Yeah, your only reason was "it's an unneccesary change". I actually gave reasons why it made Fallout 2 and the character of Myron retroactively better.
Yep, after making a huge walk from Lost Hills to The Pitt to DC, seeing countless horrors along the way and dying wastelanders who he had to ignore out of some old book, it's completely unreasonable for Elder Lyons to try to be more compassionate and helpful to the residents of the East Coast when he eventually settled there. It's completely unreasonable for the diehard BoS members to hate him for that, and break off to remain true to the actual BoS. Totally doesn't have any story value or interesting concept behind it. It would be TOTALLY better for Lyons to be another faceless, generic BoS operative who's diehard to the Codex and doesn't change a thing about their organization, and for that facelessness to carry into the F4 BoS.The horrors of dynamic storytelling, where experiences change people, and they have to deal with the repercussions of that change.
Uh, yeah. If you find something in a container, it's there.
Except the BoS in F4 was a blend of their original goals and Lyons' influence, as seen by the fact that they recruit wastelanders and have a tolerance for sane ghouls. EC BoS has never returned to the exclusion and bigotry that the WC BoS had.
It wouldn't make sense for the Mordinos to spend so much money on slaves for testing Jet, or go to the trouble of testing on slaves in the first place if Jet already existed.
At least they're not trying to do mothership zeta again.Thank fuck for that.
I think it's better that a guy makes a drug in a world where there is a bunch of crap going on, to capitalize on their troubles. It makes him dirt.
QuoteYep, after making a huge walk from Lost Hills to The Pitt to DC, seeing countless horrors along the way and dying wastelanders who he had to ignore out of some old book, it's completely unreasonable for Elder Lyons to try to be more compassionate and helpful to the residents of the East Coast when he eventually settled there. It's completely unreasonable for the diehard BoS members to hate him for that, and break off to remain true to the actual BoS. Totally doesn't have any story value or interesting concept behind it. It would be TOTALLY better for Lyons to be another faceless, generic BoS operative who's diehard to the Codex and doesn't change a thing about their organization, and for that facelessness to carry into the F4 BoS.The horrors of dynamic storytelling, where experiences change people, and they have to deal with the repercussions of that change.My argument is that they don't capitalize on that story at all. They talk about it a bit in The Pitt DLC I believe, and that's it. My issue too is that they don't like Ghouls, yet they do nothing to show it. My issue is that they have this faction that split off and they have an uneasy cold/civil war, yet nothing goes on about it. They completely shove down your throat that the DC BoS are the good guys, and you have to be with them whether you like it or not. There is nothing dynamic about the, and goes entirely against what the BoS should be. Even if they SHOULD be good guys, they should expose some of the flaws they have, rather than just give one line to them and that be that.
I have to disagree with this if it's randomized. Unless it's specifically there for a story purpose, or actually placed there purposely without the random loot being into play, then yes I would agree.
QuoteExcept the BoS in F4 was a blend of their original goals and Lyons' influence, as seen by the fact that they recruit wastelanders and have a tolerance for sane ghouls. EC BoS has never returned to the exclusion and bigotry that the WC BoS had.Actually not every chapter of the BoS on the West Coast was isolated like that, considering you can join them in Fallout 1 (and Tactics).http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Become_an_initiate
My main gripe with all of this, like one of you said in the other thread, is how they portray them in Fallout 3. As in, the writing was so bad they fail to take advantage of any of it. I guess I'm walking back when I say that, but other posts made me more or less realize some of the things they did lore wise with them weren't bad. Just how they executed it. I like the concept of the split in FO3, don't get me wrong. I like that one Elder has a sense of humanity, and other hard liners don't so they split. And like it was said (and something I never considered), it'd have been MUCH better if the Outcast replaced the Enclave in Fallout 3. I feel like there was so much potential for that civil war, and a mixture of humanity and some lingering hard liners, but it was squandered by somehow shoehorning the Enclave there instead, and forcing you to go with the BoS (if you want to complete the story properly at least).
Something else I hate about Bethesda's Fallout (more of a problem in Fallout 4) is how they've given pre-war robots (Mr Handies in particular) completely human-like AI personalities. It's like Bethesda forgot that one of the main differences between this universe and ours is that the transistor wasn't invented until a few years before the war, and even then it was rarely used, so having such advanced personalities in these robots shouldn't be a thing. Especially when you have the ZAX computers which were built to have artificial intelligence and had to be absolutely huge to accomplish the task.
is secondclass even cognizant of this thread
Quote from: SecondClass on June 13, 2016, 08:14:52 PM
*twiddles thumbszzz*
this suckedi expected at least three pages of popcorn-tier squabbling
Quote from: Verbatim on June 14, 2016, 04:39:58 AMthis suckedi expected at least three pages of popcorn-tier squabblingIt's been rather civilised so far.tbh it's pretty refreshing because i've seen/had this argument so many times and it never reaches a conclusion
Chris Avellone is working on Prey so there is still hope he could come over to Fallout when he's done.
YouTube
Fallout sucks and so does elder scrolls
Fallout 3 talk. 2ndClass, get in here
