brm130 said:
You don't have to ride a horse to know it's lame.
Agreed, but you
do have to at least see it try to walk; It's foolish to put a gun to its head based on rumor and speculation.
Take a look at the trailer and some of the bullshit on the official site. I really doubt it could be any more clear.
Now what do you think of your precious LotR?
The same as I did before! The novels haven't changed. New Line didn't come to my house and issue me revised copies of the novels when the movies came out- They haven't changed at all.
In context to his example. Try again.
I'd say that "A View to a Kill" was garbage, but that doesn't make "Dr. No" a bad movie.
Bad analogy. "A View to a Kill" could be garbage, but that would make it garbage...(here's a tricky "logic" part)...
compared to other Bond films. Even though I didn't mind AVtaK, I'll put it into a better perspective that I hope you can appreciate. We're not saying Fallout is crap because of this new title. We're saying this new title is crap because it doesn't have what makes Fallout Fallout. It also disregards the timeline, making changes for no real purpose, which will have to be "erased" or "forgotten" in time for Fo2 (along with all their other idiotic changes) in some deus ex machina for their bad design to even remotely fit into the setting. Perhaps they'll use a Vault Dweller/BoS initiate waking up from a dream as the ending, that sounds lame enough for the makers of Run Like Hell.
You'd say that Dalton hurts James Bond as a whole, by not being as good as Connery.
To put it into perspective, since it's boggling that you really can't see what is wrong, it's like comparing
Casino Royale to the Bond flicks people have preferred over the years.
A bit of curiosity, do you read the neews forum, or are just this naturally optomistic that common sense doesn't come into play?
Their reasoning on having these changes, especially when it's set between Fallout 1 and 2, and none of these things are seen in Fallout 2, is just pure bullshit. Even if it were set after Fallout 2, it wouldn't fit into the setting. Kid Chuck and the rest of his stupes are really fumbling in the dark if they have to come up with lame excuses like "Well...we're excusing the stupid chick in thongs and the rest of the skimpy stuff as...(insert 50's pin-up here) influenced, yeah!"
It would be like someone excusing Tammy Fae Baker as a Ziggy Stardust influence, whereas the real connection would be Marylin Manson in his Mechanical Animals phase as a Ziggy Stardust phase, because both were based upon glam rock. Excusing a cliché sadistic thong-wearing character as a Betty Page influence
Here's the part that Team Chuck forgets. Fallout uses an
alternate timeline, and was supposed to use fictional aspects of our own. Therefore, there would be NO Betty Page, maybe a character similar to her, but even that wouldn't quite fit as you wouldn't see a pin-up model out in the wasteland. Nor would you see someone live if they were dumb enough to go out into gunfights wearing a thong, unless it was a +9 Thong of Armoring that Chuck pulled out of his ass. Of course, if you want a real fuck-up, look to the Fo2 designers and "Mr. Nixon". There was a development "oops" that slipped through.