Bethesda's Lore Recons

[Hassknecht]

Nice reading comprehension, I never mentioned fish.

This is exactly what I am talking about. He knows damn right what he said. He's just trying to piss people off.

I'm done, but I highly recommend everyone ignores this person because I am so sick of reading his "posts" I feel like leaving the forum already and I have barely been here a month.

Eh, I see it as a game. Try to predict what part of your post he'll twist in what way to suit his own view. It's fun!

It drags the forum down. Someone even registered an account here just to confront him about his shitposting all over the forums. That means even the lurkers are starting to get pissed off.

In any case I'm done since I can see it's just going to continue. Have a nice day.

Well, it's not much we can do. This forum has no active moderator, and despite Sander saying he'll keep a closer look on it he's not always there.
People need to grow a thicker skin. It's just the Internet, none of this shit is real. It's just a guy who likes to piss people off. Try to fid the humour in it and it's all a lot less annoying. Letting this kind of stuff get to you is not healthy.

I agree, but when lurkers are taking time out of their day to comment on the amount of shitposting you might want to consider doing something about it.

As I said, not much can be done. We can't ban people on a single offense (the ableism [which I'm not even sure is in the forum rules, they might have been compiled before "ableism" was a thing. Gotta check it out]) just because other people don't like them. He doesn't violate any rules, his posts are not explicit trolling.

 

[TorontoReign]

Some of the shit needs to be vatted maybe, but he should not be outright banned for being volatile because it is better to disprove bullshit than give them what they want.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Some of the shit needs to be vatted maybe, but he should not be outright banned for being volatile because it is better to disprove bullshit than give them what they want.

You make a good point however you cannot disprove bullshit to someone who claims you can die of dehydration and not require water to live, who calls you dyslexic, autistic, or other names, and who picks one word out of your 500 words and says that one thing is "wrong so you're wrong I win."

You're just going to end up pissed off if you engage such people. Best to completely ignore them or get rid of them. And if you let such people overrun your forums, this place really will be the joke that all the trolls claim it is.

I don't want to derail this thread any further than I already have, especially since it is clear he is just going to keep shitposting with no consequence. I suppose it keeps the place lively to a point. So I guess whatever *shrugs*

 

[omegaspruz]

That sentence never mentions or implies aquatic animals, including mollusks, crustaceans, insects, fish, and amphibians huh?

Good bye, and may God have mercy on your soul.

It doesn't mention any animal specifically, whatever animal you inter there is of your own volition. I was actually thinking of some species of frogs when I wrote that, not fish.

Again, it was you who tried to reduce the argument down to "le fish" when I was speaking about more things then just fish.

Ghouls are not frogs either, and there is no animal on planet earth that can die of dehydration and not require water for life.

I feel we have gotten off on the wrong foot. Allow me to apologize. I am going to ignore you now and not even talk to you. Have a nice day.

Okay, dying of dehydration but not requiring water statement makes no sense. Admittedly its pretty old thing which came up with Kid in the fridge quest and I didn't care about it that much. But let spare some benefit of the doubt here. Is it possible?

My 10 second google search has shown that one can die of dehydration even by drinking a lot of water, due to Adrenal Fatigue, a condition which may happen because of diabetes.

My 30 second google search has shown that Kangaroo do not need to drink water, as they eat seven times more than a human a day and produce enough metabolic water to sustain themselves, however this could be argued to be a function of organism. This is also something attributed to rodents, as Kangaroo is a rodent. Therefore one could technically argue that by starving it, a Kangaroo will die from dehydration. Technically, one can, not an insect or aquatic animal, die from dehydration without needing h2o to drink.

So instead of focusing on something someone said 10 pages ago, perhaps we can just continue to debate newer arguments.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

That sentence never mentions or implies aquatic animals, including mollusks, crustaceans, insects, fish, and amphibians huh?

Good bye, and may God have mercy on your soul.

It doesn't mention any animal specifically, whatever animal you inter there is of your own volition. I was actually thinking of some species of frogs when I wrote that, not fish.

Again, it was you who tried to reduce the argument down to "le fish" when I was speaking about more things then just fish.

Ghouls are not frogs either, and there is no animal on planet earth that can die of dehydration and not require water for life.

I feel we have gotten off on the wrong foot. Allow me to apologize. I am going to ignore you now and not even talk to you. Have a nice day.

Okay, dying of dehydration but not requiring water statement makes no sense. Admittedly its pretty old thing which came up with Kid in the fridge quest and I didn't care about it that much. But let spare some benefit of the doubt here. Is it possible?

My 10 second google search has shown that one can die of dehydration even by drinking a lot of water, due to Adrenal Fatigue, a condition which may happen because of diabetes.

My 30 second google search has shown that Kangaroo do not need to drink water, as they eat seven times more than a human a day and produce enough metabolic water to sustain themselves, however this could be argued to be a function of organism. This is also something attributed to rodents, as Kangaroo is a rodent. Therefore one could technically argue that by starving it, a Kangaroo will die from dehydration. Technically, one can, not an insect or aquatic animal, die from dehydration without needing h2o to drink.

So instead of focusing on something someone said 10 pages ago, perhaps we can just continue to debate newer arguments.

You cannot die of dehydration and simultaneously be an organism that does not require water. There is no organism on planet Earth that does not require water for life. If you eat something with water in it, that is still water.

The reason I am bringing it up is because he has never admitted it's shitposting bullshit, he just ran away after calling me autistic and calling others dyslexic and pretends it was never said. Then he comes to this thread and starts shitposting more bullshit. Do you see a pattern?

 

[Ilosar]

Please stop saying this, as like getting the PA in F2 was somehow ... easy, or didn't require some knowledge about the game, like playing it or reading walktroughs. In F4 the PA is pretty much handed over to you, on a silver plate, in the first 5 min. of the game. And even if you don't, you will find countless of them everywhere in the wasteland.

It was easy, the means of getting PA in the first hour of the game were widely posted anywhere and everywhere they could be.

Eh? You needed to heavily metagame and use a specific set of skills to get either the PA in Navarro or in Mariposa right off the bat. FO4 hands you a suit right in the first actual quest of the game. In my time as my newer character, I found no less than 4 suits within the first 5 hours of play. I'm not even freaking level 10, and I have 3 suits of T-45, 1 suit of Raider armor and 8 Fusion Cores without even purposefully looking for them. How in the blazes is this good game balance and design I have no idea.

The equivalent would be FO2 putting a T-51 in a mandatory random encounter right outside of Arroyo. Not having to trek across the entire map, hopefully avoid the Enclave patrols that instagib you, and pass a few Speech checks in a location you have no idea exists when you begin the game.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Please stop saying this, as like getting the PA in F2 was somehow ... easy, or didn't require some knowledge about the game, like playing it or reading walktroughs. In F4 the PA is pretty much handed over to you, on a silver plate, in the first 5 min. of the game. And even if you don't, you will find countless of them everywhere in the wasteland.

It was easy,

No, it wasn't. You could easily fail in geting to Navarro or escaping the Enclave patrolls. And since you had a very low level, the PA didn't make you invicible. There have been still enough creatures and situations that could kill you.

Granted, you are not invincible with a PA in F4 either. But no one ever claimed that anyway. It does make certain situations a cake walk though, because you're getting it so earily in the game with no effort.

the means of getting PA in the first hour of the game were widely posted anywhere and everywhere they could be.

There difference Mr. Whise Guy, is that you HAD to activelly look for clues on the net. YOU had to get out there and find those informations after all. The game was NOT presenting it to you on a silver plate.

In F4 you LITERALLY GET THE THING WITH THE FIRST TIME YOU INTERACT WITH THE MINUTEMEN. And the PAs are scatered around the wasteland. Getting it is as easy like no clue, jumping out of the vault for the first time, or not more difficult than joining the Minuteman.

Not even you can be so dense that you're not aware about the difference here. Getting the PA in Navarro required some effort, and a bit of luck by the player. In F4, you get it on a silver plate. Waiting for you. Together with a minigun all conventiently placed for the player so that he can never miss it. It's MEANT to be found by the player at this point in the game. in F2 there is nothing, absolutely NOTHING that points you to the PA in Navarro. You don't even know where Navarro is when you start the game.

This right now, is not even about criticism. It is about stating a fact. In F2, the player playing the game for the first, will most probably, not get the PA in the first min. of the game. in F4, it is very likely that the player will get the PA and use it in the first min. of the game.

For fucks sake, it was even a big thing in ALL(!) of the Beth trailers ... you can't have missed those.

Its objectively worse then Fallout 1/2 PA in basically every way possible in terms of gameplay use. In many ways it worse then Fallout 3 and NV pa.

The game is also substantially easier, punching legendary death claws with your fists, and you could technicaly get trough most of the game probably without power armor even. Not that I really complain about this, but there is no doubt that F4 is at the end of the day a shooter, where F1 and 2 are not. You had to do a bit of planing with your skills and perks. NOt every character could achieve the same. In F4, you probably don't even need any skills and perks.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Look, I'm done. No one try to defend his arguments to me. Sorry for derailing the thread. I'm ignoring this thread entirely at this point. Have a good day.

 

[omegaspruz]

That sentence never mentions or implies aquatic animals, including mollusks, crustaceans, insects, fish, and amphibians huh?

Good bye, and may God have mercy on your soul.

It doesn't mention any animal specifically, whatever animal you inter there is of your own volition. I was actually thinking of some species of frogs when I wrote that, not fish.

Again, it was you who tried to reduce the argument down to "le fish" when I was speaking about more things then just fish.

Ghouls are not frogs either, and there is no animal on planet earth that can die of dehydration and not require water for life.

I feel we have gotten off on the wrong foot. Allow me to apologize. I am going to ignore you now and not even talk to you. Have a nice day.

Okay, dying of dehydration but not requiring water statement makes no sense. Admittedly its pretty old thing which came up with Kid in the fridge quest and I didn't care about it that much. But let spare some benefit of the doubt here. Is it possible?

My 10 second google search has shown that one can die of dehydration even by drinking a lot of water, due to Adrenal Fatigue, a condition which may happen because of diabetes.

My 30 second google search has shown that Kangaroo do not need to drink water, as they eat seven times more than a human a day and produce enough metabolic water to sustain themselves, however this could be argued to be a function of organism. This is also something attributed to rodents, as Kangaroo is a rodent. Therefore one could technically argue that by starving it, a Kangaroo will die from dehydration. Technically, one can, not an insect or aquatic animal, die from dehydration without needing h2o to drink.

So instead of focusing on something someone said 10 pages ago, perhaps we can just continue to debate newer arguments.

You cannot die of dehydration and simultaneously be an organism that does not require water. There is no organism on planet Earth that does not require water for life. If you eat something with water in it, that is still water. Do not confuse your 10 or 30 second google search with my education and degree.

The reason I am bringing it up is because he has never admitted it's shitposting bullshit, he just ran away after calling me autistic and calling others dyslexic and pretends it was never said. Then he comes to this thread and starts shitposting more bullshit. Do you see a pattern?

There are different types of educations and degrees, if you have an English major you are no authority to talk about biology.

Yes, as I have argued with him about it in the start(perhaps not about the water, but rather the quest). Now I decided to try be Devil's Advocate.

Now, while its true that google searches do not compare to proper education, metabolic water is produced inside the organism from fats, protein and starch. And not all foods have water, most natural do. But all types of food would have one of those; fat, protein, starch, vitamins, minerals and so on.

I will admit that I am not a biologist, far from it and it doesn't interest me. That said I wouldn't be so dismissive, you never know what nature and science has in store for you.

 

[zegh8578]

Oh my, this Someguy is using the "I am verbalizing it, so it must be true"-tactic D:
There is no countering that! Without stooping to his level, of course

*gets my stooping-pants out*

Actually, Crni, you are wrong. The PA wasn't given to you at the start of the game in FO4, it was very challenging to find, and it really tried my intellectual capacity.

Oh, shit, I'm arguing for the dumb side
Well, I guess that comes with stooping

 

[Irwin John Finster]

As I said, I'm done. There's no way i'm arguing with a second person over the definition of dehydration.

I'm out. Take care, and leave me out of this.

 

[whirlingdervish]

That sentence never mentions or implies aquatic animals, including mollusks, crustaceans, insects, fish, and amphibians huh?

Good bye, and may God have mercy on your soul.

It doesn't mention any animal specifically, whatever animal you inter there is of your own volition. I was actually thinking of some species of frogs when I wrote that, not fish.

Again, it was you who tried to reduce the argument down to "le fish" when I was speaking about more things then just fish.

Name for us some non-fish animals that have GILLS. Let's hear it.

I don't really care, but at least it will waste a few moments of your time, like you've done to countless other people with this lame routine of yours.

 

[Someguy37]

The equivalent would be FO2 putting a T-51 in a mandatory random encounter right outside of Arroyo. Not having to trek across the entire map, hopefully avoid the Enclave patrols that instagib you, and pass a few Speech checks in a location you have no idea exists when you begin the game.

That's not really a valid comparison because power armor in Fallout 2 didn't break, run out of power, nor did it have tons of ancillary features that drained power at a faster rate, all while nothing else in the game did.

Putting PA at Arroyo would be massively huge, because of how singularly overpowered PA was in Fallout1/2.

PA in Fallout 4 has so much baggage thrown on it, I've seen numerous people say they refuse to use it because of how much of a burden it is.

And in many ways its actually worse at deflecting more damage then PA did in Fallout 3, due to how Bethesda changed how DR works in Fallout 4.
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Damage_Resistance#Fallout_4

Its a fun feature, but its nowhere near as powerful as it was in Fallout 1/2.

 

[whirlingdervish]

The equivalent would be FO2 putting a T-51 in a mandatory random encounter right outside of Arroyo. Not having to trek across the entire map, hopefully avoid the Enclave patrols that instagib you, and pass a few Speech checks in a location you have no idea exists when you begin the game.

*snip*

GILLS. NON-FISH ANIMALS THAT HAVE THEM. GOGOGO.

 

[TorontoReign]

As I said, I'm done. There's no way i'm arguing with a second person over the definition of dehydration.

I'm out. Take care, and leave me out of this.

Please don't let this dissuade you from posting here.

Moving right along then.

The Assaultron robots rub me the wrong way. Suddenly we have this advanced robot used on the front lines that looks way too "modern" for the period. RobCo must have made a big leap from some of the earlier robots models. Something about the smooth design just rubs me the wrong way. The same with the weird looking armored vehicles as seen in the intro. They went from Robby the Robot to Terminator pretty quick.

My point being they are changing so much of the series that I wonder what else will change in the future? I hope they lean more in the direction of post-war advancements in technology like they did with the Synths. I don't want to see a T-70 armor that was a prototype of such and such before the war in Fallout 5 or whatever spinoff they might do. I can roll with the T-60 I guess even though it doesn't make sense in a few ways. They did do a good job with the military checkpoints being the spot where a lot of Power Armor is found in game, but they lose points in that regard since a lot of the times the armor is sitting in plain sight where any random jackass could have picked it up in the last 200 years. This shit just rubs me the wrong way.

One item of note is several 60's inspired references in Fallout 4. Tactics was supposed to lean in that territory a bit. I would like to see more things like that since perpetual 50's will eventually get a bit long in the tooth. Basically it would be nice to hear some 60's inspired tunes or something.

 

[zegh8578]

The Assaultron robots rub me the wrong way.

And why are its metal boobs so perky!? Without kidding, the first thing I thought seeing them, was that it was going to be some jab at "pleasure-bots" or something. Wasted potential?

 

[Someguy37]

The Assaultron robots rub me the wrong way. Suddenly we have this advanced robot used on the front lines that looks way too "modern" for the period.

I always felt like they were trying to canonize the humanoid robots from Tactics, while making them look more "50's ish", since many people complained Tactics looked too modern.

I mean, they already did it with the Tactics PA, with the Fallout 3 Enclave PA being so obviously based off of it. and then there the big ass airship in fo4, and several BoS members reference to the airships used in Tactics.

 

[TorontoReign]

The Assaultron robots rub me the wrong way. Suddenly we have this advanced robot used on the front lines that looks way too "modern" for the period.

I always felt like they were trying to canonize the humanoid robots from Tactics, while making them look more "50's ish", since many people complained Tactics looked too modern.

I mean, they already did it with the Tactics PA, with the Fallout 3 Enclave PA being so obviously based off of it. and then there the big ass airship in fo4, and several BoS members reference to the airships used in Tactics.

In that case it would be nice if they just used that robot model from Tactics or something. As I said before, if they want to add whatever shit they can throw in, then they should fully canonize Tactics, throw the armor in, and reference the Midwestern BoS having contact with the East Coast.

 

[Walpknut]

What is even the point of the Assaultron anyway? They already had the Gen 1 Synths if they wanted roboti humanoid enemies and those are at least kind of excusable by the umbrella of " The institute developed them post war"..... such a pointless retcon....

 

[Shaman]

As much as the 50's inspired setting is great and it should rotate around that, i'd love to hear a little of the actual development. 170 years after the 50's, you'd think someone would've done something vaguely new. 60's isn't too much of a stretch. It'd be nice to hear more about art and design trying to advance, but not making it anywhere due to society being perpetually stuck in that 50's american dream mindset.

With the Assaultrons, yeah, hate them. If they were a post-war creation by another tech-faction, absolutely they'd make sense - or even some other company that'd worked on something completely independent (Like Optimu-er, Liberty Prime). Not this big leap between Protectrons and Sentry Bots straight all the way up to C-3P0 with kung-fu grip. It's vastly out of their technological capacity at the time, based on everything we've seen. A Running, Jumping humanoid battle robot with functional A.I. is a bit of a jump from a ball with a jet engine, or, indeed, robby the robot.


I don't really mind the tanks/APC's so much, at least in bethesda fluff, because the rounded edges and such are very much the 50's view of future tech that birthed flying saucers and the Jetsons. It also looks like something the kind of designers that worked on Corvegas would put out. Having a 40's hard-edged tank design rumbling about would be pretty jarring - it looks like a contemporary design of the vertibird. But then i always hated the idea of brotherhood Humvees and found them super out of place in the same way.


It's all really weird to me because the stuff that already existed in Fallout fluff, they seem to have done a really good job tweaking and updating. Various patterns/"jobs" of protectron, the upgraded sentry bot that actually looks military, the power armour tweaks, Plasma guns being a mix of Tactics and fallout 3 designs where you can upgrade them in either direction (Though i def. miss the P94...), cars in general, stuff like that, all fantastic to me. But everywhere they've tried to add something NEW, it's been awkwardly shoehorned in with no real consideration and stupid fluff mistakes for no real reason.

Very bipolar game.