Do we think perspective is the least of Fallout's problems?

[Crni Vuk]

Alright:

So, when I say,

Book =/= Game

is opinion for you? How is a book a video game. How! How in gods name. You have to show me. Or I can not take you serious anymore. Sorry. How can a definition be a definition if it is so broad that everything can fall in to it ...

I am curious now, who made this definition that is so precious for you? It is even silly in YOUR eyes! - Stupid or not it's a sequel, (...). Does it never occur to you that, just maybe, the person who wrote that definition that you hold so dear has maybe never even played a game in his life? Or that this definition could be flawed, or incomplete? What if this same definition would also claim, that a pineapple can be a sequel to a space ship! Or that a tomatoe can become the President of the United States! Would you accept that as well, because ... it is a definition! Some guy wrote it there on the internetz! I don't have to think about it! Or if it actually makes sense or not!

Wouldn't be the first time such kind of concept changed over time, words and definitions like those change all the time ... you know how much time and convincing it required before people accepted photography as it's own form of art? Or movies even? Don't tell me all definitions are carved in stone for all of eternity.

This isnt't math.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Alright:

So, when I say,

Book =/= Game

is opinion for you? How is a book a video game. How! How in gods name. You have to show me. Or I can not take you serious anymore. Sorry. How can a definition be a definition if it is so broad that everything can fall in to it ...

I am curious now, who made this definition that is so precious for you? It is even silly in YOUR eyes! - Stupid or not it's a sequel, (...). Does it never occur to you that, just maybe, the person who wrote that definition that you hold so dear has maybe never even played a game in his life? Or that this definition could be flawed, or incomplete? Wouldn't be the first time such kind of concept changed over time, words and definitions like those change all the time ... you know how much time and convincing it required before people accepted photography as it's own form of art? Or movies even? Don't tell me all definitions are carved in stone for all of eternity.

This isnt't math.

No, no, no we're NOT discussing if they are the same thing, we're discussing if one thing can be a sequel to another and thanks to the criteria it can! That's all there is to it! I don't always agree with the definition but until it's changed (so wait a bit tell then yes?) New Vegas is a sequel. That's all there is to it.

Maths follows the same rules actually.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Crni, the whole debate is pointless due to the fact that as ENGLISH speaking and writing people we use the official definition of sequel so Fallout New Vegas is a sequel as it continues the story of the West coast. How hard is it to understand that?

I consider F:NV a FO3 spin off; and FO3 was itself a spin off of FOBOS [near as I can tell]. In IP's the important bit is the central attraction. In a tv show, book, or movie, that may mean the central characters, but it doesn't have to be. Lethal Weapon 2 is the further adventures of Martin Riggs, and his buddy Murtaugh; Duke Nukem 2 is the further adventures of Duke... But these properties revolve around their central characters. Batman & Robocop are the draw of the Batman & Robocop franchises... Not Gotham/Detroit, not gameplay (in the case of their respective games)... But there are many ~many games (including Fallout) that are not based on a main protagonist.

FO3 needed far more than a mere continuance of the series timeline ~it wasn't a Fallout game [it was TES reskinned]. It lacked the gameplay (paramount), and it did an utter about-face on each and every priority of the series. They cherry-picked recognizable assets from the series ~to dress up their totally (and utterly) unrelated game as a Fallout title. Sequels are built upon the foundations of the previous work. Rocky, Rocky II, Rocky III... Cannonball Run and Cannonball Run II... What sequels have is a re-immersion into the familiar experience ~be it a movie, book, or a game. It is the experience that matters. The experience is not always the story or even the characters. Consider a racing game 1 & 2. The draw is the racing. If game #2 was a simulation about the financial side of running a Nascar franchise, hiring drivers, paying pit crews, paying for mechanical repairs, and chasing ad sponsorship deals... the game would be undeserving of being an official sequel ~it's an entirely different game; offering nothing of the former series' experience... the reason to seek out and buy a sequel by name. It wouldn't matter how good of a game they made.

With games, it can be (and often is) the gameplay that is the central core of the IP. This is why many games can [for instance] use the Warhammer IP, and not be sequels of one another ~it's because they are different games. SpaceMarine is different from Vermintide, different from Dawn of War. None of these games are a suitable sequel to either of the others ~even had they all used the same identical story and characters; the rule mechanics are too far removed.

 

[Ben Soto]

Crni, now your argument hinges on the little thing that the definition doesn't apply to games. Well, 'a literary work, movie, etc that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work.' Do I have to spell it out? And that's the definition given by pretty much every dictionary, meaning your argument is plain wrong. Until you find some kind of actual evidence in the dictionary. And by the way, you've gone really off topic by assuming that we don't care if it's a FPS or not, because we actually do. However we also prefer if people knew what the fuck they were talking about and stopped throwing the word sequel around as if they knew what it meant, when they consistently show a failure to know what the definition is. I agree, I prefer isometric turn based games, but for the love of God I can't stand this continued ignorance of the fucking word we're arguing about! EDIT: I kind of feel like an asshole know for being too harsh...

I am not so much arguing that it doesn't apply. Just that it is actually incomplete! If we are looking at games in detail! Which is what we do. There can be NO doubts, that Fallout was always meant to be a video game. You at least have to agree to that much! I mean don't you see the potential issue with it if you reduce games solely to the narrative and story ignoring the characteristics that make the medium special in the first place?

1. a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work.
   

- Just as a small hint, it doesn't mention games specifically even! That alone should make you think. It's simply way to broad as a definition! Again, we are not talking about math or physics here.


The narrative and stroy alone, can never ever be the only deciding factor for a medium that is as peculiar like games. Particularly if you consider the history of games. Remember. The first game ever, Pong, didn't even had any story at all!

Um... no. No. A). as far as I'm aware, Pong never had a sequel. What it had was mostly remakes and revisions. B). have you ever heard of reductio ad absurdum, the act of stretching your opponent's argument to an illogical extreme. You make the argument that because a book can be a sequel to a game or movie (FYI, there have been books that have served as sequels to movies, like that one Star Wars book that was meant to be a sequel in case the movie flopped) a pineapple can be a sequel to a spaceship. Just... just...



Your argument falls apart because a pineapple cannot have or be a sequel (though I suppose a spaceship could have a successor serving the role of sequel) while a video game and a book can both be and have sequels.

As for the definition of sequel, without a definition of a word, I could use "jet engine" to refer to a banana, or "microbe" to refer to my dogs. There's a reason they exist, and even if they're flawed, they're still important.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Alright:

So, when I say,

Book =/= Game

is opinion for you? How is a book a video game. How! How in gods name. You have to show me. Or I can not take you serious anymore. Sorry. How can a definition be a definition if it is so broad that everything can fall in to it ...

I am curious now, who made this definition that is so precious for you? It is even silly in YOUR eyes! - Stupid or not it's a sequel, (...). Does it never occur to you that, just maybe, the person who wrote that definition that you hold so dear has maybe never even played a game in his life? Or that this definition could be flawed, or incomplete? Wouldn't be the first time such kind of concept changed over time, words and definitions like those change all the time ... you know how much time and convincing it required before people accepted photography as it's own form of art? Or movies even? Don't tell me all definitions are carved in stone for all of eternity.

This isnt't math.

No, no, no we're NOT discussing if they are the same thing, we're discussing if one thing can be a sequel to another and thanks to the criteria it can! That's all there is to it! I don't always agree with the definition but until it's changed (so wait a bit tell then yes?) New Vegas is a sequel. That's all there is to it.

Maths follows the same rules actually.

You really should stick with the stuff you think you understand. Math is build on a whole different set of rules than your idea of definitions which are totally arbitray, because someone at some point said a Sequel is defined by the story, or what ever you feel is correct. They are only ideas, and they can even change over time - as Gizmo nicely explained, you have to decide from case to case. The fact alone that we are talking about this should make it obvious.

Archimedean Properties, geometrical axioms, arithmetic properties, number theory and many more mathematical principles are not debatable, they are always correct in their respective applications. THose are not negotiable. They are not suddenly wrong, just because someone decided distributive property doesn't apply anymore to algebraic operations. Math is not a matter of opinion, to say it that way.

Your argument falls apart because a pineapple cannot have or be a sequel (though I suppose a spaceship could have a successor serving the role of sequel) while a video game and a book can both be and have sequels.

And then Bethesda sells Pineapples as Fallout 5 claiming that it continues the story line of Fallout, because they own the franchise, so their opinion is correct. And 35 million people buy it and cheer Bethesda for beeing innovative.

Bam! A Fallout sequel has been born!

 

[beans00]

I don't really mind fps tps or iso, if it's a good game I could care less about perspective unless the game demands some type of tactical approach not possible in either FPS or TPS(like jagged alliance or silent storm) but people who complain about graphics on a game thats nearly 20 years old are either saying it's immersion breaking or w.e are either
a. stupid
b. trying to be edgy

When I was a kid playing games like fallout or diablo 1 or bg1 or aoe 2 ect doesn't matter I just played the games and had fun with them, same when i was a teen playing whatever games came out in the early/mid 00's lol.. I never played the old ultima games or the old wizardry games because I thought they were tedious and looked like shit, but I didn't go to online forums bitching about how i wanted to like them but couldn't get into them, I just played the games i liked and didn't worry about trying to appease other people with different tastes

and if fallout 1/2 was done in first person these were the fps's from 1997 that came out at roughly the same time at f1






if the fallouts looked like they they'd look even more shit today then they do now lol, but obviously everything is gonna look worse 20 years later unless it's a car so whats the point talking about something that should be common sense?

 

[Walpknut]

Whil I empathize with the people who lament the loss of the Isometric Turn Based element, on the face of poor writting, shitty quest design and even worse game design I'll say Bethesda's Fallout games have far more serious problems that a camera change wouldn't fix.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

I see the potential, but I think others did it much better:

*Credits to Gizmo for finding this gem.

I played the demo for it. While I found it fantastic and am looking forward to the full version (unless it's already released), I don't feel like it would fit in a Fallout game. I'm not saying Bethesda's method is superior, I'm just saying that if you find VATS out of place, then that Superhot system is definitely out of place.

This thread has basically become a parallel to black metal purism.

Yes.

Whil I empathize with the people who lament the loss of the Isometric Turn Based element, on the face of poor writting, shitty quest design and even worse game design I'll say Bethesda's Fallout games have far more serious problems that a camera change wouldn't fix.

Well, yes, that was my entire point. Thank you for summarising it entirely in two lines, one sentence.

I like how Fallout 4 was defended prior to release that it's lack of graphical depth would be made up for by the writing and the world itself, which is exactly what falls short in it.
And to put salt in the wound, Fallout 4 released in the same year as the Witcher 3 while calling itself an "RPG". I don't have any apt comparison for this, because this blunder speaks for itself.

Bethesda has failed this year both as a fan-supporting game developer (by not focusing on anything that makes a Fallout game) and as a corporate sales-based profit-monger (failure to compete with the Witcher 3 in any aspect).
At this point, I'm just wondering how long they can keep it up, because if Konami and OVERKILL have taught me anything, the answer is "not long."

 

[Dr Fallout]

Alright:

So, when I say,

Book =/= Game

is opinion for you? How is a book a video game. How! How in gods name. You have to show me. Or I can not take you serious anymore. Sorry. How can a definition be a definition if it is so broad that everything can fall in to it ...

I am curious now, who made this definition that is so precious for you? It is even silly in YOUR eyes! - Stupid or not it's a sequel, (...). Does it never occur to you that, just maybe, the person who wrote that definition that you hold so dear has maybe never even played a game in his life? Or that this definition could be flawed, or incomplete? Wouldn't be the first time such kind of concept changed over time, words and definitions like those change all the time ... you know how much time and convincing it required before people accepted photography as it's own form of art? Or movies even? Don't tell me all definitions are carved in stone for all of eternity.

This isnt't math.

No, no, no we're NOT discussing if they are the same thing, we're discussing if one thing can be a sequel to another and thanks to the criteria it can! That's all there is to it! I don't always agree with the definition but until it's changed (so wait a bit tell then yes?) New Vegas is a sequel. That's all there is to it.

Maths follows the same rules actually.

You really should stick with the stuff you think you understand. Math is build on a whole different set of rules than your idea of definitions which are totally arbitray, because someone at some point said a Sequel is defined by the story, or what ever you feel is correct. They are only ideas, and they can even change over time - as Gizmo nicely explained, you have to decide from case to case. The fact alone that we are talking about this should make it obvious.

Archimedean Properties, geometrical axioms, arithmetic properties, number theory and many more mathematical principles are not debatable, they are always correct in their respective applications. THose are not negotiable. They are not suddenly wrong, just because someone decided distributive property doesn't apply anymore to algebraic operations. Math is not a matter of opinion, to say it that way.

Your argument falls apart because a pineapple cannot have or be a sequel (though I suppose a spaceship could have a successor serving the role of sequel) while a video game and a book can both be and have sequels.

And then Bethesda sells Pineapples as Fallout 5 claiming that it continues the story line of Fallout, because they own the franchise, so their opinion is correct. And 35 million people buy it and cheer Bethesda for beeing innovative.

Bam! A Fallout sequel has been born!

Crni, you realize that mathematics is just as much subjective due to the fact that those nice theories didn't exist in the Human conscious until years later. Fuck, Pi was literally made as a way to explain CIRCLES better. Maths only expands as Humans want it to, with HUMANS making it up all the way we go. Sure it works, so do words and the idea of separate and clearly defined emotions. All of those ideas haven't always existed, they were made by a group or singular person and then accepted by others to the point where it becomes a fact, not an opinion. How can you prove mathematics wrong without using other mathematics? You can't, because it's simply something that was made up to explain things.

'facepalm' How does the pineapple continue the story of Fallout 4 or Fallout in general? Now you're really desperate.

 

[DarkCorp]

IMO, it comes down to substance.

For me, if an FPRPG has the writing, the atmosphere, the complexities of choice and consequence, then sure, it could work. In a FPSRPG, NEVAR.

Unfortunately, however, I do not believe the former would ever have a chance. In a profit obsessed, simplification oriented, limited development resource game, doing something akin to above is not going to happen.

I remember a little tidbit from Snapslav, I think, in regards to rendering movement up and down stairs, at a variety of speeds accurately. It is just too much effort and too little payoff, for your average gamer. Yet, something like that to me, done wrong, is immersion breaking.

You can have all the immaculately rendered fucking sand, teacups, tables, chairs, whatever the fuck, its not going to matter. Because at the end of the day, all that, which is done to help prop up immersion, is ruined by some wonky ass movement.

You can have all the perfectly scaled, to size, buildings, caves, lakes, mountains, vaults, etc, and its still all shit. It is all shit because for all this effort, the WORLD still feels fucking empty.

For me, having to spend an inordinate amount of time checking every immaculately rendered drawer for something important is a huge waste of time. Same with having to check every room of every fucking floor, of every friggin section, of something, is immensely irritating. For me, this would be the rare time I would say to Beth, keep it simple stupid. Leave some shit to the imagination and you will eliminate a shitload of fucking tedium.

 

[naossano]

I wish i had more time to dwelve into this.

Perspective isn't what makes the games bad or not. Bad writting, lack of C & C, lack of grey morality, lack of dilemma, discovery, things to think about, the meaninglessness of stats, the impossible immersion due to inconsistency, lore-breaking, lack of logic, the immortal npcs, the forced backstory, if cumulated, can make Fo3 & Fo4 very bad Fallout games, very bad rpg, and quite mediocre games depending on your taste.

Fallout: New Vegas doesn't have a Fallout perspective, but still manage to be a good game, a good Fallout games, a good RPG, and the first faithfull sequel since Fallout 2. So it is good. But, on the other hand, i find the lack of Fallout perspective makes it less enjoyable. I find the controls of the characters much more clunky on a subjective 3D environment. Plus, real time combat hugely lack depth compared with turn-based combat, and it is normal. One cannot simply take so many factors if they don't have time to see or decide every action from himselves, and his friends & foes. You have to simplify combat if you want it combat to work on real-time. Otherwise, it is just a mess. (even when simple, it can still be a mess). There is nothing bad in having some real time games. It is just not for everyone taste. It is also unfortunate that Fallout fans can no longer be able to play the game with its perspective & gameplay. You are promised a game that lack some core features that made you enjoying it in the first place. They could have made it optionnal like some other games, like Arcanum (TB/RT), The Witcher 1 (subjective or isometric) and some other games. They purposly chose to remove it. Of course, as said earlier, persective and combat pace are not the only things that are missed in Fo3 & Fo4, but they are still missed. FoNV is still enjoyable, but despite those missing things. I would have enjoyed much much more if it had the gameplay and perspective of a Fallout game. Also, i am not too fond of continuous gameworld. It is scaled down, lack diversity, is full of filler areas that are only there to waste your time, while, at the same time, relevant location are still too close to each other from a scale standpoint. Also, continuous games world can lack logic, if they fail to include means of traveling/trading/farming etc... If you show only partial locations, you wouldn't have those problems.

 

[Big No]

Also, i am not too fond of continuous gameworld. It is scaled down, lack diversity, is full of filler areas that are only there to waste your time, while, at the same time, relevant location are still too close to each other from a scale standpoint. Also, continuous games world can lack logic, if they fail to include means of traveling/trading/farming etc... If you show only partial locations, you wouldn't have those problems.

I don't mind filler locations as long as they have some "exploration" element, but I dislike the ones like the shack near Camp Searchlight that serve not purpose, even exploring purposes. I don't know why they're there, since places like that are not part of a quest or anything. Maybe just for environment reasons to make the world seem fuller, though I figure they could've just been unmarked locations instead of marked ones.

In the case of scaling, I think you're supposed to imagine that the world is bigger than what is shown, we are just being shown the bits of map that matters. That would fix the "settlements are too close together" problem.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Crni, you realize that mathematics is just as much subjective due to the fact that those nice theories didn't exist in the Human conscious until years later. Fuck, Pi was literally made as a way to explain CIRCLES better. Maths only expands as Humans want it to, with HUMANS making it up all the way we go. Sure it works, so do words and the idea of separate and clearly defined emotions. All of those ideas haven't always existed, they were made by a group or singular person and then accepted by others to the point where it becomes a fact, not an opinion. How can you prove mathematics wrong without using other mathematics? You can't, because it's simply something that was made up to explain things.

Dude, just stop it. Just don't.

It is aparant that you have absolutely no clue about math, how math works, how those theories came to existance and what actually axioms are.

Mathematics =/= Subjective

Just beacuse someone had to invent words and symbols for something as abstract like numbers doesn't make it either subjective or made-up. Are black holes or gravity also made up because someone had to think about some concept to describe it? Of course no one had an idea about gravity or number theory, before someone named it as such! However, that doesn't mean it's made up or that it would be a matter of subjective debate.

Algebraic axioms are NOT subjective. They are ALWAYS true in their respective operations. Distributive property is always true in arithmetic operations with real numbers.

Seriously. Math is a scientific field for a reason. Let us not get carried away, what we discuss here is not science.

That little wikipdia-like entry of what a Sequel is, we can talk about that topic as much as you want, but don't mix up things that simply don't belong together.

 

[berlin1945]

perspective is okay. bethesda is the only problem.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Crni, you realize that mathematics is just as much subjective due to the fact that those nice theories didn't exist in the Human conscious until years later. Fuck, Pi was literally made as a way to explain CIRCLES better. Maths only expands as Humans want it to, with HUMANS making it up all the way we go. Sure it works, so do words and the idea of separate and clearly defined emotions. All of those ideas haven't always existed, they were made by a group or singular person and then accepted by others to the point where it becomes a fact, not an opinion. How can you prove mathematics wrong without using other mathematics? You can't, because it's simply something that was made up to explain things.

Dude, just stop it. Just don't.

It is aparant that you have absolutely no clue about math, how math works, how those theories came to existance and what actually axioms are.

Mathematics =/= Subjective

Just beacuse someone had to invent words and symbols for something as abstract like numbers doesn't make it either subjective or made-up. Are black holes or gravity also made up because someone had to think about some concept to describe it? Of course no one had an idea about gravity or number theory, before someone named it as such! However, that doesn't mean it's made up or that it would be a matter of subjective debate.

Algebraic axioms are NOT subjective. They are ALWAYS true in their respective operations. Distributive property is always true in arithmetic operations with real numbers.

Seriously. Math is a scientific field for a reason. Let us not get carried away, what we discuss here is not science.

That little wikipdia-like entry of what a Sequel is, we can talk about that topic as much as you want, but don't mix up things that simply don't belong together.

How the theories came to existance? Oh yeah... someone made up a theory and apparently we worship it as God. Isn't that a bit disturbing, that we don't doubt, in fact doubting is considered stupid with what someone said? And yet religion is bad!

The only things you're saying to me is that it's not subjective, yet not actually expanding on it, basically you're just saying 'Dude stop'. Which to me doesn't really satisfy... note that I don't call for utter destruction of math or stopping it's usage, just that math is really dependent on PEOPLE not some kind of cosmic truth.

The idea of using math to prove things is as strange as using words and communication to express emotions and desires. Maths is subjective because it's easy to change the various numbers. It's not set in stone as many think. Why did we make the theory of Pi, why those EXACT numbers? Because the people chose them because they made some kind of sense or they connected well to problem, but seriously why those numbers? If you can explain that, I'll stop right here and end this... as you see 'stupid' argument.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I am saying this, beacause I question how familiar you are with a scientfic field.

See, I love math - even though I am not a math genious. And math is probably one of the most accurate scientific fields that exist. I know this, because I always get into arguments with my room-mate about it who's studying informatics, and for him everything is an aproximation, like Pi, that 0,999... is equal to 1, 1+2+3+4... =-1/12 the infinite series of natural numbers, etc.

He is correct though, we are always working with approximations, because we have no other choice, like when you do calculations with Pi. But as soon as you get into math, it is absolutely correct, just as how it is impossible to draw an 100% perfect circle. The nature of numbers is fascinating. Like Zenos Paradox.

But it is not a problem in math though, with the correct algebraic tools, you can work with all of them on paper. No approximations required.

This is what I love about math. The complexity and yet the simplicity once you understand something!

But, I am sorry that I have to tell you. Those things are not subjective. They are not up to debatable. They are correct. Proven. And applicable! -1/12 is used in physics for example, just like pi or the planck constant. This has nothing to do with beeing religious. You would not be able to sit infront of your computer if those things didn't worked like they do.

People with a lot more brain power than anyone of us on this forum have thought about it, and shown that they are axiomatic. Euler, Leibnitz, Newton, Gauss and many more. Mathematical rules apply always in their respective fields. Just as how the effect of gravity is not a debatable subject.

Mathematical laws are not less subjective than the discussion if you can survive without breathing if you suddenly decided to stop doing it. Your death isn't subjective. It would be a simple fact. What ever if you are aware about oxygen and its effect on your tissues is meaningless in this discussion.

 

[Dr Fallout]

I am saying this, beacause I question how familiar you are with a scientfic field.

See, I love math - even though I am not a math genious. And math is probably one of the most accurate scientific fields that exist. I know this, because I always get into arguments with my room-mate about it who's studying informatics, and for him everything is an aproximation, like Pi, that 0,999... is equal to 1, 1+2+3+4... =-1/12 the infinite series of natural numbers, etc.

He is correct though, we are always working with approximations, because we have no other choice, like when you do calculations. But as soon as you get into math, it is absolutely correct. The nature of numbers is fascinating. Like Zenos Paradox.

But it is not a problem in math though, with the correct algebraic tools, you can work with all of them. No approximations required.

This is what I love about math.

But, I am sorry that I have to tell you. Those things are not subjective. They are not up to debate. They are correct. Proven. And applicable! -1/12 is used in physics for example. This has nothing to do with beeing religious.

People with a lot more brain power than anyone of us on this forum have thought about it, and shown that they are axiomatic. Euler, Leibnitz, Newton, Gauss and many more. Mathematical rules apply always in their respective fields. Just as how the effect of gravity is not a debatable subject.

Mathematical laws are not less subjective than the discussion if you can survive without breathing if you suddenly decided to stop doing it. Your death isn't subjective. It would be a simple fact. What ever if you are aware about oxygen and its effect on your tissues is meaningless in this discussion.

Ah... you love math... fair enough. Now I see why you vehemently go against what I say. So... while I acknowledge it's accurate and useful, you haven't really elaborated on how it's not subjective apart from comparing to death and saying that smart people made these theories who are smart... because they're good at maths.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I can only try it. I am NOT a Mathematician.

You are to focused on numbers as symbols.

Spoiler

Pi is, as you probably know, simply the ratio, between the periphery of the circle and the radius. The ancient greek used geometry to create numbers and for their mathematical proof. Infact, you can explain the algebraic operations of multiplication, division, substraction and addition with geometric forms only by using lines, circles, squares and triangles. As long as you stay within the known euclidian geometry.

Addition can be displayed by using lines/distances. In this case with the numberline. a + b = c or if you want to use integers 3+8=11

Same with Substractions. c - b = a in this case 12-8=4

Infact, this is actually how the Romans used to count! You know?

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

1
1+1
1+1+1
5-1
5
5+1
5+1+1
5+1+1+1
10-1
10

You could use roman numbers and you would get the same results like above.

Substractions (and additions) can be displayed as well with geometric surfaces without using numbers. Simply by using geometrical forms

Multiplikation and division are just extensions of addition and substraction.



Mathematical proofs. Well. Do you remember the Pythagorean Theorem? a[SUP]2[/SUP]+b[SUP]2[/SUP]=c[SUP]2[/SUP]

The geometric proof of Pythagoras Theorem, again, no numbers. Just shapes. This is just one of maybe 100 different geometrical proofs for this theorem.

Geometry was the first kind of math that people invented and which they used to create their mathematical proofs. For example, you can even display the square root of 2 with a right angled triangle, where the two short sides have the value of 1. The long side will always be the square root of 2.

The problem with Pi was not that they could not calculate it, or that they didn't understood what it was, the issue was that they had no way to create it with their available tools. This problem is also known as:

Squaring the circle is a problem proposed by ancient geometers. It is the challenge of constructing a square with the same area as a given circle by using only a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge. More abstractly and more precisely, it may be taken to ask whether specified axioms of Euclidean geometry concerning the existence of lines and circles entail the existence of such a square.

The ancient greek simply havn't been completely aware about the nature of transcendental numbers.

I don't understand why you feel this would be subjective.

 

[Dr Fallout]

I can only try it. I am NOT a Mathematician.

You are to focused on numbers as symbols.

Spoiler

Pi is, as you probably know, simply the ratio, between the periphery of the circle and the radius. The ancient greek used geometry to create numbers and for their mathematical proof. Infact, you can explain the algebraic operations of multiplication, division, substraction and addition with geometric forms only by using lines, circles, squares and triangles. As long as you stay within the known euclidian geometry.

Addition can be displayed by using lines/distances. In this case with the numberline. a + b = c or if you want to use integers 3+8=11

Same with Substractions. c - b = a in this case 12-8=4

Infact, this is actually how the Romans used to count! You know?

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

1
1+1
1+1+1
5-1
5+1
5+1+1
5+1+1+1
10-1
10

You could use roman numbers and you would get the same results like above.

Substractions (and additions) can be displayed as well with geometric surfaces without using numbers. Simply by using geometrical forms

Multiplikation and division are just extensions of addition and substraction.



Mathematical proofs. Well. Do you remember the Pythagorean Theorem? a[SUP]2[/SUP]+b[SUP]2[/SUP]=c[SUP]2[/SUP]

The geometric proof of Pythagoras Theorem, again, no numbers. Just shapes. This is just one of maybe 100 different geometrical proofs for this theorem.

Geometry was the first kind of math that people invented and which they used to create their mathematical proofs. For example, you can even display the square root of 2 with a right angled triangle, where the two short sides have the value of 1. The long side will always be the square root of 2.

The problem with Pi was not that they could not calculate it, or that they didn't understood what it was, the issue was that they had no way to create it with their available tools. This problem is also known as:

Squaring the circle is a problem proposed by ancient geometers. It is the challenge of constructing a square with the same area as a given circle by using only a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge. More abstractly and more precisely, it may be taken to ask whether specified axioms of Euclidean geometry concerning the existence of lines and circles entail the existence of such a square.

The ancient greek simply havn't been completely aware about the nature of transcendental numbers.

I don't understand why you feel this would be subjective.

That's alright, the majority of math users aren't.

Fair enough, and a nice explanation, though the reason I find it subjective is that math really begins from a group of people's view of the world, it's like evolution as it stems from a single cause and becomes more complex in the later stages. Math can entirely change if the first people using it saw it in a different light, which then causes a massive change, which may or may not be similar, hence to me it's being subjective because maths can be perceived in different way.

 

[MercenarySnake]

Jesus Christ what a clusterfuck. Well just to add my two cents while Bethesda has more problems then just perspective, weapon skills for example don't work too well in a first person setting when manual aim causes you to hit every time you aim and shoot at the enemy. Sipping enemies with pistols and rifles with pin point accuracy too. I could handle another FPS Fallout but I really want another isometric Fallout game, well that's all I have to add. I'm just going to slip out of here before I get caught up in your guys'..uhh...pissing contest?