MarchUntoTorment Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 War doesn't change. At its simplest level, it's still just the desire of one man to cut down another; a natural struggle for dominance, one winning, one losing. The onwards-march of technology gives and takes advantage like the flow and ebb of a tide, but the core remains the same - one person gets to live, the other must die. The pain, the hatred, the terribleness of it all remains unchanged. And it is we who inflict it. War is a part of us; it will never change. Will we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayinNuthin Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 War doesn't change. At its simplest level, it's still just the desire of one man to cut down another; a natural struggle for dominance, one winning, one losing. The onwards-march of technology gives and takes advantage like the flow and ebb of a tide, but the core remains the same - one person gets to live, the other must die. The pain, the hatred, the terribleness of it all remains unchanged. And it is we who inflict it. War is a part of us; it will never change. Will we? As a struggle for dominance I concur but the 'desire of one man to cut down another' Sorry that's not war it is psychosis. Imposing your will, domination, securing your interests or acquiring assets are all causes, functions if you like, of war. As for killing people, and doing so in industrial quantities, that's called mass murder or genocide or ethnic cleansing or collateral damage or just business and if your society needs to demonize some group, other nation or industrial quantities of people in order to kill them, enslave them ect. etc. for political necessity, then the bad news is your society is having a psychotic episode. As I said earlier many 'primitive' people practice 'wars' where hardly anyone is killed. It's a kind of dance which is exactly why cultures like Maori of New Zealand have their warriors perform very scary dances. If the enemy can be intimidated "the job's a good 'un mate, home early for a brew" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboUK Posted May 13, 2014 Author Share Posted May 13, 2014 I thought Liam Neeson was pretty decent in FO3, better than Chandler Bing as Benny in NV anyway, even if the dialogue as a whole was far better in NV He did great job with what he was given, it was Bethesdas juvenile writing that ruined the character, especially with a female PC where some of the dialogue was downright creepy. A voiced PC would be less problematic if Bethesda could write characters but they've shown time and again that they can't, most of the NPCs in FO3 come across as weirdos and freaks, poorly written two dimensional charactertures of whatever trait Bethesda saw fit to attribute to that NPC. With a silent NPC you can treat dialogue options as just options rather than imagining your character saying it, you can't do that with a voiced PC and if Bethesda make that PC dislikeable or a moron then the game is as good as ruined, who wants to role play a two dimensional moron? I'd rather they spent the budget on better writers than hiring famous actors to voice characters (they'd be better hiring professional voice actors than movie actors anyway). Still it might not feel fallout without a Ron Perlman narration. Amen to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarchUntoTorment Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 I'm not passing judgement too quickly - voiced PCs can be good, referencing Adam Jensen as an example of a well-voice-acted PC. The main problem is that there are simply too many dialogue options in a Bethesda game to have them all voiced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooker75 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Kris Kristofferson did a hell of a job as Ranger Chief Hanlon. Still though, I'd prefer if they didn't hire A-list actors to read for 90 seconds and spent that money doing some QA so we players don't need to create our own bug fix patches. Take a look at the sheer size of the change log of any of the unofficial patches for any Bethesda game hosted here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdtryguy Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 So this time the player character Isn't from a standard vault, but a cryo-vault? That fits. With superadvanced tech like cryogenics available, why sit around, age, and die in a vault when instead you could just cryosleep for a couple of hundred years? Brilliant.The Boston cryovaulters will be in for ine heck of a shock, though, when they see their new world... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts