Bethesda's Lore Recons

[Hardboiled Android]

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.

Amphibians can have them, but I'm not aware of any that keep them beyond their larval state.

 

[Hardboiled Android]

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.

I must say, I really do enjoy the appearance of Assaultrons- not they're hawt titties, but they're claw hands, and the design for the head looked really fucking cool to me.

I would've liked it if they were all like PAM- specialized in technical uses, slow and clunky, and an ancient predecessor to Gen 1 Synths.

Which raises another country: does Bethesda think that they compressed ZAX levels of intelligence into PAM or is she supposed ot be a relay?

 

[Hardboiled Android]

Hmm, apparently Bethesda did actually explain this one. Pipe weapons are apparently pre-war items coming from Detroit.

http://hydra-media.cursecdn.com/fallout.gamepedia.com/d/d4/GunsAndBullets_SGD.png

Still retarded though.

I mean... I actually sort of like this idea. After all, resources were increasingly rare, Government would probably buy up guns to keep them away from dissidents, etc, etc. Doesn't keep them from being irritating and butt-fucking ugly

 

[omegaspruz]

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.

In order to imitate your previous ableist insult: Holy shit, are you retarded? Like, are you a mentally challenged person> Where in fuck did you read that shit? That's probably the dumbest thing I've read all that month. I don't even dislike you as much as other posters do, I think you've brought up good points, but this is really idiotic.

The only thing I can find on Kangaroos not drinking water is this article (http://biologicalexceptions.blogspot.com/2012/01/sorry-i-dont-drink.html) which says nothing about kangaroos, it says something about kangaroo rats, which are NOT Marsupials, they are rodents. But you read the name and immediately assumed Kangaroo, which is incredibly retarded. Any child knows that kangaroos are marsupials not rodents. Jesus fuck.

And they don't generate all their water via metabolic bugfuckery. They have a very efficient processing of water, true, but they DO drink water in the form of moisture collection seeds.

And you accuse people of having poor reading comprehension...

I don't remember downright accusing anyone of bad reading comprehension, but maybe I don't remember anymore.

That said, yes when it talked about kangaroo rats I assumed they were Kangaroos. Sorry for not knowing the difference.

Furthermore, as stated it was a 30 second thing I googled for the sake of the argument, so calm down ok. Its really not that big of a deal to start cursing left and right. Especially later I mentioned that I am not a biologist and has no interest in biology.

So, back to the game...

 

[Hardboiled Android]

I was talking to Someguy...

 

[omegaspruz]

Well you screwed up the quoting thing...

 

[Crni Vuk]

Come to think of it ... why ... would anyone actually put boobies on an assault robot? Do planes in Fallout use garters and stockings as well?

 

[Someguy37]

Fallout 3 seemed to suffer the 'cut content' problem as well, like the designers thought "Hey we are going to put all kinds of quests and NPCs here, lets map the places in advance" and then when the time came for that they were like "Fuck it, it is nearly 5 'o clock and I want a beer."

As far as I am aware, Fallout 3 only had one cut sidequest involving Sarah Lyons and a mysterious disk shaped object, and one cut main quest involving the LW going under Rivet City to retrieve the fusion core that powered it so they could use it to power Prime.

They also cut out about half of the districts they had made for Downtown D.C., but that was because it was just more of the same. There wasn't any quests or anything involved with it.

I do recall Emil talking about the Enclave assault on Project Purity being different at one time also, with them assaulting Rivet city as well, and the LW led an evacuation of the whole town to The citadel, but it was cut because the engine just couldn't do it.

 

[Hardboiled Android]

Come to think of it ... why ... would anyone actually put boobies on an assault robot? Do planes in Fallout use garters and stockings as well?

Like Boobplate, it serves as extra protection!

 

[Irwin John Finster]

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.

In order to imitate your previous ableist insult: Holy shit, are you retarded? Like, are you a mentally challenged person> Where in fuck did you read that shit? That's probably the dumbest thing I've read all that month. I don't even dislike you as much as other posters do, I think you've brought up good points, but this is really idiotic.

The only thing I can find on Kangaroos not drinking water is this article (http://biologicalexceptions.blogspot.com/2012/01/sorry-i-dont-drink.html) which says nothing about kangaroos, it says something about kangaroo rats, which are NOT Marsupials, they are rodents. But you read the name and immediately assumed Kangaroo, which is incredibly retarded. Any child knows that kangaroos are marsupials not rodents. Jesus fuck.

And they don't generate all their water via metabolic bugfuckery. They have a very efficient processing of water, true, but they DO drink water in the form of moisture collection seeds.

And you accuse people of having poor reading comprehension...

I don't remember downright accusing anyone of bad reading comprehension, but maybe I don't remember anymore.

That said, yes when it talked about kangaroo rats I assumed they were Kangaroos. Sorry for not knowing the difference.

Furthermore, as stated it was a 30 second thing I googled for the sake of the argument, so calm down ok. Its really not that big of a deal to start cursing left and right. Especially later I mentioned that I am not a biologist and has no interest in biology.

So, back to the game...

I believe I am misquoted in the above post. I would never say there are animals that do not need to drink water.

I don't have any problem with Mr. Omegaspruz at all, but I believe the above post quotes me as saying what he said.

I will say this much in case he or anyone else is interested:

There are animals which have evolved a tremendous capacity to reabsorb water that is normally excreted via the kidneys into the urine. In so doing, they can go for long periods of time without water, but still will require it for life. There are no "if's, and's, or but's" regarding this part. So kangaroos, rats, kangaroo rats, you name it, they need water. You get water from liquids or solid foods, doesn't matter you need it.

Mr. Omegaspruz found an interesting disease state but I respectfully believe he misinterpreted the information a bit. There are conditions which cause a person to drink excessive water in an attempt to replace body fluids lost as a result of a water-losing disorder. In other words, if you have disorders such as Diabetes Insipidus, you will pee out too much water, and you will become very thirsty and drink a lot of water to compensate.

Drinking too much water under normal conditions does not cause dehydration as his google search implied. You will die of water poisoning very quickly if you drink a large amount of water in a short period of time, which is not at all dehydration but quite the opposite. It has been known to happen to people engaging in water drinking contests.

In any case, I apologize if I at any point was rude, and I think we should all respect each other for bringing new things to the discussion, right or wrong. Good evening.

 

[Hardboiled Android]

Fallout 3 seemed to suffer the 'cut content' problem as well, like the designers thought "Hey we are going to put all kinds of quests and NPCs here, lets map the places in advance" and then when the time came for that they were like "Fuck it, it is nearly 5 'o clock and I want a beer."

As far as I am aware, Fallout 3 only had one cut sidequest involving Sarah Lyons and a mysterious disk shaped object.

They also cut out about half of the districts they had made for Downtown D.C., but that was because it was just more of the same. There wasn't any quests or anything involved with it.

I do recall Emil talking about the Enclave assault on Project Purity being different at one time also, with them assaulting Rivet city as well, and the LW led an evacuation of the whole town to The citadel, but it was cut because the engine just couldn't do it.

Sources on both of that? Sounds really interesting. I like cut content

 

[Hardboiled Android]

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.

In order to imitate your previous ableist insult: Holy shit, are you retarded? Like, are you a mentally challenged person> Where in fuck did you read that shit? That's probably the dumbest thing I've read all that month. I don't even dislike you as much as other posters do, I think you've brought up good points, but this is really idiotic.

The only thing I can find on Kangaroos not drinking water is this article (http://biologicalexceptions.blogspot.com/2012/01/sorry-i-dont-drink.html) which says nothing about kangaroos, it says something about kangaroo rats, which are NOT Marsupials, they are rodents. But you read the name and immediately assumed Kangaroo, which is incredibly retarded. Any child knows that kangaroos are marsupials not rodents. Jesus fuck.

And they don't generate all their water via metabolic bugfuckery. They have a very efficient processing of water, true, but they DO drink water in the form of moisture collection seeds.

And you accuse people of having poor reading comprehension...

I don't remember downright accusing anyone of bad reading comprehension, but maybe I don't remember anymore.

That said, yes when it talked about kangaroo rats I assumed they were Kangaroos. Sorry for not knowing the difference.

Furthermore, as stated it was a 30 second thing I googled for the sake of the argument, so calm down ok. Its really not that big of a deal to start cursing left and right. Especially later I mentioned that I am not a biologist and has no interest in biology.

So, back to the game...

I believe I am misquoted in the above post. I would never say there are animals that do not need to drink water.

I don't have any problem with Mr. Omegaspruz at all, but I believe the above post quotes me as saying what he said.

I will say this much in case he or anyone else is interested:

There are animals which have evolved a tremendous capacity to reabsorb water that is normally excreted via the kidneys into the urine. In so doing, they can go for long periods of time without water, but still will require it for life. There are no "if's, and's, or but's" regarding this part. So kangaroos, rats, kangaroo rats, you name it, they need water. You get water from liquids or solid foods, doesn't matter you need it.

Mr. Omegaspruz found an interesting disease state but I respectfully believe he misinterpreted the information a bit. There are conditions which cause a person to drink excessive water in an attempt to replace body fluids lost as a result of a water-losing disorder. In other words, if you have disorders such as Diabetes Insipidus, you will pee out too much water, and you will become very thirsty and drink a lot of water to compensate.

Drinking too much water under normal conditions does not cause dehydration as his google search implied. You will die of water poisoning very quickly if you drink a large amount of water in a short period of time, which is not at all dehydration but quite the opposite. It has been known to happen to people engaging in water drinking contests.

In any case, I apologize if I at any point was rude, and I think we should all respect each other for bringing new things to the discussion, right or wrong. Good evening.

I'm very sorry to you! You were mis quoted. I was speaking to Someguy in that post.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Come to think of it ... why ... would anyone actually put boobies on an assault robot? Do planes in Fallout use garters and stockings as well?

It's not because of sense, it's for the players.

 

[Someguy37]

Sources on both of that? Sounds really interesting. I like cut content

It was some really old interview with Emil Pilegro or w/e his name is, i'll try to find it, but it was so long ago.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Sources on both of that? Sounds really interesting. I like cut content

It was some really old interview with Emil Pilegro or w/e his name is, i'll try to find it, but it was so long ago.

Please do. It's a shame that games have cut content.

 

[Hardboiled Android]

Sources on both of that? Sounds really interesting. I like cut content

It was some really old interview with Emil Pilegro or w/e his name is, i'll try to find it, but it was so long ago.

I'd appreciate it

 

[Someguy37]

I'd appreciate it

Found it

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/gdc-2009-fallout-3-lead-opens-game-design-vault/1100-6206965/
"Unfortunately, the iterative development process can lead to parts of a game being left on the cutting-room floor because they required too much work. In Fallout 3, the urban ruins of central D.C. were supposed to be twice as large as they were in the final version. "These maps were done and polished, but Todd thought they had to go," recalled the designer. "You just have to be honest with yourself and admit when something isn't working."

Howard also vetoed a Fallout 3 level that would've been among the most ambitious of the game. It would've seen Enclave forces launch an all-out assault on Rivet City, the settlement inside of a rusting aircraft carrier anchored in the Potomac. Players would've been tasked with escorting its inhabitants to the Citadel, the nearby Brotherhood of Steel stronghold in what used to be the Pentagon.

Pagliarulo was eager to include the combat-intensive level, but Howard said that the mission was just too big. Now, the designer retroactively agreed with his boss, saying, "In the end he was right, we couldn't do it."

 

[Willy Rogers]

Come to think of it ... why ... would anyone actually put boobies on an assault robot? Do planes in Fallout use garters and stockings as well?

I was thinking about that... And I may be giving Bethesda too much credit... But maybe it's kind of a joke about Robert House's "interest" in robot companionship? Probably wrong, but that's kind of my head canon, and I don't think they were pre-war synths, but that might be an old argument, haven't been here in awhile.

 

[Willy Rogers]

I'd appreciate it

Found it

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/gdc-2009-fallout-3-lead-opens-game-design-vault/1100-6206965/
"Unfortunately, the iterative development process can lead to parts of a game being left on the cutting-room floor because they required too much work. In Fallout 3, the urban ruins of central D.C. were supposed to be twice as large as they were in the final version. "These maps were done and polished, but Todd thought they had to go," recalled the designer. "You just have to be honest with yourself and admit when something isn't working."

Howard also vetoed a Fallout 3 level that would've been among the most ambitious of the game. It would've seen Enclave forces launch an all-out assault on Rivet City, the settlement inside of a rusting aircraft carrier anchored in the Potomac. Players would've been tasked with escorting its inhabitants to the Citadel, the nearby Brotherhood of Steel stronghold in what used to be the Pentagon.

Pagliarulo was eager to include the combat-intensive level, but Howard said that the mission was just too big. Now, the designer retroactively agreed with his boss, saying, "In the end he was right, we couldn't do it."

Good god, the man is like a reverse George Lucas, instead of adding pointless crap into movies that are fine, he removes good sounding stuff from a very bland game.

 

[MercenarySnake]

Come to think of it ... why ... would anyone actually put boobies on an assault robot? Do planes in Fallout use garters and stockings as well?

To compensate for the lack of Skyrim boobplate armor or maybe to please their fans so they say "Yay titties!".