So, should the SS have been a Synth or not?

[Risewild]

By the way, Necropolis does not have any robots... Only Super Mutants and Ghouls.
Also Robobrains never had AI. Like Walpknut mentioned the brains were just fast processors.
In the words of Mr House:

No. While brains demonstrated some use as organic processors in the robots produced by General Atomics International... They never retained personality once removed from the human body.

 

[CT Phipps]

By the way, Necropolis does not have any robots... Only Super Mutants and Ghouls.

Am I confusing Underworld then?

 

[0wing]

Am I confusing Underworld then?

Yes, you're confusing lore with bethesda.

 

[CT Phipps]

Yes, you're confusing lore with bethesda.

Yes, because Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 lore matter when discussing the Bethesda verse. A game world I love and play in.

Why in the world would cutting it off matter in discussing Fallout 4?

 

[Walpknut]

In any situation where you have the option of writting an R2D2 clone or not you should always choose no.

 

[CT Phipps]

In any situation where you have the option of writting an R2D2 clone or not you should always choose no.

You, sir, have no soul.

*hugs his ED-E droid*

Whose a good boy? Yes, you are!

 

[Jogre]

*hugs his ED-E droid*

Whose a good boy? Yes, you are!

 

[CT Phipps]

ED-E is New Vegas' Dogmeat.

 

[0wing]

Yes, because Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 lore matter when discussing the Bethesda verse. A game world I love and play in.

Yes, that was a lore discussion and you brought Necropolis into a lore discussion.

 

[CT Phipps]

Yes, that was a lore discussion and you brought Necropolis into a lore discussion.

I'm talking about the Bethesda universe which I prefer to the original two Fallout games and consider every bit as valid.

 

[Walpknut]

"I prefer Bethesda to the originals" whoops that's it guys. Let's abandon this ship.

 

[Jogre]

ED-E is New Vegas' Dogmeat.

Nope

ED-E is actually an interesting character, and not a dumb, cliched meme.

I'm talking about the Bethesda universe which I prefer to the original two Fallout games and consider every bit as valid.

 

[CT Phipps]

"I prefer Bethesda to the originals" whoops that's it guys. Let's abandon this ship.

Yep, I hate turn based combat and top-down view. The writing in the original games was great but Bethesda is my favorite for gameplay.

You know...because it's third dimensions and fun.

 

[Crni Vuk]

You mean because it is basically a shooter sugar coated as role playing game, sure I can see the appeal of that. The moment I realized that Fallout 3 is a first person shooter at it's core and when I actually played it as such, I had some fun with it, albeit it was a lot of dull fun, but fun nontheless.
Now, we can argue about the fact if Fallout 3 and 4s gameplay is fun or not till the sun dies. But, one thing is as sure like the melting of the polar caps. Neither Fallout 3 nor Fallout 4, represent what Fallout should be. Why? Because Fallout 1 and 2, the games where you don't like the gameplay, are the blue print that any Fallout game that calls it self a sequel should follow. Wasteland 2 - and most probalby Wasteland 3 - will be closer to what Fallout 3 should have been than any game we saw in the last couple of years. Definetly closer than anything Bethesda has released.

What I always feel, is that Fallout 3 is a shooter pretending to be a role playing game, for people that actually hate role playing games, but for some resaon don't want to admit that. It's kinda what Taco Bell is to Mexican food.

 

[Walpknut]

Implying games that aren't in 3D or that are turn based are not fun. This why gaming is so shit nowadays.

 

[CT Phipps]

What we're discussing is matters of taste rather than matters of absolutism. On my end, I love Fallout 3 for being a alternatively wacky but also tragic depiction of post-nuclear life. The horror is a lot more prominent in that game than in others and I personally liked it. I also enjoyed the gameplay far far more than isometric party-based combat and like 1st person shooters as a rule. I also love Bethesda open-world games in general.

I, however, feel that Bethesda Fallout games are a spin-off of the original series in the same way Tactics is considered a RTS spin off the original. They're the "shooter" Fallouts and should be judged on their own merits, which I judge quite highly.

I also consider them their own separate canon, which I enjoy for its own sake like the Star Wars Legends universe which I consider separate from the movies.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Yes, that is cool. The sad part is, Bethesda doesn't. For them F3 and F4 are Sequels to Fallout 1 and 2. And I would wouldn't be surprised, if someone like Todd actually beliefs that a first person shooter gameplay is an evolutionary improvement to a top down turn based gameplay. There are definetly many Bethesda fans that think like that, if the Fallout 1 developers had the technolgy, they would have made it first person and real time!

 

[Risewild]

Tactics is considered a RTS spin off the original.

Tactics is not a Real Time Strategy game .
I like your posts and even if I don't agree with some things I still respect your opinions and tastes, but sometimes you get really weird errors/mistakes that make me think you have no idea what you are talking about (but don't worry, I know they are just mistakes ).

I don't know if the SS should be a synth or not, I think I agree with Hass when he said the game should randomly decide it at start. But to be honest I don't see the point in this genetic engineered synths in any Fallout game. If they were essential in any way I guess I would accept them, but even in Fallout 4 there is no real reason for them to be there or existing.
I always got the feeling they are only there because Bethesda had to justify kidnapping a frozen baby from a vault just so the SS would have a motivation or something. Then they would go "why would we need genetic engineered synths? Oh I know! So they can replace real people and infiltrate the commonwealth for reasons" and then they construct bits of story around that and sometimes in very lazy ways.
I don't like Fallout 4 plot and the Institute history and motivations, it makes no sense at all.
Why don't they have synths that looks exactly like people but are still made of metal/alloys inside? Those were the typical androids from the "50's sci-fi" that Bethesda seems to take such pride as inspiration for Fallout of these days.

 

[CT Phipps]

I admit, I never played Tactics. My falllout lore is INCOMPLETE.

Yes, that is cool. The sad part is, Bethesda doesn't. For them F3 and F4 are Sequels to Fallout 1 and 2. And I would wouldn't be surprised, if someone like Todd actually beliefs that a first person shooter gameplay is an evolutionary improvement to a top down turn based gameplay. There are definetly many Bethesda fans that think like that, if the Fallout 1 developers had the technolgy, they would have made it first person and real time!

I actually think they might have but that's because I love first person shooting and real time combat. I don't see the appeal otherwise but that's a matter of taste. As for Bethesda, they're making sequels from a bought IP but I view it as them adapting the work. Alan Moore loathes every single one of the movies made from his work but it's still possible to love "V for Vendetta" or "Watchmen: the Movie"

I do, however, try to keep the Doylist view in my head that these things are intellectually and artistically distinct. Like any Sherlock Holmes work written after Conan Doyle's death. I can still love Elementary and Sherlock but don't try to let it influence my love of the originals while acknowledging the originals made it.

In short, I love Bethesda's Fallout for what it is rather than what it isn't.

 

[0wing]

I'm talking about the Bethesda universe which I prefer to the original two Fallout games and consider every bit as valid.

Yes, it wouldn't be much of a problem aside from personal preference.... If bethesda made a reboot instead of continuation of the main series and it's lore respectively. Which they were too proud to do.