Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Fallout Discussion' started by FlashBash64, May 13, 2016.
The only truth he made was that the DLC is linear, outside of that he completely wrong.
isn't new vegas DLC pretty linear as well aside from maybe Honest Hearts and old World Blues? Which are the equivalent to Broken steel (since it allows you to continue your exploration of the Capital Wasteland) and Point Lookout (an entire new area to explore)?
so if he made that argument i really don't see his point that the DLC is linear. when new vegas DLC "suffer" from the same thing. not that it's a bad thing per se to be linear i guess.
Fun Fact: Did you know that the Mongol Empire actually remained unified for 32 years after Genghis Khan's death, and only collapsed due to a succession dispute.
And that after Alexander the Great's death, for over a year, the Diadochi has agreed to peacefully partition his empire with Perdiccas as a regent. Alexander died in June of 323 BC, and it took until September of 322 BC until his empire split in to warring factions.
The reason I know this is because one time about half a year ago I got in a debate on r/Fallout where someone said something along the lines of "The way Caesar's Death is handled is ridiculous" and I broadly agreed, until they said something along the lines of "In the event of Caesar's Death the Battle of Hoover Damn shouldn't even happen" so I questioned what they meant.
They said "The game rubs in that Caesar as a charismatic dictator, yet when he dies, Legion just carries on as usual. It should have collapsed." or something along those lines.
So I pointed to this Mr House line, saying that a year before the Legion collapsing seemed like a realistic timeframe.
They claimed that lasting a year was unrealistic, and that when you have empires lead by singular figures, their death would lead to them collapsing INSTANTLY, like with Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great, and that it didn't make sense for an empire without it's head to last long enough to attack Hoover Dam.
Now I didn't know this at the time, but I figured, "Actually, how long did it take for those empires to collapse? Given speed of communication, I'm willing to wager that they actually took a while to collapse."
And then I discovered that the whole idea of the Mongol Empire being tied to Genghis Khan as a singular figure is actually a massive misconception. Like seriously, the vast majority of Mongol expansion happened AFTER his death.
So I pointed this out, along with the fact that actually Alexander the Great's Empire lasted a year after he died, which is the exact same time-frame Mr House gives for Legion's survival. They shifted the goal posts, we got in a back and forth about Legion. Then about a couple posts later they were discussing how stupid Legate Lanius was as a character and said something along the lines of: "Legate Lanius shouldn't be immediately recognised as the new Caesar if Caesar dies. The whole point is that Caesar's a singular charismatic dictator"
And it's like, I literally proved that point wrong by demonstrating that the time-frame of Legion's collapse is literally completely reasonable, according to historical examples THEY HAD USED.
Like, imagine making a criticism of a game, and using historical examples to try and back it up, being literally factually shown that those historical examples don't actually support what you're saying, but instead literally imply the opposite, and then using the exact same criticism later. Requires you have literally zero self awareness.
I don't know, a faction known for its brutality following the man that is considered to be the most brutal in all of the wasteland makes sense to me. How long would the faction last after that is an entirely different matter.
Dunno the context of the argument you were having but just wanna put my two cents in. House isn't always correct, and falls for the same assumptions almost every anti-legion character in the game falls for when talking about Legion. The idea that a large tribe who actively disdains any personal liberty or privileges would suffer from infighting is kind of ridiculous. The only Legion characters to suggest that some of the Legion may become more ambitious and would cause internal strife are Silus and the unnamed Centurion Jimmy references. Silus disregarded orders of Caesar and did not kill himself, outright questioning authority and believing himself to be too high ranked to die for no good reason. The unnamed Centurion dared to violate law, though he was eventually realized the danger of doing so and had to attempt to kill Jimmy in order to protect himself. Other Legion characters such as Dead Sea put themselves in a strategically awful situation just because his orders are to stand. (Dead Sea has a smaller force and the enemy is currently suffering from every problem imaginable giving him the only chance he could ever have of taking Forlorn Hope, should the NCR situation improve at all they'll be a larger force which can easily take Nelson). Most of the Legion wouldn't dare to do as Silus or the unnamed Centurion had done, and as far as we know there are no other real contenders to be Caesar other than Lanius.
I don't put any weight into the idea that the Legion would crumble due to internal strife. There's no real evidence to support that in the game. The idea that the Legion could suffer a Manzikert tier disaster under Lanius or a future Caesar is the more likely reason for the Legion falling without Caesar. Without Caesar the Legion's severe manpower issue is never rectified, the over reliance on subjugating foreign tribes for more men (a non-renewable resource to tap into) will eventually be their downfall. The breeding quota doesn't even begin to meet the demands of the highly aggressive Legion when the lack of reliance on medicine increased birth complications. Don't get me wrong, Lanius would be a great Caesar. He would definitely heavily increase the importance of the Legion's growing religion for instance which would make the Legion even more unified. But it's unlikely he would see an issue with the idea that a single massive defeat could utterly destroy the Legion. Lanius may even romanticize that.
The Legion are well-disciplined, but they're ultimately humans and not automatons. They are capable of falling prey to factionalism.
The things that inspire factionalism are just not present in the Legion. There is no family structure, no privileges, rank and office barely mean anything unless you're at the very top. Legion is entirely unique.
I wouldn't call it "funny" or anything, but still, I disagree with a lot of the vid
it's kind of hard to be a Bethesda apologist when he started with new vegas.
Oh my God, I love this Mr. House video. Another thing that i did not know about this game