Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fallout 4' started by Arenchac, Sep 16, 2016.
Lol, even an attempt at pointing out the good parts of 4 spiraled back in to hate at around page 2.
NMA, NMA never changes.
Yes... oh yess... the trolls are back... (please)...
I think this game could be more likeable if it's a brand new IP instead the sequel of a good old CRPG series.
Please be a good one, please be a good one, please be a good one...
Could you at least troll with higher quality posts? Your tryhard post of what was good in Fallout 4 was pretty bad, especially when you gave no evidence for it.
Vault-tec ordered jet for their vault after the war, according to Petey.
Or alternatively they have a time machine and got jet from the future for their vault.
(it's pre-war jet)
I liked Fallout 4 a great deal. I didn't LOVE it like I loved its predecessors. They were two of my all time favorite games.
There were more than 2 predecessors. Come on Petey you should know this.
Ehhhh, I tend to think of F3 and NV as a spin-off series of the main gameline versus actual sequels. Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 are ALSO two of my favorite games and Wasteland was the first game I ever loved. However, I keep a mental distance between them which helps me appreciate them on their own unique merits.
So, for clarity's sake, do you also consider Fallout 4 in that spin-off head-cannon? Or is your official Fallout like this
Fallout - > Fallout 2 | Fallout 4
Fallout 3 | Fallout New Vegas
I'd say I consider it like this.
Fallout 1>Fallout 2>Fallout: Tactics are the "main series."
Fallout 3>NV>Fallout 4 are the "new series."
The events of the first three games technically happened but it's pretty much a new world.
It helps that I also consider Fallout 3 something of a remake of Fallout 1 and Fallout 2.
Bethesda's Fallout is basically the Battlestar Galactica remake of the series. So different as to make comparisons pointless but clearly inspired by it.
Yep, because one that has contradictory lore is definitely the main series.
I have a Masters degree in history.
Contradictory lore is just how history is to me.
1. I think pretty much everyone knows that, and that a Master's Degree is not necessary for that. Knowing what the Mongolian Revolution of 1911 and 1921 is, knowing the finer details of the Russian Civil War is, knowing... actually what did you do for it? Just asking (I love history).
2. It's not history, it's a game series.
I was being flippant, not actually making a serious point. I have a pretty high tolerance for violations of canon so much that it took the Power Armor of Fallout 4 to make me say, "No, fuck it, sorry, there's no good fix for this." Everything else, I'm pretty good at defending or coming up with an excuse for.
I even have a story as to why X01 armor is in Nuka World with a Quantum paint job. It involves a Nuka Cola-obsessed Enclave soldier named Mary Petrovich who, unlike her sister, did not run away from Raven's Rock.
I'm usually also fine, but I dislike it when an impartial narrator states something as fact. It's not just some random guy in the middle of nowhere but a non-existing narrator. Not to mention other violations of the canon... But the main problem is that many of the lore violations aren't simple honest mistakes but really stupid.
Again, what did you do for your history degree. I'm honestly interested. Or was that bullshit?
I had a specialization in Asian History but when I transferred universities, I ended up having to do my thesis on the historical environment depicted in Beowulf and the role of women as peace-weavers. Notably, I remember when I first turned in my paper with a talk of the horrible treatment of women in the environment, I was told by my professor to rewrite it as how the environment was progressive for women and helpful.
Events like this and my time working as at the University as unpaid and (barely) paid labor warped my perception of the Institute. I now cannot shake the belief they're a bunch of doddering academics who have no idea how to properly use the awesome power at their disposal, so they waste their time doing pointlessly sadistic experiments.
Specifics? Asian history is an intensely broad topic covering the Mongolian (and their ilk's) expansion, Japanese Genpai Wars and Sengoku Period, the Siamese Empires and the long history of India. That's only a small part. Then your professor is a fool. First you show him your evidence and wait for his response. If he fails then ask him about that.
You didn't go to an Australian one right? Because it's not so bad here.