Evil Genius

Your smoking analogy does not hold water. Smoking isn't considered a moral ditch in comparison to a game that allows you kill children... or rather not so big a ditch that whenever you run over it you damage your car.

Oh, by the way Bethesda didnt rob me of anything... nothing at all. Except culture (I can elaborate on this if you are so inclined to hear me out).

They even TOUTED the moralistic choices that players would have to make but I guess deciding what to do with a kid shooting an AK at you was too moralistic for some people to handle.... the nerve....

Thing is though I WOULD take advantage of killing virtual children. I would never have mentioned it if I wasnt going to at least try it. Having kids in the game would indeed open up new avenues to a whole new experience. You're not just killing virtual (and what you need to understand is that they are VIRTUAL) adults for magic numbers to pop up, you are also protecting virtual children from being slain.... for magic numbers to pop up...

Consequences. What better gameplay aspect to include in a game about killing people than punishing those who would kill certain NPCs.

Almost every character in that game had a purpose if only to fill the "void" however those characters had no real impact on the storyline nor any far reaching implications as a result of their death. I can even go as far as saying that there were more characters in there with names than there were with generic titles like "Megaton Settler" or "Little Lamplighter." excluding the obvious raiders, hitmen, monsters, mercs as they were spawned randomly. At least if child killing was involved there would be a SERIOUS hit to your karma and the resulting disposition NPCs will have towards you.

Think of it this way and I'll use an anime edge to it: YOU are immortal. You have inside you blood of kings. You have no rival and no man can be your equal. WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE? Without death there is no purpose to your being. You would have to create a purpose but then what? Run from self serving purpose to self serving purpose?
Likewise, immortal children have no purpose. They were there to only minutely flesh out the game-world. After I finished the main quest at that point in the game I found no reason to be there again.
In relation to Fallout 3 there is purpose in death: Experience; both character wise and gameplay wise. There were cases where death actually had an impact on the momentum of the storyline. (such as killing the Overseer in the beginning of the game) or so forth and so on.
Even in Fallout 1 and 2 (which I played...) children could be killed there was even some nice exp in it as well as the grand title of "Child Killer," which made people (almost everyone) hate you.

Aging children (and adults), while I did not actually push for this (it was something I thought up to add to the thread), it would be easily implemented. I mean... it's simple math.
When x (date of birth) + y (current date) = 365 then z (age) = z+1 ; skin=2 year old
I mean wouldn't it be better to actually utilize the passage of time they took labors to implement in the first place by having it affect the world?

Sims? HELL YEAH! One guy on the Bethesda forums actually went out of his way to explain the effects of radiation on the various organs of the body pointing out that there are serious problems that occur even with low levels of radiation in response to many people "asking" for realism. He did it as a way to condescend to the people who wanted child killing (among other things) included in the game and, what do you know, it sounded SWEET. All those things you mentioned: YES I would LOVE to see those in Fallout 3 but unfortunately companies cannot be bothered with creating a game-identity, especially in this economic drought.

Seriously though, despite the fact the first two games are dated, I had a MUCH greater experience playing THEM than I did playing this one and not just because of the child killing. Somehow the game world felt... deeper.

Superman and Batman? Don't hold your breathe! The chances of Bethesda gaining the rights to use those characters are slim to nil. :/ Also, there was a Brahmin as an NPC in the second game.

AO rating? Seriously... how many adults are there out there with gaming rigs? (pc/console) They alone would repay Bethesda's investment 10 fold. I kind of wish there were MORE AO games out there...

As the saying goes: The more the better!
Now SHOOT!

I'll have to be honest. I'm a bit confused with your arguments, since I don't think some of them are addressing the points (it might be because I'm tired). Now, I'm just talking about the necessity of the content of child killing, not the actual rating and stuff.

Dominion wrote:Your smoking analogy does not hold water. Smoking isn't considered a moral ditch in comparison to a game that allows you kill children... or rather not so big a ditch that whenever you run over it you damage your car.

I'm using the smoking example, because some of the comic fans are up in arms about Marvel's decision (the editor in chief's dad died because of lung cancer due ot smoking), which is a similar case to the Fallout 3 child killing. Although the two in context are not the same, the situation is similar. But I guess you had to be a comic fan to know the occasional quibbles that occur.

Dominion wrote:Oh, by the way Bethesda didnt rob me of anything... nothing at all. Except culture (I can elaborate on this if you are so inclined to hear me out).

I was answering in response of this:

Dominion wrote:Like I said, I really only wanted the choice to do such things and what do you know, Bethesda has denied me this.

I was about to make a remark to your 'culture' response, since I've never experienced a culture that lets me shoot a child. But I think you misused the word, and I'm not going to pursue you over that. But yes, I see what you're trying to say, you want a 'choice'.

Dominion wrote:They even TOUTED the moralistic choices that players would have to make but I guess deciding what to do with a kid shooting an AK at you was too moralistic for some people to handle.... the nerve....

Thing is though I WOULD take advantage of killing virtual children. I would never have mentioned it if I wasnt going to at least try it. Having kids in the game would indeed open up new avenues to a whole new experience. You're not just killing virtual (and what you need to understand is that they are VIRTUAL) adults for magic numbers to pop up, you are also protecting virtual children from being slain.... for magic numbers to pop up...

I'm not blind that I can't make a difference between killing virtual children and real ones. I'm just saying that it's not needed, in terms of gameplay. It's absolutely not vital that you have to shoot a child in the head in order to progress through the plot.

Dominion wrote:Consequences. What better gameplay aspect to include in a game about killing people than punishing those who would kill certain NPCs.

Almost every character in that game had a purpose if only to fill the "void" however those characters had no real impact on the storyline nor any far reaching implications as a result of their death. I can even go as far as saying that there were more characters in there with names than there were with generic titles like "Megaton Settler" or "Little Lamplighter." excluding the obvious raiders, hitmen, monsters, mercs as they were spawned randomly. At least if child killing was involved there would be a SERIOUS hit to your karma and the resulting disposition NPCs will have towards you.

Uh...you lose karma if you kill an ordinary person right (I haven't done it so I can't really comment). So you lose more karma if you kill kids. Then what's the point of killing a kid? What's the difference between killing a child and killing a normal person, except that you lose karma? What's the point? Are you trying to say that the developers would really make child killing more discriminate than killing another innocent? I hardly think so. The game has always been, 'you took a life, you lose karma' indiscriminately, and it would be regardless of age. If you're trying to use the argument 'killing a child would make you lose more karma than usual', in the game where karma is really not that important (except in slavers, and recruiting) than I don't really see the validity of your argument nor do I see having child killing content is necessary. I don't foresee how killing a child would have a major different resulting disposition from NPCs than killing a normal innocent adult. I don't think the developers would have made it that way anyway.

Dominion wrote:Think of it this way and I'll use an anime edge to it: YOU are immortal. You have inside you blood of kings. You have no rival and no man can be your equal. WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE? Without death there is no purpose to your being. You would have to create a purpose but then what? Run from self serving purpose to self serving purpose?

What the hell are you talking about?

Dominion wrote:Likewise, immortal children have no purpose. They were there to only minutely flesh out the game-world. After I finished the main quest at that point in the game I found no reason to be there again.
In relation to Fallout 3 there is purpose in death: Experience; both character wise and gameplay wise. There were cases where death actually had an impact on the momentum of the storyline. (such as killing the Overseer in the beginning of the game) or so forth and so on.
Even in Fallout 1 and 2 (which I played...) children could be killed there was even some nice exp in it as well as the grand title of "Child Killer," which made people (almost everyone) hate you.

I've said it before, there has been children dying for the sake of a quest (like the slavers), but YOU just can't kill them with YOUR OWN GUN. Whether or not cases of death impacting storyline is purely based on the developers developing a fill-in for the character you killed. You do realise when the game was programmed, it wasn't intentionally open-ended as you thought. Meaning that killing an important character to the storyline would make you unable to progress the storyline because uh, that character was important to the storyline? If you killed your dad, how the hell would he have made the way to see Dr. Lee? How the hell would you have gone to the purifier? Obviously, the programmers don't really want to go through all that trouble to 'fill the void' (replacing NPCa with NPCb to progress the story), because it would go onto an endless cycle of continuously 'filling the void' each time you kill a character that replaces another character. To save themselves the trouble, they made the character invincible. Newbified made that point with Oblivion.

I've played Fallout 1 and 2, and besides the 'Child Killer', there was none of the implications that you *wanted* for Fallout 3. It was just pretty senseless stuff and unnecessary.

Dominion wrote:Aging children (and adults), while I did not actually push for this (it was something I thought up to add to the thread), it would be easily implemented. I mean... it's simple math.
When x (date of birth) + y (current date) = 365 then z (age) = z+1 ; skin=2 year old
I mean wouldn't it be better to actually utilize the passage of time they took labors to implement in the first place by having it affect the world?

So...the children age, but the world doesn't age? The character's age is also static? Do you know how bloody hard it is to have EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER in the game age as well? What's the point with having children age? So when they grow up you can shoot them in the head? I was ripping on your argument about '20 minutes in-game the child would grow up fast' because as a result, the main character and the world around him should age accordingly. And no, it's not simple math. Fables tried to do aging, and failed.

Dominion wrote:Sims? HELL YEAH! One guy on the Bethesda forums actually went out of his way to explain the effects of radiation on the various organs of the body pointing out that there are serious problems that occur even with low levels of radiation in response to many people "asking" for realism. He did it as a way to condescend to the people who wanted child killing (among other things) included in the game and, what do you know, it sounded SWEET. All those things you mentioned: YES I would LOVE to see those in Fallout 3 but unfortunately companies cannot be bothered with creating a game-identity, especially in this economic drought.

Seriously though, despite the fact the first two games are dated, I had a MUCH greater experience playing THEM than I did playing this one and not just because of the child killing. Somehow the game world felt... deeper.

Superman and Batman? Don't hold your breathe! The chances of Bethesda gaining the rights to use those characters are slim to nil. :/ Also, there was a Brahmin as an NPC in the second game.

Perhaps you didn't get my sarcasm. Which is quite fine, since sarcasm can't be detected through the webz (and perhaps I didn't make it obvious enough). I really can't be bothered with explaining why I made the sarcastic 'points' I did, because well, I'm tired. And I'm not serious about Superman and Batman. Perhaps I should have said something that was much more obvious that I was joking, but I thought you could have detected that.

And yes, Fallout 1 and 2 were deeper because the actions you made in the town changed every time in the ending and have some sort of consequence to the town. Fallout 3 lacked that, and gave us a very generic ending. My criticism is that Fallout 3 should have been more like the aforementioned point, and also more side quests.

The points I stated were just my effort to promote a better overall gaming experience. What else can I say other than I try to get the most out of every game I play.

You're right though. I don't know how hard it is to program that shit but the concept seems simple enough to me.

Gaming has become apart of our culture. We have gaming events, TV shows, products and merchandise that revolve around games and almost everyone in the world has heard of ex.Starcraft (Halo might be a better example), which can be considered a cultural artifact.
Fallout is also a cultural artifact as it still holds a place within peoples' memories. Though Bethesda succeeded in making an enjoyable game, there was little depth to it all because they changed certain aspects of the game or left them out completely.

Lastly, a guy forbidding the use of tobacco in all of his comic books because his dad died is different from a company a) trying to make a moral choices for us or b) trying to make the most out of their hard-earned franchise.... hmm... actually a) is similar....
In any case, it would seem that people don't read comic books to see people smoking to begin with, however a smoking character does create the image of an injured soul, from a literary stand point, which would cause some people to miss out on valuable character insight.

Dominion wrote:You're right though. I don't know how hard it is to program that shit but the concept seems simple enough to me.

Mostly, it's easier said than done.

Dominion wrote:Gaming has become apart of our culture. We have gaming events, TV shows, products and merchandise that revolve around games and almost everyone in the world has heard of ex.Starcraft (Halo might be a better example), which can be considered a cultural artifact.
Fallout is also a cultural artifact as it still holds a place within peoples' memories. Though Bethesda succeeded in making an enjoyable game, there was little depth to it all because they changed certain aspects of the game or left them out completely.

I still don't get what you're trying to say and how that links to the inclusion of child killing content in Fallout 3. Yes, I agree with you to some extent that gaming is a part of our culture, but it seems you lifted that point out of nowhere when it has no validity or support your argument, which is why I was (and possibly still am) confused. I really don't think that there was little depth to the game because there wasn't child killing content. I'd rather they make it like the first and second game, where your actions made an impact on the towns (like blowing Megaton up should have been mentioned in the ending), and more quests that would have contributed to it. Would senselessly killing a child in the game contributed to the enjoyment of the game, if there was not really much implication or have the same implication as killing person A? That is, without the fan fiction content you mentioned and may I add, never thought of by the developers. Care to name a quest or anything in Fallout 1 or 2 that required you having to kill a child (like the ones you attempted to rationalise)? I get your argument about the whole 'disposition of NPCs' but there was no difference between killing an adult and killing a child in Fallout 2 (besides the perk you mentioned), and the whole town attacks you anyway if you tried to kill an innocent (regardless of age).

Dominion wrote:Lastly, a guy forbidding the use of tobacco in all of his comic books because his dad died is different from a company a) trying to make a moral choices for us or b) trying to make the most out of their hard-earned franchise.... hmm... actually a) is similar....
In any case, it would seem that people don't read comic books to see people smoking to begin with, however a smoking character does create the image of an injured soul, from a literary stand point, which would cause some people to miss out on valuable character insight.

I said that the situation was similar, in the way that people are bitching how content was 'censored'. Much like your case, when you're arguing that child killing would have 'promoted a better overall gaming experience'. Um, and smoking isn't always associated with an 'injured soul', Marvel has managed so far without the use of smoking. In both cases, it's non-essential content that has been 'censored'.

Eldo wrote: I remember Blade Runner (the adventure game)

Ah Blade Runner... best damn advanture game ever made. I played through it 9 times to see all the different endings, which were really completely different, not just minor. Also liked the fact that who was a replicant was always determined at random when you started a new game.

I shot Lucy when she was running away from me, you know, in the maze labyrinth thing? Wasn't able to progress because of that. Apparently she was supposed impossible to kill because she ran damned fast, but I managed quickly get in a lucky shot. After that, I couldn't play the game at all because there was nothing I could do. I had to start over because of that, which was annoying. Only finished the game once, and sided with the replicants.

Gaming has influenced culture to the point that people base their lives around it; casually or regularly. A game like (Final Fantasy) that has been in history for a long enough time to influence people it becomes a part of culture. When core aspects of it are changed, people become upset. FF12 had people who refused to play the game because it was different in gameplay from the previous games. These people voiced their discontent and have decided to not play it, thus changing how people view the game and perhaps even changing their lives based on how they perceived the news. The storyline in FF12 was some what of a current-political commentary where we have a larger nation (Empire=US) vs a smaller nation (Dalmasca=Iraq). Even if this was wholly NOT the intention of the directors, this is what I saw and it was a part of my personal experience.
Games can also stimulate people's imaginations. Immersion helps to bring people into the world they are playing by making them believe they make a difference. If the storyline is good (like MGS series) people begin to apply what they learned from their games to their lives (such as war philosophy and certain lines like "...we are both being eaten away by the karma of others." - Big Boss - MGS3) If a medium like a game can change people's way of thinking or even their way of living does that not make it a cultural influence? Anime conventions? Gaming conventions? These events bring people together allowing them to interact and grow the culture that surrounds their medium of choice. Who here doesn't understand what I'm referring to if I shout, "Orooo!" (it's KENSHIN)

You keep thinking that I'm saying that child-killing is part of our culture. I never once said that. It is but one cog in a larger machine. I was trying to implying that changing core aspects of what people have made a part of their lives/ or memories is not a good thing.
People expected a gritty, realistic portrayal of a post apocalyptic world complete with everything it would contain (especially since the previous games were able to have that aforementioned content). What they got was a long winded exploration game devoid of what made the franchise unique. Child killing was only one such aspect that was removed and it was a rather big one at that as there were many who found this unacceptable. Had child-killing been in the game I'm sure even you would have had a much better experience. I'm sureEVERYONE who has played they game would have had a much better gaming experience.

About the only changes you could make in that game had to do with killing; essentially since it was a game about killing. However, there existed virtual representations that were unable to die. What point is there to playing a game about killing if everything is not killable? Does that not ruin the immersion? Does that not blunt a person's sense of being a part of the game world? Instead of it being an experience it becomes a time killer (not waster)... something to do when you have nothing better to do.

Like I said I liked to get the most out of the games I play.

I should point out that there were actual political problems with the first two games where Interplay had to remove kids altogether from them, however the game never got banned and still became relative successes.

I'm looking at the game box right now. The rating says M for Mature yet their are children that can die in the game.

You've already stated you haven't played the previous two and I doubt you'll even attempt to for the sake of an online discussion but if you do you'll find that there was alot missing from F3 that was contained in F1 and F2. For example, you have the option of slaying the kid who invented Jet, Myron (sp?) in F2. A moral dilemma indeed especially when you talk to him.

oh yea and I used that Highlander example (the one with blood of kings) to try to get you understand the concept of immortality (in virtual children) on a personal level. If you see this you'll understand. I'm sure of it! Otherwise forget I said it.

I learned that smoking has to do with the condition of a character's soul but how else can smoking be perceived if you could name one or two. Here's an example of an injured soul: Spike Spiegel. Another one: Integra Hellsing (kickass 5th episode btw. escpecially with the dead baby... stay away from that one)

Hiding content does not fix the issue. Doing so only limits people's ability to come to terms with is considered wrong, depriving them of generating a philosophy that can be derived from the use of the mind.

So to reiterate; I say that child killing would have made a better overall gaming experience.
Do you disagree? On what grounds? Necessity? Morality?

Lastly how does child killing in real life make you feel? Would you consider confronting your views on the topic by playing a game that forced you to choose or is it a topic you do not care for/ would rather not have to be confronted with/ find unnecessary since you don't have to deal with it on a daily basis?

What the fuck are you fags arguing about?

Fallout 3 is awesome.

Dominion wrote:Gaming has influenced culture to the point that people base their lives around it; casually or regularly. A game like (Final Fantasy) that has been in history for a long enough time to influence people it becomes a part of culture. When core aspects of it are changed, people become upset. FF12 had people who refused to play the game because it was different in gameplay from the previous games. These people voiced their discontent and have decided to not play it, thus changing how people view the game and perhaps even changing their lives based on how they perceived the news. The storyline in FF12 was some what of a current-political commentary where we have a larger nation (Empire=US) vs a smaller nation (Dalmasca=Iraq). Even if this was wholly NOT the intention of the directors, this is what I saw and it was a part of my personal experience.
Games can also stimulate people's imaginations. Immersion helps to bring people into the world they are playing by making them believe they make a difference. If the storyline is good (like MGS series) people begin to apply what they learned from their games to their lives (such as war philosophy and certain lines like "...we are both being eaten away by the karma of others." - Big Boss - MGS3) If a medium like a game can change people's way of thinking or even their way of living does that not make it a cultural influence? Anime conventions? Gaming conventions? These events bring people together allowing them to interact and grow the culture that surrounds their medium of choice. Who here doesn't understand what I'm referring to if I shout, "Orooo!" (it's KENSHIN)

You keep thinking that I'm saying that child-killing is part of our culture. I never once said that. It is but one cog in a larger machine. I was trying to implying that changing core aspects of what people have made a part of their lives/ or memories is not a good thing.
People expected a gritty, realistic portrayal of a post apocalyptic world complete with everything it would contain (especially since the previous games were able to have that aforementioned content). What they got was a long winded exploration game devoid of what made the franchise unique. Child killing was only one such aspect that was removed and it was a rather big one at that as there were many who found this unacceptable. Had child-killing been in the game I'm sure even you would have had a much better experience. I'm sureEVERYONE who has played they game would have had a much better gaming experience.

Are you serious? You're attempting to use 'culture' as an argument (and weak one) about the child killing content, that was never a 'core' element to begin with? Since when has child killing been necessary in the Fallout series? Name me a quest where you had to kill a child. You can't? Well, it's not a core aspect then, is it? And no, my gaming experience will not be enriched because I'm forced to kill a child. Just like my gaming experience will not be enriched by being able to watch a person jack off in Fallout 3. Anyone in this forum want to chime in about how much fun they're have dismembering or decapitating a child with their weapon?

Dominion wrote:About the only changes you could make in that game had to do with killing; essentially since it was a game about killing. However, there existed virtual representations that were unable to die. What point is there to playing a game about killing if everything is not killable? Does that not ruin the immersion? Does that not blunt a person's sense of being a part of the game world? Instead of it being an experience it becomes a time killer (not waster)... something to do when you have nothing better to do.
Like I said I liked to get the most out of the games I play.

You're missing the whole point of Fallout. The game hasn't been about killing. It's about survival. I can name several instances where people have finished the game with a minimal kill count. And no, just because I can't kill something doesn't mean the gaming experience is robbed. I can't blow up a wall and I don't go crying about it.

Dominion wrote:I should point out that there were actual political problems with the first two games where Interplay had to remove kids altogether from them, however the game never got banned and still became relative successes.

You might as well mention that some European countries had the children removed because of the actual depiction of children. That's censorship in their country, not by the developers. What's your point?

Dominion wrote:IYou've already stated you haven't played the previous two and I doubt you'll even attempt to for the sake of an online discussion but if you do you'll find that there was alot missing from F3 that was contained in F1 and F2. For example, you have the option of slaying the kid who invented Jet, Myron (sp?) in F2. A moral dilemma indeed especially when you talk to him.

I know you're a bit hard of reading, since I've already mentioned NUMEROUS TIMES THAT I'VE PLAYED FALLOUT 1 and 2. Unless you want to quote me where I said I haven't. I said I haven't shot any children to know. And, and Myron's no kid (in the child sense), he's about 17, 18, if I recall, and you can kill people of those ages in Fallout 3, like the residents of Big Town.

Dominion wrote:oh yea and I used that Highlander example (the one with blood of kings) to try to get you understand the concept of immortality (in virtual children) on a personal level. If you see this you'll understand. I'm sure of it! Otherwise forget I said it.

I've made the point that while YOU can't kill a child, children do die in the game, like in the Escape from Paradise quest, where the child's head blew off. A child has died, not by your hand. So no, not invincible. Except most of them are placed in situations where they are out of harm's way. Again, a child has died in the quest.

Dominion wrote:I learned that smoking has to do with the condition of a character's soul but how else can smoking be perceived if you could name one or two. Here's an example of an injured soul: Spike Spiegel. Another one: Integra Hellsing (kickass 5th episode btw. escpecially with the dead baby... stay away from that one)

Drinking blind drunk (while still harmful similar to smoking), is one example of an injured soul that Marvel has used. Lashing out at others is another. For the rest, read the comics, I can't name every bloody single one.

Dominion wrote:Hiding content does not fix the issue. Doing so only limits people's ability to come to terms with is considered wrong, depriving them of generating a philosophy that can be derived from the use of the mind.

You don't need to be able to kill a child know that it's considered wrong, do you? Seriously?

Dominion wrote:So to reiterate; I say that child killing would have made a better overall gaming experience.
Do you disagree? On what grounds? Necessity? Morality?

Lastly how does child killing in real life make you feel? Would you consider confronting your views on the topic by playing a game that forced you to choose or is it a topic you do not care for/ would rather not have to be confronted with/ find unnecessary since you don't have to deal with it on a daily basis?

Oh boy, you didn't read anything I wrote, did you? I didn't go up in arms because you could kill a child in Fallout 1 and 2. I won't go up to arms because you can't kill a child in Fallout 3. Stop trying to make this about anything personal, because it's not. Similarly, I could have accused you of harbouring a mindset to murder children in real life. But I haven't and wouldn't.

Femto wrote:What the fuck are you fags arguing about?

Fallout 3 is awesome.

An awesome game that could have been enriched by shooting children, some argue.

If Eldo were a child in Fallout I would shoot him without giving the matter a second thought.

Femto wrote:If Eldo were a child in Fallout I would shoot him without giving the matter a second thought.

And if you were a hooker in Fallout I'd sleep with you repeatedly until you die and then I'll rape your corpse for a year.

You guys are crazy. I'll have to catch up on this thread a bit later. Heh, and you guys talk about me making big ass posts.

Killing children is bad.

Anyone find that UFO? If you have, tell me about the gun lol. It looks awesome.

It's kinda cool, you can find the UFO very easily, it's west of the waste disposal facility (I think). You'll notice it because you'll start getting 1 rad/sec while in the area and the UFO's emergency radio signal.

Actually, I'll tell you something that sucked much more in the first two Fallout games. In the UK versions the kids were fucking invisible. As a totally lame last minute "fix" to the problem of getting a game with child killing past the ratings board, they must have just deleted all the kid animation models. So any quests involving kids were impossible because you couldn't see them. Some map locations you knew they were there because you could see what they were saying, but you couldn't interact with them in any way, let alone kill them.

uncempt wrote:Actually, I'll tell you something that sucked much more in the first two Fallout games. In the UK versions the kids were fucking invisible. As a totally lame last minute "fix" to the problem of getting a game with child killing past the ratings board, they must have just deleted all the kid animation models. So any quests involving kids were impossible because you couldn't see them. Some map locations you knew they were there because you could see what they were saying, but you couldn't interact with them in any way, let alone kill them.

Australian version was UK's, and I was wondering why the hell my items disappeared in New Reno. It wasn't because of killing children, they didn't like the actual depiction of children in the game (as beggars), so they got lazy and removed the sprites altogether.

Hi, I'll just leave these here...





I wore that shirt cuz it looks like a perk. I've got more pics of the statue on my facebook, and yes, that IS a PIPBOY-3000 on my arm.

I took pictures of one of those statues when it was up in the Virgin Megastore here in NY.

They're pretty awesome.

Starnum wrote:Wow, sweet pics, Wolf. You have a Pipboy! That's awesome. Does it actually do anything? Does it have a functional GPS system? That would kick arse. Heh, yeah, the shirt does kind of look like a perk, good thinking.

It comes with a collector's edition or something. My mate got one of them, he's the guy who lend the game to me.

Its got a crappy led clock and a tiny compass on the side. The thing barely fits on my arm.

Just got this game for PC and I have to say it's a lot of fun being able to mess with the console. The Mysterious Stranger's .44 Magnum is OVER 9000!!!*

Also, the Operation Anchorage DLC is ok, after having played it it's kinda fun, but because it's all supposed to be a simulation, your time in there seems more like a mini-game. Not being able to scavenge dead bodies and only being able to heal with the health containers placed throughout turn the whole simulation into simple FPS mayhem, which is pretty common in almost every other game, so not that enjoyable after the feeling of novelty from getting the DLC passes.

*Actual damage is exactly 9000.

Necro!

Fallout: New Vegas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epFupigyIN8

It's not being developed by Bethesda though, is it?

It's being outsourced to some other company, I think.

That makes me a little wary of buying it.