fulfilled by another weapon. The weapons in New Vegas pretty much covered every style, and only two weapon mods from the nexus come to mind as being balanced and a welcome addition (a laser sniper with DPH rather than DPS and a hunting shotgun that is more capable of competing with the riot shotgun). I cannot fathom 700 weapons being balanced or useful, and sure enough, examples like "plasma sniper," "plasma scattergun" and "night vision rocket launcher" make me question the quality or the usefulness of many of the mods. This worry is made worse by the fact that Skyrim as a reference material had soooooo much weapon customization that daedric artifacts and random loot were worthless and meaningless by comparison; crafted stuff was superior. And of course, there was a meta and very clear weaponry that was superior. I fear that of the 700 weapon possibilities, 17 will be used. -Skills merged to perks. Why? There's no reason or benefit for this. Skyrim essentially did this too. It's effect...? The skill perks were "required." You could skip the 20% cooler perks at the base of the skill trees....if you were a masochist. Skipping those was pure torture and made for tediously long battles. No, you took those 100% of the time, and all those meant was that the overall quality of perks dropped. Why? Because half the perks were actually "add 20 points to your skill" or the equivalent effect, so instead of getting 20 actual perks, we got 10 actual perks and 10 that were "increase your skill." Skills were forced on you for a reason: not increasing those was suicide. Having certain perks practically forced upon me just gets in the way of taking the actually enjoyable perks. -The SPECIAL-perk system. Two possibilities: either the 10 Luck perk (for example) is not worth taking and therefore 10 Luck is never viable, or it is worth taking - as are all other luck perks below it - and thus EVERY 10 Luck character takes EVERY Luck perk available to them. The result is that characters with similar SPECIAL scores will perform the same, and you have ~7 playthroughs in this game. This is more limiting than New Vegas' system, where for example I could get two identical SPECIAL characters, but still create quite a bit of diversity between them by perking different skills (for example explosives on one and unarmed/melee on the other) while also taking different traits. No, doing this in FO4 would either require a great deal of self-nerfing on one of the two characters, OR it would require that a lot of the higher level perks are terrible in design and not worth taking or no big loss if skipped, which is obviously imperfect design too in it's own way. -Lack of traits. Why? Absolutely no reason for this beyond a casualized hand-holding mentality of "don't allow the player to fail! Heaven forbid something include a downside!" This entire philosophy in general suggests to me we'll also see insta-heal stimpacks, illusion-of-challenge battles where HP is stressed (see above) and a lot of focus on selling to as many people as possible. I see this as evidence of their general design philosophy, and it seems to be geared towards money, not polished gameplay. -ADHD game design. This one is more a fear with less evidence for it, but was prevelant by the now infamous quote for Skyrim: "A mile wide, an inch deep." Skyrim tried to be a variety of games at once, probably highlighted best in Hearthfire when Skyrim decided it was the Sims. For this reason, I did feel a little put off when they showed off the minigames you could play on the pipboy. If I want donkey kong, I'll play donkey kong. It just feels gimmicky rather than useful, and I'd prefer if time on such gimmicks went towards the core gameplay. -Writing. USS Consititution has rocket engines. Why? RULE OF COOL, MANG. RULE OF COOL. -The timespan of development. Todd said Fallout 4 started development in 2009. This means the game overlapped with Skyrim and Bethesda's attitude of that time. This is made visible in gameplay by even minor details, such as "Raider Scum" and "Raider Psycho," suggesting different levels of leveled raiders, just like the system in Skyrim. I doubt that's the only similarity, because at least 2-3 years (depends on if you include DLCs of Skyrim) of Fallout 4 would be done during the time when Bethesda had the design philosophy that created Skyrim. Does any of that sound like being negative for the sake of it? No, I'm taking what little evidence we've received and drawing logical conclusions from there while using . I could be wrong of course, but that's a given. Should I be skeptical regardless? Yeah, probably, so I'll wait and see some game footage before I even consider a purchase. But **** me for being critical and not blindly praising a game I've not yet played as GAME OF THE YEAR ALL YEARS, amirite?

To sell. Make no mistake that was just as true for Fallout 2 as it is for Fallout 4. And yet still people complained about that very fact, despite it being a reasonable (even expected) move. Would it matter to the Fallout hardcore if they did? Per above I haven't found the "Fallout purist" to listen to reason. I've actually read people argue that Fallout 3 should have been built with the same engine as Fallout 1 because it was perfect and this wasn't done ironically. Do they need to give you a reason? Why must they give you a reason for anything? Because you're a fan? Because you played Fallout 1 or 3? Because...you're entitled to an answer? And because it is "different" it is automatically suspect? Just like changing from Isometric to 3D? Providing reasons didn't stop people from complaining about Fallout 3. And Obsidian changing gameplay in New Vegas had some of the Fallout 3 fans complaining. It didn't stop anyone complaining about Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel (and I was a mod at Interplay when that announcement happened; if you think fans of Bethesda's Fallout are unreasonable for defending the company taking the franchise in a new direction, I can tell you tales about the behavior of the "Fallout fans" and their reaction to Interplay making a Fallout action title that won't paint them any better). In fact "reasons" didn't stop people complaining about Fallout Tactics. People complained Interplay shouldn't have wasted their time with Tactics instead of making Fallout 3 (despite the fact that Tactics wasn't done by the RPG arm of Interplay). Half of your post is essentially lumping all forms of complainers into one universal category instead of attempting to examine why and how they complain. By all means, ignore those who continue to complain Fallout isn't still isometric, but don't automatically label me as just as unreasonable as them just because we both happen to be complaining. Examine my complaints on their own merit. And why should they give me a reason...?? I would expect to hear a reason because, if someone's logic is sound, than hearing said reason earns respect and praise, which is good for the product. If for example Todd Howard walks out on stage and gives a little speech about problems they perceived with the old skill system and how exactly the new system will remedy those problems, then the crowd goes "that's a really clever idea" or "that's a good point," and they sell more copies because of how impressed the crowd is with the answer. That they seemingly can't do this and avoid doing it...? That's alarming to me. They're a business. As a business, the answer to everything - for them - is "to increase sales." When they don't give reasons or answers, then I assume the answer is "our answer to the question isn't actually that logical or impressive, so we think it would actually hurt sales." Having dabbled with marketing (only had to learn some economics as a minor to legal studies, and only dabbled with marketing, to be clear and fair), I've learned that silence on a subject typically means that subject isn't a strong suit. Thusfar, Bethesda's presentations could be summed up as: "OVER 700 WEAPONS." "OVER 200 PERKS." "OVER 100 NAMES." "OVER 150 DOG COMMANDS." It's just numbers being dumped on us, but the quality behind said numbers...? This has not been detailed in the slightest. It's clear the aim has been to impress and dazzle rather than to explain anything to us in any amount of actual detail or context. And no, different =/= suspect. Different without reasoning = suspect. As I said, FO3 is first person because that's Bethesda's comfort zone. That's reasonable. Skills being merged into perks...? We've heard no reasoning. The sudden parallels to Mass Effect, such as the entirety of the dialog system and the romanceable companions? Occam's Razor would suggest "they're blatantly copying popular game titles in order to attract new customers." That's alarming. That's called casualizing the franchise. I mean, I find it very telling that a friend of mine who's never played Fallout had the reaction of "the color scheme looks like Bioshock Infinite. I loved that game." This is a form of madness I will never understand. This is a company. It wants your money. It will do whatever it can to get your money. That's not me calling Bethesda a corrupt, greedy company mind you, that's me saying ANY company will do whatever it can to get your money from you. So why, pray tell, are you criticizing me and calling me (or implying I am) entitled for expecting some answers from them before I give them my money? As a company, it's your responsibility to sell the product and make money. If I ask a question that's highly important to my purchase or lack thereof...? Yes, if they want to have my money, it is practically a responsibility of theirs to answer my question. If I go to a farmer's market, look at some apples you are selling and ask "how fresh are these," would you then look at me and say "do I need to give you an answer? Why must I give you an answer for anything? Because you're a customer? Because you've bought apples here before? Because...you're entitled to an answer?" Guess what: I wouldn't buy your apples if that was your response. I would find your response pretty alarming, suspicious and strange, and then I'd just rationalize to spend my money elsewhere. You would never in a thousand years provide that kind of response to me if I was questioning YOUR product that YOU are selling, so why do you sit here and shield poor little defenseless Bethesda from my big bad evil critical questions? I will never in a thousand years even begin to understand why people insist on shielding the heartless entities called "companies" that don't even know their names, nor give a **** about them beyond their wallets.

Then what purpose is the brand "Fallout?" There was once a game for the Xbox I believe that used the name "Goldeneye." It was trying to feed of the love that Goldeneye 64 got. In reality it had absolutely nothing to do with the original and merely leeched off the name for sales. Understandably, people were upset about it. Here? If they changed the face of Fallout because they had legitimate, valid criticisms of the old, then by all means, do so. For example, you will not hear me criticize Bethesda for taking Fallout from isometric RPG to a 3D first-person RPG because the answer as to why is obvious: Bethesda has zero experience with isometric RPGs and could probably deliver a better product if the product is in their comfort zone. It's not a criticism mind you, but it's at least a reasonable argument as to why they felt they needed to make such a drastic change. Bethesda can walk up to you, make that case, and you can walk away saying "that sounds reasonable I guess." But what about Fallout 4? Do we hear things and respond "that sounds reasonable I guess?" Have they named valid reasons that skills needed to go? No. We're just told we shouldn't expect the titles to be the same as their old titles, but when it comes to valid reasons named as to why the change needed to happen, we don't get any. Is the new voiced dialog and the dialog option system in general a case of something they have experience with, or more likely it's them pandering to other popular titles such as Mass Effect? Probably the latter, especially given the romanceable companions. Has any reason been given for any of the major changes? Absolutely none. Bethesda provides us with radio silence while the hardcore fan boys sit there and scream at critics for daring to question anything. Mark my words: if you hated Skyrim, this game will be Skyrim 2.0. Based on footage we've seen, I'm willing to place bets on killcams, on an excessive and imbalanced weapon-crafting system (aka 60%+ of the potential products you can make are terrible), a lackluster and messy merger of perks and skills where there's only ~7 or so various character archetypes and after that you've seen it all, deathclaws being more akin to dragons in Skyrim (aka a giant HP bullet sponge that only tickles you and provides an illusion of a challenge and an illusion of being "epic"), the same old 80% damage resistance system being possible, and I somehow doubt the writing has actually improved, given that the USS Constitution still has ****ing rocket engines on it for no apparent reason.

I for one do think FO4 is going to be a terrible game more akin to Skyrim (if you liked Skyrim you might be happy, but for me, that's the most disappointing title I've ever purchased), nor do I see a purpose in trying to "stay positive" about it when all that I've seen thusfar suggests I should be negative. I do not believe in being positive for positive's sake, I believe in positive responses being earned. After all, if your go-to reaction is "let's praise it as a gut reaction!" then where's the motivation to improve or address problem areas?

Apologies in advance to WDeranged. A friend of mine who signed up yesterday or so was just permabanned for the reason "repeat offender" because she posted just like WDeranged did and warned that thread I was banned. Very strange and surprising to me cause I'm from Germany and she's from....****ing Canada, so our IPs shouldn't be remotely similar, yet they seem to think she's me. So yeah, no promises it won't hit Deranged either and sorry if it does. I PMed the mods and asked if I could tell people somehow about that thread, and when they struggled to reactivate my PM ability, I told them I would just ask friends to tell that thread I was banned. Despite this and despite IPs, I know got a friend permabanned too... :/ Could be cause she posted about it twice. Hopefully that's it and that's the cause for the "repeat offender" thing, cause if they think she's me then lolwtf.

Wish I had known you can get them dropped. That was never made apparent to me at any point. Maybe I missed something, but yeah, never saw that possibility anywhere.

Flaming. If you go through my post history, it should be my second or third final post. Basically, AwesomePossum and some other guy made arguments and I had some rather mocking or bitingly sarcastic remarks in there. Essentially, to AwesomePossum I said "analytical thinking isn't your strong suit, huh?" after he focused on all the wrong parts of my analogy, and to the other guy, he essentially argued that players should always self-nerf themselves and that he didn't wanna argue that point. I responded and said he didn't wanna argue it because his argument is ****ing terrible, pointed out how it's IMPOSSIBLE to know how to properly and accurately self-nerf yourself on a blind playthrough and how self-nerfing requires extensive meta-knowledge of the game mechanics. I then got very sarcastic and said something akin to "please, o enlightened one, tell me how many ranks of the Science perk I should be taking in FO4 if I'm to properly self-nerf myself! :D" Never meant it hatefully, was just teasing the guys for their terrible arguments, but wasn't meant personally. Not gonna lie because I remember my warning history vividly: First warning? I was derp, found a cringeworthy sex mod that had no nudity, no bad parts, no moaning, no NOTHING, and merely featured very awkward sexual animations (humping) and I linked it thinking "LOL THIS IS HILARIOUS" without realizing it still counts as sexual content. Apologized, got a warning. Second? A thread exceeded their page limit, everyone jokingly went "GOGOGO TO PAGE 20 OR BUST!" I joined in. Spam warning. Third? Linked to DSPGaming sucking **** at one of their games. Excessive swearing in the video, so that's a warning. Fourth? I swore excessively, censors caught it, but they were upset with me for activating the censor that much. They were lenient as normally fourth warrants permaban. Fifth? This one for flaming. I just don't get why they don't let warnings expire. I mean half of my warnings were child's play. And this is like a warning a year over five years. This warrants a PERMA ban...? But I'll take responsibility. They've warned me unofficially about watching my swearing or my rather bold tone, and I just finally got an actual warning point for it. As I said, I just view it as frustrating because one, I do view their ban system as flawed and think it needs some review when a 9 year old account with 10,000 quality posts and 5 questionable ones gets permabanned, and two, maybe I'm sensitive but it does kinda bother me how infamous I tend to be in online communities. I feel like characters like Tywin from Game of Thrones or Caesar from New Vegas. I'm bold, I'm blunt, I'm aggressive, I'm rude and I'm vulgar, but by ****ing god you better listen to what I have to say because what I say is a very educated opinion worthy of your time. I should tone it down to be more in line with the polite tone they wish to see, but personally I just can't stand it when people are SOOOO emotionally charged that they focus more on how I've said something rather than why I said it. I think that's WHY I post so brashly: I'm ornery, so basically it's like I would rather see people learn to look past the emotionally-triggering parts and focus solely on the substance of my post if they wish to have a productive discussion. I'd rather force people to make a choice between "let's focus on the facts and the discussion" or "let's get really pissed off because he called my point dumb, so I will call him a doo-doo head." I wish people would just get jaded and not care about the latter half. Rude of me, but it's how I am online. As I said though I can accept the ban. Only regret is that again, I find their ban system a tad flawed. I did bother to briefly make a new account and message their mods about my complaints with their system though, asking them to review their standards so future accounts like mine don't end up banned for managing to create 5 bad posts over the course of nine years.

Am I the only one that thinks Rick and Morty has the potential to be the best god damn animated sitcom since the Simpsons? Geniusly written.

This song, in the episode of the Simpsons where Bleeding Gums Murphy, is what led me to one day learn to play Saxophone. You could ask the smartest people in the universe for more good jazz songs to listen to, but oh right, they blew up.

Done. Thanks man, really appreciate it.

Stupid ad hominem is stupid. The idea that anyone's argument is less valuable because of their race, gender, physical condition or the like is ****ing ridiculous bull**** and downright racist, sexist etc. These people are idiots and I'd show them no pity. Quite frankly, I'd tell them point blank I think they're idiots.

My only regret is that I didn't get to post this before my ban: Oh and I won't lie....maybe I'm super sensitive (not something I think people suspect while talking to me), but it actually does bum me out to be banned. :c Turns out my ban was for very sarcastically mocking how flawed and stupid someone's logic was in an argument I made. If anyone's curious enough you can easily spot it in my post history there (I'd link but I can't view ANYTHING on that forum now) and should be my third-to-last post or so (second?), but yeah. It doesn't bum be out in the sense that like, I'll miss posting there (was posting less and less and don't plan on purchasing FO4), but rather....Iunno, sometimes I just feel MISUNDERSTOOD, if I can sound like an angsty teenager for a moment. Example of what I mean: recently I've been fed a lot of clips of Game of Thrones on Youtube. A character I had immense respect for was Tywin. Tywin is a total ass and does some pretty mean ****, but the man is ****ing right a lot of the time. He's harsh, he's insulting, and he makes you mad at him, but by god he's right. Saw a comment that said "I hated Tywin, but I respected him. I respected the ever-living **** out of him." Yeah, that's what I think too. Characters like Tywin or Caesar in New Vegas are characters I have immense respect for. These are the types of people that'll call you an idiot, they'll shout at you if they think you're tremendously wrong, they'll be blunt, bold and downright rude, but everything they're doing is in good faith. They're as bold as they are because they want to see improvement. Improvement from themselves, their friends and allies, and even the person they're currently insulting. But both of these characters are unpopular, and likewise, so am I. Not in real life. Nah, in real life I'm too much of a pansy to hurt anyone's feelings. I'm the type of person that it emotionally pains me (talking physical pain here) to emotionally hurt someone, so I can't do it and only confront someone if I feel it's absolutely needed, but otherwise I try to be gentle or passive with conflicts. Online though? I know people won't get their feelings hurt, nor will my input be valued as much, so I don't hold back. And online? I'm notoriously infamous in communities. :D But yeah, it's a bit upsetting to think about, because it often bothers me to see people more focused on how I said something rather than what I said. It's as if I said "you can't combine caesium with water you retarded half-wit" and instead of actually, yknow, listening and not doing it, people just get SOOOO emotionally upset that they do it, and then omg they blow up because the advice and the point itself was sound. Yes I realize I can avoid the tone to get them to not react emotionally, but I suppose it bothers me that people do so frequently react so emotionally. I want to get past that. I want to see people so accustomed to that dramatic and hyperbolized speech that it's filtered out and instead we focus solely on what's said and not on how it's said. Maybe that's idiocy on my part, but stilll....a bit saddening to me to know that characters like the Tywins or the Caesars or my online self are so infamous, when wtf I still feel I had plenty of value to say and never even meant that biting sarcasm in my post to be malicious, personally hateful or hurtful. Was meant as more mocking sarcasm and a "this wasn't your brightest moment huh? :D" rather than as an "OMFG UR SO STUPID AND WORTHLESS YOU SHOULD JUST GO KILL YOURSELF" kind of tone.

Does someone here frequent Bethesda's forums? If so, could you do me a favor? Go to the Fallout New Vegas forum and go to the Dead is Dead #18 thread and let them know I've been permabanned. That means someone else will have to take over that thread chain and that any of the reported deaths in the thread cannot be edited in for that thread and instead will have to be edited in starting in the next thread. Sorry to ask this so randomly, I just don't have any other options.

I mean I'm not sitting here trying to say "omg their system sucks u guys r waaaaaaaaaaay better" cause as I said it's subjective but.... When I started law school, there was a very early lesson we got taught it state law. A lot of students forgot it quickly. Why? Because it was useless. It wasn't practical or useful knowledge for the exams. The exams would examine if we knew how to properly break apart a case, nothing more. What the professor taught us is that if there's a law that's perhaps unconstitutional or you as a lawyer, politician or congress member feel that a law needs re-examining, there's a method to doing so. The very first part of re-examining a law? If...say, you have a client guilty of violating a law but feel the law itself serves no purpose....? You ask the why of it. You ask why that law was created to begin with, what it's purpose is, and what it's supposed to prevent. This system is presumably why there are ridiculous laws in random US states such as no putting ketchup on a PB&J sandwich, and yet no one ever gets arrested for these: because you cannot make a case for why that law exists to begin with. It does nothing to benefit society. Unfortunately, again that knowledge isn't practical. In reality, a lawyer typically accepts normal cases where they can expect a certain outcome and process, while people shy away from the ones where the potential solution is "take this **** to a higher court by arguing with the judge about how frivilous the law is to begin with." No one cares about being able to do that because for the most part, the laws we have are already reasonable and sound, and many are content to leave it as "let's wait for a fringe case to come along that highlights the flaws or imperfections of a law, then we'll take that to the highest court who will then fix the problem." And that's a fantasy. Coming across such a case as a lawyer is a fantasy of sorts cause you get your name in the headlines and in history. But yeah, I cannot help but look at my ban and wonder "why the hell hasn't anyone at Bethesda looked at their system and determined warnings should expire over time," or "why the hell does swearing remain a bannable offense when their own posterchild Todd Howard makes it a habit of going up on stage at press conferences and dropping F-bombs? They can't seriously expect people to not expect a very relaxed attitude towards swearing offenses even IF it is presented in the forum rules...?" More than happy to accept responsibility, accept the ban and remove the forums from my browser tab, but hell yes I clicked the "contact the administrator" button and voiced my criticism of the system as a whole. It's k anyways cause Fallout 4 is gonna suck massive donkey **** anyways OH SNAP OH SNAP YEAH I WENT THERE

I got perma-banned from Bethesda's forums. Can fully respect it, just find it a tad queer. I've been a member for probably 9 years and have over 10,000 posts. Of those 10,000+, 5 of those earned me warnings, and of those three warnings, three were related to swearing. One was a link to a DSP video where DSP sucks at New Vegas, another was me swearing and thinking "it's ok because the forum filter will catch it" and they still got mad at me because my post was filled with the censor, and the last was me attempting to filter a word myself. Top that off with the fact that wtf Bethesda games are riddled with swearing, and I do find the decision to permanently suspend my account a bit odd. Don't mind not being able to return so much, I just can't help but feel like this is a strict system that's being followed to the letter without anyone bothering to ask why it exists. I would hardly say someone with 10,000 posts and 5 objectionable ones is a blight on the community, yet I've been caught by the system in place and permanently removed for it. Granted, I am of course the one who insisted on continuing to try and throw a **** or two into my posts so I must take responsibility, but that does not mean that I still don't harbor criticisms of the system itself. Just kind of a pet peeve of mine when a system has little imperfections like that. "Imperfections" is of course subjective, but again I find it difficult to make a case for "that guy with 9995 welcome posts and 5 objectional ones and an average of .5 objectional posts per year has totally gotta go."

That's disrespectful, man!

The recipe for FO4 just leaked on Kotaku: 2 Tbsp of Call of Duty: Ghosts 2 Sticks of Bioshock Infinite 4 Tbsp of Fallout 3 400g of Mass Effect Pour in half a liter of Rule of Cool, mix well Set oven to 400 degrees Fahrenheit, let bake for 3 years Be careful though, cause I clearly burned mine.

As someone else said, I think skills have become perks, which can be super sloppy and result in a lot of content and detail just ceasing to exist.

Biggest indicator is Intelligence. Intelligence has the entire purpose of increasing skills-per-level-up. If you review the footage, Intelligence now has the job of increasing experience gain. I could buy that they just skipped listing skill-ups based on SPECIAL in their descriptions or that the skills tab in the pip boy was just moved somewhere else. But Intelligence not mentioning skill points...? They're gone.

Here everyone have a video to sum up how I felt when I realized skills had been cut: https://youtu.be/gKrkQUBysMk?t=45s RIP Fallout