teknoman2 Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 4 The words freedom and liberty, are diminishing the true meaning of the abstract concept they try to explain. The true nature of freedom is such, that the human mind is unable to comprehend it, so we make a cage and name it freedom in order to give a tangible meaning to what we dont understand, just as our ancestors made gods like Thor or Zeus to explain thunder. -Teknoman2- What? You thought it was a quote from some well known wise guy from the past? Stupidity leads to willful ignorance - willful ignorance leads to hope - hope leads to sex - and that is how a new generation of fools is born! We are hardcore role players... When we go to bed with a girl, we roll a D20 to see if we hit the target and a D6 to see how much penetration damage we did. Modern democracy is: the sheep voting for which dog will be the shepherd's right hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Or just two terrified neighbors. I like the new minigun though; and it's good that the PA troopers stand a head taller in the armor this time. Edited June 5, 2015 by Gizmo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkreku Posted June 5, 2015 Author Share Posted June 5, 2015 Sorry, too lazy to jump back in time and search for that interview. If you mean source for that new classic mode thingy, it's from that reddit rumor post. If you can't source it, don't ****ing say it. Obviously just your usual negativity spreading BS. Again. Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilloutman Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Sorry, too lazy to jump back in time and search for that interview. If you mean source for that new classic mode thingy, it's from that reddit rumor post. If you can't source it, don't ****ing say it. Obviously just your usual negativity spreading BS. Again. Doubting mr. Lexx knoweldge of Fallouts is ... unwise I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiene" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amentep Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 The Reddit rumor is bull****. There are a lot of holes with it and Kotaku did a good job explaining what they are: http://kotaku.com/latest-popular-fallout-4-rumor-sure-seems-like-bs-1709009561 (plus, it doesn't hurt that they actually know what their own reporting is based on so they can debunk the "IT'S ME, AUSTIN! I WAS THE ONE THAT LEAKED THE CASTING CALLS" spiel from the Reddit "leaker") Otherwise, wouldn't be happy with a voiced protagonist, but I'm happy that Bethesda abandoned the overbearing green tint of Fallout 3 and seems to be taking a stab at doing their own thing with the franchise in terms of setting. We'll get a much better look at the game at E3 so I'm sure there'll be more to discuss then. While I think that Kotaku's right and the SarahReed post is phoney, their reasoning is wrong. SarahReed doesn't claim she gave the material to Kotaku, she claims she accidently leaked it and it ended up in the hands of Kotaku. So Kotaku saying "Nuh-uh, we didn't get it from SarahReed!" doesn't prove anything as she didn't claim she gave it to them, only that it was her leak that allowed them to get it. I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoonDing Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 #jesuissarah The ending of the words is ALMSIVI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow_Arms Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 frankly, they finally got the PA right this time it finally looks like the old PA concept, bulky and terrifying not skinny and ugly as ass like the enclave APA from FO3 And NV also HD trailer this time, Youtube compressed the entire video in hd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorstUsernameEver Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 While I think that Kotaku's right and the SarahReed post is phoney, their reasoning is wrong. SarahReed doesn't claim she gave the material to Kotaku, she claims she accidently leaked it and it ended up in the hands of Kotaku. So Kotaku saying "Nuh-uh, we didn't get it from SarahReed!" doesn't prove anything as she didn't claim she gave it to them, only that it was her leak that allowed them to get it. I'm fairly sure they have a good grasp of who gave it to them and how it reached their hands, though obviously they can't go into the specifics because they have to protect their sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amentep Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 While I think that Kotaku's right and the SarahReed post is phoney, their reasoning is wrong. SarahReed doesn't claim she gave the material to Kotaku, she claims she accidently leaked it and it ended up in the hands of Kotaku. So Kotaku saying "Nuh-uh, we didn't get it from SarahReed!" doesn't prove anything as she didn't claim she gave it to them, only that it was her leak that allowed them to get it. I'm fairly sure they have a good grasp of who gave it to them and how it reached their hands, though obviously they can't go into the specifics because they have to protect their sources. And that may be true; my guess since the leak was casting call sheets the most likely source for the leak was from someone connected with voice actors/talent agents. But all I'm saying is that what Kotaku offers as proof that the SarahReed post isn't how they got the material is the statement "Those documents did not come from anyone at Bethesda Game Studios." One, at some point the documents DID have to come from Bethesda Game Studios or else they wouldn't have any bearing on Fallout 4. What they mean is that they weren't given the material by someone directly at Bethesda Game Studios. Two, the SarahReed post never claims she gave them to Kotaku - "I leaked some of the first Fallout 4 info by accident, and it ended up in the hands of Kotaku. Oops." In other words, were the SarahReed post true - lets say she accidentally sent the casting call sheet to someone who wasn't bound by a business contract or a NDA while trying to email to a talent agency and that person gave it to Kotaku - then technically both her and Kotaku's statements would be true. So Kotaku's claim doesn't refute hers (although I'd argue Kotaku is probably more reliable as a claimant than an anonymous person on Reddit). I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexx Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Sorry, too lazy to jump back in time and search for that interview. If you mean source for that new classic mode thingy, it's from that reddit rumor post. If you can't source it, don't ****ing say it. Obviously just your usual negativity spreading BS. Again. Wish I could google the video it was said in, but after so many years it's kinda hard and I don't feel motivated to wade through all the old Fallout 3 news and check every damn video just to prove it... Instead, though, I found a quote of a follow-up interview which clarified the issue. https://fallout3.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/fallout-3-first-and-third-person/ Sorry for the confusion. Let me clarify that a bit. I meant, in general, the game is fully playable in third person. You can run around, adventure, get into combat (“run and gun”) etc. all in third person, and the camera was designed to accommodate that kind of gameplay, unlike the third-person camera in Oblivion, which was more of a “vanity mode.” You can zoom the camera back pretty far in third-person, but there comes a point where it becomes less and less effective the farther back you pull the camera, just because you’re so damn small and it’s hard to gauge where the crosshair is at that point. So yeah, you can use third-person for combat, but the game wasn’t really designed to be played with the camera pulled ALL the way back, isometric style. That’s more for fun, and to survey the scene. It’s really no different than any game that lets you zoom a third-person camera back. Edited June 5, 2015 by Lexx 1 "only when you no-life you can exist forever, because what does not live cannot die." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoonDing Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Straight white male voiced protagonist confirmed as hoax.Here are actual playable characters: 7 The ending of the words is ALMSIVI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOK222 Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Straight white male voiced protagonist confirmed as hoax. Don't tell me people have been making a stink out of this? Ka-ka-ka-ka-Cocaine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valmy Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Huh. How did they know he was straight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirottu Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Fallout 4 confirmed to not to come to PS3 or 360. Has there been any word of choices from Fallout 3 having any impact on F4? I haven't got any of my F3 savegames saved. This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgon Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Why can't I have the small pleasure of looking at a female musculus maximus in the run cycle in 3rd person mode. Is that too much to ask. You are rarely invested in a fully voiced protagonist anyway and you run the risk of getting it wrong. Not to mention that character creation is out the window. 2 Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guard Dog Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 I'm with Gorgon. I've played these games with both male & female PCs and if I'm going to spend 100+ hours looking at a characters rear end in 3rd person view there is no question which gender I'd prefer to look at. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorophx Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 problem is: you're not supposed to (or, rather, shouldn't) play Fallout in third-person Walsingham said: I was struggling to understand ths until I noticed you are from Finland. And having been educated solely by mkreku in this respect I am convinced that Finland essentially IS the wh40k universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow_Arms Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 problem is: you're not supposed to (or, rather, shouldn't) play Fallout in third-person screw that, i would even play it as platform also, im old enough to say that the same bitching with fallout 3 and NV is the same bitching that everyone did with Fo2 and FoT, and i still hate fallout 2 main storyline it looked like someone named richardson, decided to took out one Commander Cobra's rejected plans to see if it works Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgon Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 problem is: you're not supposed to (or, rather, shouldn't) play Fallout in third-person What, why. Why would anyone play in first person once they found out that there is a scroll out function. 1 Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elerond Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 problem is: you're not supposed to (or, rather, shouldn't) play Fallout in third-person You are right, you should only play Fallout from bird eye view in world that is portrayed by using trimetric projection. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgambit Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorophx Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 What, why. Why would anyone play in first person once they found out that there is a scroll out function. b'cuz third-person in Bethesda's games is awful (mostly due to crappy models and animation). and because first-person is more "immersive" Walsingham said: I was struggling to understand ths until I noticed you are from Finland. And having been educated solely by mkreku in this respect I am convinced that Finland essentially IS the wh40k universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agiel Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Even if quite a few people reacted poorly to the android questline in Fallout 3, I find the idea of the remnants of MIT still kicking around in the post-apoc interesting. If Obsidian makes another West-coast Fallout game, they should respond with implementing the remnants of Caltech in it, with a few references to the pranks they'd pull on MIT in there. Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow_Arms Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) the MIT gave the finger to House's Lucky 38 plan, they armed the entire city with anti nukes lasers instead of 1 tower and house was one of their best students Edited June 6, 2015 by Shadow_Arms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarex Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Huh. How did they know he was straight? Yeah, he and that dog seemed awfully friendly. 1 "because they filled mommy with enough mythic power to become a demi-god" - KP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts