Fallout 3 on the Xbox 360???

[Diamond]

Actually if you look closely you will notice that its not hair at all, but feathers. That's right, FEATHERY deathclaws. Like viscious chickens. Not only a ghastly canonical violation, but they make great quilts and pillows.

 

 

 

Actually while fossil fuel bit is somewhat plausible, furry deathclaw argument is ridiculous. That's coming from a casual fan.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Diamond

[Shadowstrider]

The war was caused by insufficient fuel, not an utter absence of fuel.

 

An 'enough' was meant to go there but nonetheless I stand corrected. The point still stands, however.

 

It's not hard to believe that America would have fuel reserves, it's also not hard to believe that people would have uncovered these fuel reserves.

Red herring. The issue is not with the existence of these fuel reserves, but with the rampant availability of said reserves. If fuel is such a scarce commodity in the wasteland then why is the splinter cell of the Brotherhood of Steel using it on aircraft to venture into the wasteland? Why are they wasting it on several vehicules for their squads? Where are they getting it from?

 

It's not a red herring, it's called pointing out the obvious. Your point's causation seemed to be based on a statement which was false. You said "there was no fossil fuel to go around." That was true, for the oil-sponge society of the war, but in the wasteland there would be almost 0 oil consumption. We don't know where the oil reserves were, maybe the Brotherhood found some old Enclave reserves? Maybe they found new reserves? The point of this was simply that we don't know and an explanation was never even attempted, at least not to my knowledge. Is it lame? Sure.

 

I guess I could pull an Oblivion and 'pretend' it's all sorts of awesomeness but it seems that no matter how much I pretend about stuff, the game never plays that way. Imagine that!

Opinion much? Coming from a guy who just used the term red-herring? Meh. I don't even need to formulate a response.

 

Honestly, of all the problems with Fallout 1, 2, Tactics, and BoS, this has got to be the weakest issue to raise for concern. I'm much more concerned with the sentient ones, and I really don't give a **** about those, either.

 

So you're more concerned with something you don't really give a **** about? Definitely not flawed and inaccurate.

 

You're neglecting the main issue of my post, which you may have noticed if you weren't trying to explore the flaws and inaccuracies of my statements when there was only one. It's been blatantly established by you and others that you don't care about some of the criticism, or that you feel they are not important. More power to you, I guess. However, just because someone's criticism does not meet with your criteria does not meet it's any less valid or important.

 

Yes, I am MORE concerned about it, but I am still not concerned about it in the grand scheme of things

My concern about furry deathclaws = 0.

My concern about sentient deathclaws = 1.

My concern about the broken as armor system from the original Fallouts = 50.

My concern about what I am going to eat for dinner tonight = 100.

The concern for the meeting I have in 48 minutes = 1000.

 

You see, there are varying levels of concern, and I could really care less about an inaccurate representation of a fictitious beast from a game almost a decade old.

 

Meh - I can't be bothered to go further with this.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

You know, I think its totally cool to take a game this seriously. I mean hey, whatever floats your boat. But to expect others to take it this seriously, and even worse, get all pouty when they don't, is a bit out there.

 

Note that is not directed at you specifically, RP, even though I quoted you.

 

Speaking of which, I should point out I wasn't trying to be antagonistic towards you in my previous post. I honestly smiled at your dismissal even if I find merit in the criticism towards that whole Deathclaw debacle I just find that these issues will always be interpreted differently but there shouldn't be such a polarizing effect on people. It's important to some, not to others. As you say, whatever floats someone's boat. The problem is with those that want to sink other people's boats.

[Sand]

I really don't give a ****

 

That really strikes confidence in me that Bethesda is making a proper Fallout. Really, it does.

 

One thing I look for in a sequel is continuity. If a sequel has not real continuity then can it be really a sequel? That is one of the things I don't like about the FF series. No continuity from one game to the next. If you, and the developers don't give a rat's ass about continuity, even on the tiniest details, then why make a sequel in the first place? Oh, name recognition to make money and damn product integrity.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Sand

[Diogo Ribeiro]

It's not a red herring, it's called pointing out the obvious. Your point's causation seemed to be based on a statement which was false. You said "there was no fossil fuel to go around."

 

Except the causation was independant of the correlation between the existence of any fuel and the availability of said fuel. You didn't need to ascertain that there was fuel to get into the exposition of the criticism since wheter fuel was scarce or non-existant, in the end there was still no explanation as to how it was presented in the gameworld - and that was the only concern. You were being misleading when you focused on the existence of the fuel when it should be obvious it was about the depiction of its availability. Hence, why the point still stood whatever the case. Hence, red herring.

 

We don't know where the oil reserves were, maybe the Brotherhood found some old Enclave reserves? Maybe they found new reserves? The point of this was simply that we don't know and an explanation was never even attempted, at least not to my knowledge. Is it lame? Sure.

And does it bother you? Probably not. Does it bother others? Apparently so.

 

Opinion much? Coming from a guy who just used the term red-herring?

 

Straw man much? From the guy who just suggested I should use imagination to compensate for stupid design?

 

Meh. I don't even need to formulate a response.

That's right, you can pretend you gave me one.

 

Yes, I am MORE concerned about it, but I am still not concerned about it in the grand scheme of things

 

Not caring enough is different than simply not giving a ****. Which apparently you give enough about to be discussing it.

 

 

EDIT: Spelling. Missed a word. I'm friggin' dyslexic today

Edited February 5, 2007 by Role-Player

[LostStraw]

The whole hairy deathclaw "issue" has me scratching my head.

 

Both Fallout 1 and 2 didn't take their monsters very seriously -- often venturing into the realm of fantasy and b movie horror flicks (giant ants, aliens?, massive scorpions, flaming geckos, flytrap like plants that spit spikes, etc...). For one to suspend their belief for those things and then make a full stop at deathclaws with hair... it sounds like nitpicking for the sake of it.

[Sand]

Its called setting continuity.

[Slowtrain]

You know, I think its totally cool to take a game this seriously. I mean hey, whatever floats your boat. But to expect others to take it this seriously, and even worse, get all pouty when they don't, is a bit out there.

 

Note that is not directed at you specifically, RP, even though I quoted you.

 

Speaking of which, I should point out I wasn't trying to be antagonistic towards you in my previous post. I honestly smiled at your dismissal even if I find merit in the criticism towards that whole Deathclaw debacle I just find that these issues will always be interpreted differently but there shouldn't be such a polarizing effect on people. It's important to some, not to others. As you say, whatever floats someone's boat. The problem is with those that want to sink other people's boats.

 

I wasn't offended, RP. I enjoy your posts.

[Slowtrain]

Its called setting continuity.

 

 

You know those people who set through The Fellowship of the Ring 50 times from end to end and write down all the continuity errors that they find and then make a website called "1001 Continuity Errors in The Fellowship of the Ring" and post all their findings to it...

 

yep.

 

 

Hey, if that's where people want to spend their time, OK. But it doesn't hinder my or most people's thorough enjoyment of the movie.

[LostStraw]

Its called setting continuity.

 

The reason for their new found hair was already mentioned in this thread and it was a reasonable one considering the Fallout world. It's easy to accept -- if you can't accept the reason and yet you can still accept all the other monsters, chances are you're just nitpicking.

 

A static world is a boring one.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

For one to suspend their belief for those things and then make a full stop at deathclaws with hair... it sounds like nitpicking for the sake of it.

 

I think the level at which it's been criticized can be comfortably called fanatical since there are much worse things in there to be picked from, and it's usually treated with such importance that it boggles the mind. However, it was a pretty stupid thing to mess with in the first place and kind of questions the intention behind it in the first place.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Role-Player

[Sand]

The problem with that analogy, Crashgirl, is that the books and the movies are two different media formats and they are internally consistant within their formats. Now if all of a sudden Gandalf was played by Jennifer Lopez sporting a miniskirt in Return of the King then continuity is broken.

[LostStraw]

For one to suspend their belief for those things and then make a full stop at deathclaws with hair... it sounds like nitpicking for the sake of it.

 

I think the level at which it's been criticized can be comfortably called fanatical since there are much more important things in there to be picked from. However, it was a pretty stupid thing to mess with in the first place.

 

I'd gladly support a few of the other arguments if I were more motivated

[J.E. Sawyer]

Red herring. The issue is not with the existence of these fuel reserves, but with the rampant availability of said reserves. If fuel is such a scarce commodity in the wasteland then why is the splinter cell of the Brotherhood of Steel using it on aircraft to venture into the wasteland? Why are they wasting it on several vehicules for their squads? Where are they getting it from?

Considering the amount of energy consumed by any of the plasma or laser weapons in the Fallout games, I'm not sure this particular point is something that needs to be harped on. While aircraft do take a large amount of energy to power, something like a laser Gatling gun (in itself kind of a "what?" device) would realistically dwarf that with a single burst. Recent projects like the Shiva and Nova lasers required an obscene amount of energy and long periods of capacitor charging. We're talking "power a few city blocks for a day or three" levels. Shiva could still cause brown-outs when fired even after charging.

 

Anyway, while it's questionable that the BoS would have used fuel in such a way, I think they are one of the groups most likely to secure energy sources in the wasteland. There are certainly SECs and MFCs floating around for those who can find them.

[Volourn]

"Its called setting continuity."

 

It's called mutation.

[Shadowstrider]

I really don't give a ****

 

That really strikes confidence in me that Bethesda is making a proper Fallout. Really, it does.

 

One thing I look for in a sequel is continuity. If a sequel has not real continuity then can it be really a sequel? That is one of the things I don't like about the FF series. No continuity from one game to the next. If you, and the developers don't give a rat's ass about continuity, even on the tiniest details, then why make a sequel in the first place? Oh, name recognition to make money and damn product integrity.

 

 

Why should hairy deathclaws or sentient deathclaws concern me, exactly? Do you WANT them in the game, or are you just doing your usual hades-ism?

 

Generally, when I'm not concerned with something, it's because I don't need to be.

[Sand]

What I want is continuity from Fallout 1 to Fallout 2 to Fallout 3. Continuity in the setting. Continuity in the rules system. Continuity in game mechanics.

 

When I load up Fallout 3 (if I get the game) I want it to be recognizably Fallout, from the broadest strokes to the tiniest details.

[Shadowstrider]

Nice attempt at a dodge. I'll ask again why I should be concerned with hairy or sentient deathclaws.

 

P.S. I'm not even working on Fallout.

[Sand]

You asked what I wanted and I answered. Also if you aren't working on Fallout then why are you bringing up if you should be concerned or not. If you aren't on the project then the answer is obvious, but those who want to play a proper Fallout game it is an important issue for us and its also not just about the deathclaws. If you aren't concerned, that is your perogative but some of us are and Bethesda has done nothing to address these concerns.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Anyway, while it's questionable that the BoS would have used fuel in such a way, I think they are one of the groups most likely to secure energy sources in the wasteland.

 

True. Of course it's not unreasonable to assume the Brotherhood would have the means to secure it - but the pre-Tactics Brotherhood avoided any kind of connections or contacts with the outside world, which would lead me to believe there wouldn't have been many opportunities to find these resources... Unless they'd try to negotiate or trade with some communities, but how many neighbouring regions had fuel or would trade it with them? Even during Tactics, there's not a whole lot that supports that scenario - in there, it just seems a magical commodity that's always available. Judging from what little one can gather from the first titles the Enclave seemed to be in a much better position to acquire those resources.

[Shadowstrider]

You asked what I wanted and I answered. Also if you aren't working on Fallout then why are you bringing up if you should be concerned or not. If you aren't on the project then the answer is obvious, but those who want to play a proper Fallout game it is an important issue for us and its also not just about the deathclaws. If you aren't concerned, that is your perogative but some of us are and Bethesda has done nothing to address these concerns.

 

Again, you try to dodge.

 

I did not ask what you wanted in the game, I asked if you wanted hairy or sentient deathclaws in the game. If you don't want them, wouldn't you be GLAD that I'm not even concerned with them? One would think so, logically. Of course, I don't know why I bothered to try to think logically.

 

So, do you want hairy and sentient deathclaws or not? Cuz you're sending mixed signals. Make up your mind so I can go talk to my boss about this right away!

[Sand]

I told you what I want. I want continuity.

[Shadowstrider]

So you do want hairy deathclaws and sentient ones, because they were in FO:T and FO2, respectively. Got it.

[alanschu]

I believe you're taking a quote out of context. Tsk tsk tsk.

 

EDIT: Apparently I had not been to the page for quite some time, but this was directed at Hades who quoted specifically "I don't give a ****" from Shadowstrider.

Edited February 5, 2007 by alanschu

[Sand]

So you do want hairy deathclaws and sentient ones, because they were in FO:T and FO2, respectively. Got it.

 

FOT is not with continuity. If you actually read my posts the continuity I am looking for is FO1 to FO2 to FO3. Man, do you need everything explained to you or are you just being thick on purpose?