Fallout 4 Won't Feature Ron Perlman?

[llamaRCA]

I'd rather they spent the budget on better writers than hiring famous actors to voice characters

 

Yes, I agree, and also maybe then they could hire more actors and we'd get less repeating. It's so annoying going from place to place and hearing the same actor's voice over and over again coming out of different faces.

[flamenx01]

 

I'd rather they spent the budget on better writers than hiring famous actors to voice characters

 

Yes, I agree, and also maybe then they could hire more actors and we'd get less repeating. It's so annoying going from place to place and hearing the same actor's voice over and over again coming out of different faces.

 

I don't know if having more voice actors is a good thing. As a player it is obviously a good thing as for example in fallout 3 I was sick of Paul Eiding's voice as every single old man but as a modder it makes it easier to make companions with vanilla voices (like the Sydney companion) or expand vanilla character dialogue without a complete re-voice . Still you probably wouldn't need to make a companion from vanilla voices if they had actually put some extra effort into them to begins with :P

[MartinPurvis]

Is CinemaBlend a trusted source of information? Never heard of them.

 

I think it would be a bad idea to get rid of Ron Perlman and the iconic quote 'War. War never changes.' I also think it's a bad idea for voiced Player dialogue. Just think how annoying it would be for mods, every mod would have a different player voice.

[peadar1987]

Is CinemaBlend a trusted source of information? Never heard of them.

 

I think it would be a bad idea to get rid of Ron Perlman and the iconic quote 'War. War never changes.' I also think it's a bad idea for voiced Player dialogue. Just think how annoying it would be for mods, every mod would have a different player voice.

 

As well as reducing Role Playing potential. Hopefully they'll at least allow you to be either a man or a woman, but you probably wouldn't get to control your age, your accent, or the way you imagine your lines being delivered.

 

I know I usually play Fallout games as myself, making the decision that I would make if I was there IRL. Hearing a character I imagine to be me speaking in anything other than an Irish accent is going to be jarring, at least at first.

[Krismods1]

Well that's lame. ._______. I wonder why?

Also what flamenx01 said.

[SayinNuthin]

Keep Perlman and ditch "War never changes"!

 

Of all the moronic, ignorant pointless taglines, that takes the biscuit. It's gibberish! Of course war changes and given the whole central conceit of the game is that a 'nuclear war' has all but hammered humanity back to the stone age, it is an epic oxymoron (which made me laugh the first time I heard it and bugged me more and more since)

[flamenx01]

Keep Perlman and ditch "War never changes"!

 

Of all the moronic, ignorant pointless taglines, that takes the biscuit. It's gibberish! Of course war changes and given the whole central conceit of the game is that a 'nuclear war' has all but hammered humanity back to the stone age, it is an epic oxymoron (which made me laugh the first time I heard it and bugged me more and more since)

I think it's means war never ends. In Fallout 3 the intro has the line (Since the dawn of human kind, when our ancestors first discovered the killing power of rock and bone, blood has been spilled in the name of everything: from God to justice to simple, psychotic rage.) which basically explains it as even though the world changes war does not we still kill each other. If you read into it it's actually a pretty clever line though it is a bit overused in fallout.

[SayinNuthin]

 

Keep Perlman and ditch "War never changes"!

 

Of all the moronic, ignorant pointless taglines, that takes the biscuit. It's gibberish! Of course war changes and given the whole central conceit of the game is that a 'nuclear war' has all but hammered humanity back to the stone age, it is an epic oxymoron (which made me laugh the first time I heard it and bugged me more and more since)

I think it's means war never ends. In Fallout 3 the intro has the line (Since the dawn of human kind, when our ancestors first discovered the killing power of rock and bone, blood has been spilled in the name of everything: from God to justice to simple, psychotic rage.) which basically explains it as even though the world changes war does not we still kill each other. If you read into it it's actually a pretty clever line though it is a bit overused in fallout.

 

 

Which was well expressed in Skyrim with the 'Season Unending' but care to try to suggest that war never changes to some primitives who found themselves an obstruction to some imperial ambition... or people on the receiving end of carpet bombing.

You see what I mean... The whole point, for me, of Fallout is the catastrophic stupidity of weapons of (real) mass destruction and the ICBM... philosophy? which is the last (no-winner) game humanity will ever play. 'War-Never-Changes' seems to be suggesting it's just more of the same. As I grew up during the Cold-War, I beg to differ :blush:

[peadar1987]

Well on the most obvious level, war changes all the time. We've gone from black powder muskets to hypersonic nuclear-tipped cruise missiles in less than 200 years.

 

On another level, not much has changed, and war is still the same horrible business it always was, no matter how we dress it up, whether it's the Mongols throwing plague-infected corpses over the walls of besieged cities, the British rounding up Boer civilians into concentration camps, pretty much everything the Nazis are remembered for, drone strikes wiping out entire villages... In that respect, people are acting the same as they always have, just with shinier toys.

[SayinNuthin]

In that respect, people are acting the same as they always have, just with shinier toys.

 

Deadlier toys, a lot of tribal (primitive) types have wars where the object of the exercise is to intimidate the opposition, so that the enemy will run off or surrender. The last thing they wanted was to kill people and incur a blood feud that could run for generations. so weapons that didn't allow your opponent to surrender was the first major change. And the last would of course be the capacity to render the planet uninhabitable.

 

While it might seem like war isn't changing for the non-combatants (who are going to be victim to any army not their own) this isn't the case in many places it was beneath warriors to hurt a civilian (just not cricket, what!) and as late as the 18th C. people would turn out, whole families to 'watch' a battle from a nearby hillside.

 

So the weapons have changed from 'scary' to 'if you can see it, you can kill it', passing through 'I can shoot your whole continent' on the way. The involvement of non-combatants has changed and changed again and the cost of war has changed. Not that long ago a soldier's chance of surviving even a minor wound was slight...

 

Does dying change?