Vault people and items in the wasteland

[The physopathic Polock]

And there are reasons why what is now a defective round could become refined in the future. Not the least of which the the 10mm ammo has over 74 years, from now untill 2077, to be refined into a field-effective ammunition type.

Granted, I'll give you that. I'm not going to check it but I seriously doubt people in the 50's specifically envisioned 10mm ammunition. The thing is, once again, Fallout is based on that 50's thinking. It's not a complete copy of what people thought or did in the 50's. Fallout also has plenty of modern science (FEV) and modern technology thrown into the mix as well. Hence some futuristic weapons have been included. Perhaps in a true 50's retro-future clone, those weapons wouldn't exist. However, as it stands today, those weapons were included in the original Fallout and thus helped set the scene. The way they were in the original Fallout was nice too, not an over-board inclusion of modern day weapons with real names, but just a few thrown into the mix, with some made up names to go along with them.

Let the record show that I was only reinforcing this part of DU's arguement with a logical explination on why the 10mm ammo is viable in Fallout instead of 50's-era weaponary. I pointed out (several times, in fact) that the 10mm ammo could have been refined by that point in time.

In fact you aren't arguing that these rounds are not present in the Fallout game-world, you're arguing that they weren't present in one of the time periods that Fallout was based upon. Fallout included certain weapons and ammunition, so to suddenly say "Oh shit, never supposed to have them, everything should be 9mm or .45 and we'll need to change all the item descriptions too and make people hate you for the ammunition you use" is a big change and GOES AGAINST the premise of the Fallout world as defined in the original Fallout.

And just because the .45 and 9mm were available in the 50's dosen't mean a retro-future baised on the 50's must use them "No matter what!"; it means that the guns simply have to have a quasi-50's feel to them, not be restricted to real-era ammo.

It's your opinion that he made a bad choice. To me, the choice doesn't matter, what matters is that the choice has been made. Chris Taylor, for whatever reason, chose 10mm ammunition to be a common round. It now is, thanks to its abundance in the original Fallout. Like-wise with the other weapons and ammunition present in the original Fallout game. To "fix" this invalidates what is in the original Fallout.

So that is why Sawer makes no sense changing it to real-era ammo. Because Fallout was only inspired by the 50's, not adhering strictly to the era writ large.

Now then, what happens if they make a bad choice of weapon or ammunition in Fallout 3? Should that be "fixed" in Fallout 4? I can see a never ending circle of "fixing things". Things that weren't even broken in the first place.

This is why we both said that it "could go to his head". Sawer might go too far if we let him do stuff like this to the cannon too much.

And that is why fretting anout the cannon-available weapons & ammo is important to helping preserve the cannon of Fallout. We must draw the line somewhere...

 

[Gwydion]

Look, Polock, refinement of the round is not even an issue here. Not one bit. The point is about the reputation and role that these rounds have. I cannot understand why you keep on harping that same tired point over and over and over and over. Every single post is just a rehash of all your previous posts and it still isn't relevant. Go back to Mexico!

 

[The physopathic Polock]

Look, Polock, refinement of the round is not even an issue here. Not one bit.

Yes it is, I'll explain in a moment:

The point is about the reputation and role that these rounds have.

Perhaps the 9mm and .45 ammo is more notable now, but what about fixing 10mm, and having 10mm outclass 9mm (obviously) and .45? Then the 10mm would have overshadowed 9mm and .45 rounds by that time, with it's rep as a reliable, potent, and effective round, while the 9mm and .45 both become obsolete. Reputation has nearly everything to do with effectiveness and reliability, and if the newer thing can do the older thing one better. then is is much more infamous then the older one(Or at least just as famous.).

I cannot understand why you keep on harping that same tired point over and over and over and over. Every single post is just a rehash of all your previous posts and it still isn't relevant.

Because you aren't reading between the lines, it dosen't make sense.

Go back to Mexico!

This one is too easy...

 

[Gwydion]

Polock, there's not logic in your argument. Yeah, 10mm might develop a similar reputation, but it hasn't. Chris Taylor made the decision based off of the rounds we have, the modern rounds, not speculation about what reputation certain rounds might gain at some point in the future.

 

[The physopathic Polock]

Polock, there's not logic in your argument.

Well, I see flaws in your "logic": Like, for example:

Yeah, 10mm might develop a similar reputation, but it hasn't.

Then again, it is a fictional universe, and yes, you are (pretending) to understand that part of my arguement. and yet:

Chris Taylor made the decision based off of the rounds we have, the modern rounds, not speculation about what reputation certain rounds might gain at some point in the future.

Speculation, yet logical speculation nonetheless. Look, if is very likely that you precious 50's ammo would become obsolete in the future, Fallout timeline or not. (Well, nabye you could "refine" the rounds, but then again it is almost easyer to find a newer technology.

You appear to be arguing by incorrect hyperbole. Specuation about a type or round in a fictional universe is not risky because it is fiction.

Ok, let me run that by you again:

1. Fallout is not real.
2. Fallout is based in a 50's pulp sci-fi post apocoliptic universe with Road Warrior and Mad Max influences, and is totaly fictional.
3. The 50's element is only present in certan points of the atmosphere and the culture of this fictional world.
4. It is not illogical to assume that the 10mm was tweaken/moddified/refined/refurbished to be effective in feild use over the years. And the 10mm ammo could be more effective then .45 of 9mm, even to the point of the 10mm ammo becoming the choice round over the obsolete .45 & 9mm ammo. In the fictional, 50's pulp sci-fi future.
5. In this fictional post-apoc 50's scf-fi game called Fallout, the 10mm was the ammo chosen. Thus, replacing it with ammo slated to be rare or nonexistant in the origional game dosen't make sense in a sequel meant to continue the legacy of the beloved fictional world of Fallout.

So don't give me no lip anout being "illogical", when you are way more illogical in sticking with suporting Sawers bad, illlogical choice to violate established and logicaly explainable cannon in a sequel that is supposed to keep with the cannon and the atmosphere in as accurate a way as possable, ok?

 

[Gwydion]

Actually the reasoning that I gave you behind Taylor's decision is not speculation. When asked in a thread at DAC:

I picked 10mm since it wasn't popular, had been tested by the FBI at one point (and found lacking), but it was basically a gun nut (which I am one) kind of round.

It had nothing to do with how the round evolved in the future, which is why it is a bad choice.

 

[The physopathic Polock]

Actually the reasoning that I gave you behind Taylor's decision is not speculation. When asked in a thread at DAC:

No, no no no, I siad that your arguement was illogical, not "speculitave".

I picked 10mm since it wasn't popular, had been tested by the FBI at one point (and found lacking), but it was basically a gun nut (which I am one) kind of round.

So he picked it for the hell of it. So what? There's nothing wrong with that (If only because it was a minor little detail, and couldn't do much harm to the cannon as we know it. That's not saying it did harm, because it didn't. Thus your argument is illogical and subjective). Besides, you cannot change the past, and trying to change the past in the present is the most rediculose thing I have ever heard!

It had nothing to do with how the round evolved in the future, which is why it is a bad choice.

That was a part of my awnser to a part of your whole set of arguements. It almost seems like you are switching you arguement wherever it looks to make my awnsers the more wrong. Could it be?

 

[Gwydion]

You can't possibly be as dumb as this is making you seem.

No, no no no, I siad that your arguement was illogical, not "speculitave".

Acutally, in your last post you said just the opposite of that:

Chris Taylor made the decision based off of the rounds we have, the modern rounds, not speculation about what reputation certain rounds might gain at some point in the future.

Speculation, yet logical speculation nonetheless.

Short-term memory: a wonderful gift.

So he picked it for the hell of it. So what?

That's my whole point in this argument, you clueless sod. A better choice would have been something with actual regard to the setting.

That was a part of my awnser to a part of your whole set of arguements. It almost seems like you are switching you arguement wherever it looks to make my awnsers the more wrong. Could it be?

No, it has to you with you getting dumber by the minute. When you can't even remember what you wrote in your previous post, it's time to bow out of the argument. Say goodnight, Gracie.

 

[The physopathic Polock]

You can't possibly be as dumb as this is making you seem.

No, no no no, I siad that your arguement was illogical, not "speculitave".

Acutally, in your last post you said just the opposite of that:

Chris Taylor made the decision based off of the rounds we have, the modern rounds, not speculation about what reputation certain rounds might gain at some point in the future.

Speculation, yet logical speculation nonetheless.

Short-term memory: a wonderful gift.

I used the wrong word in that instance, but the meaning is the same, isn't it?

And besides, Taylor might have considered something similar to my whole "10mm can be fixed in the future" arguement. Thus, he did use speculation.

And if he didn't, so be it.

So he picked it for the hell of it. So what?

That's my whole point in this argument, you clueless sod. A better choice would have been something with actual regard to the setting.

Using strictly 50's ammo has nothing to do with with a 50's fulp fututre setting! That was my whole point, you mindless {Marksman}er!

You merely need to get that 50's-pulp art-deco junk-techy feel in there. I'm willing to admit that 10mm, .44, 9mm and .45 can all be used together, but simply replacing the already chosen 10mm/.44 set with the 9mm/.45 set simply because "the 10mm/.44 set isn't 50's" dosen't make sense. The ammo dosen't need to coienside with the 50's aspects of the setting (at least, not strictly); the gun that shoots the bullet can handle that, if you make it generic enough.

And this is what Taylor and the other's did; make the guns genericaly adaptable to the setting.

Would the ammo matter?

This replacement is wrong because it voilates cannon. Have all four rounds could be aceptable, but what you still don't get is this: " You can't change the past, so get used to it!" If Sawyer dosen't like it, he can {Marksman} himself and do the cannon right. His mistake is trying to change to past in the present with a possable "Geographical Diferences loophole". You know, one of the half-assed excuse systems used by total {Marksman}ing" idiots to try (Unsucessfully I might add) to defend Tactics for having GerbilClaws and Reindeer Powah Harmour.

It won't work, because it would have been more logical to simply use the 10mm/.44 ammo in the first place.

That was a part of my awnser to a part of your whole set of arguements. It almost seems like you are switching you arguement wherever it looks to make my awnsers the more wrong. Could it be?

No, it has to you with you getting dumber by the minute. When you can't even remember what you wrote in your previous post, it's time to bow out of the argument. Say goodnight, Gracie.

My exasperation of your {Marksman}ing amazing blatant "UhnderClunchenten" is starting to leave me tired and weary, and yet you resort to insults at this point. Gee, I wonder why?

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I'm saying that Taylor made a poor choice.

To back this argument up, you have said:

10mm ammo is a bad round

Which is funny, because you've also said it wasn't, then it was, then it wasn't, now you're back to saying it is. You might want to have your own memory checked, Gwydion.

10mm was non-existant in the 50's

An argument which has been countered by the existance of OTHER non-50's items (modern science aka FEV) in Fallout as well as other themes, such as Mad Max (Mad Max was made well after the 50's).

You haven't even touched that issue. You're just a broken record saying, "That's no reason to change" over and over.

We've touched the issue (again and again actually). You're just being too stupid to realise it!

To try and make it clear for you Gwydion, once again, Fallout is only based on the 50's. Fallout is its own setting. Fallout is set in its own world. That world includes 10mm ammunition because when Chris Taylor was creating that setting, he decided to include it. Like if I write a book based on the 40's but I decide to include red grass instead of green. That choice helps make the setting. To say "but red grass isn't present in the world that this setting has been based upon" is a completely stupid and utterly ridiculous argument.

 

[Brother None]

Just curious, but why are you guys still debating this point?

This is not leading anywhere, y'know...

 

[Briosafreak]

This is starting to look like the old legendary Minigun thread on the old boards.

As interesting as it may be (in a soap opera kind of way) Kharn is right, drop it now and continue through Pms or whatever is your liking, you are all repeating the same arguments over and over again.