[QUOTE="Grive"]And you're claiming that there is absoluely nothing else in fallout that is unique to both games?Vandalvideo

As for the atmosphere, my begging the question example is a mistake, you're right. The overall argument still stands. If we limit ourselves to the atmosphere: Post apocalyptic, retro-50's future, a dark satire. The prevailing mood is created by the effects of the government's vault experiment in said future, along with those of nuclear radiation. Fallout has it. Nothing else has. Fallout 3 fulfills all these.But let's play your game. Under your definition, the Fallout on your head is not fallout. Dark humor? not unique to Fallout. Light satirical story? Not unique to fallout. Deep consequence system? not unique to fallout. The story? well it's different between Fallout 1 and 2, it can't be part of the atmosphere. Or you're implying that the specific application of each of these is what makes fallout? Hmm. Then there are variations on all these between Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. Minor, to be certain, but if there are any, and you're accepting Fallout 2, then you are implicitly accepting that there can be variation. Where are the boundaries on these variations? Can you objectively pinpoint them? I'll save you the answer: No. It will be a subjective assessment.

You didn't answer my question.

Heck, you sidestepped my argument. I can safely assume you don't have a valid answer, since you don't seem to have. Right now, you're parroting your initial, subjective assessments as objective truth.

I was right, then. There was little to add here.

Those four screens are... terribly underwhelming in the Epicness department. Only the fourth even seems to be generally acquainted with Epicness.

Not saying MGS4 isn't epic at all, just that those aren't a good way of showing it.

*snip snip*Vandalvideo

And you're claiming that there is absoluely nothing else in fallout that is unique to both games?

If you can honestly assert that, then your argument stands. If you don't, your argument falls to the ground quite harshly.

And no, I don't mean implicitly. I asked you a direct question.

As for the atmosphere, my begging the question example is a mistake, you're right. The overall argument still stands.

If we limit ourselves to the atmosphere: Post apocalyptic, retro-50's future, a dark satire. The prevailing mood is created by the effects of the government's vault experiment in said future, along with those of nuclear radiation. Fallout has it. Nothing else has. Fallout 3 fulfills all these.

But let's play your game. Under your definition, the Fallout on your head is not fallout. Dark humor? not unique to Fallout. Light satirical story? Not unique to fallout. Deep consequence system? not unique to fallout. The story? well it's different between Fallout 1 and 2, it can't be part of the atmosphere. Or you're implying that the specific application of each of these is what makes fallout? Hmm. Then there are variations on all these between Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. Minor, to be certain, but if there are any, and you're accepting Fallout 2, then you are implicitly accepting that there can be variation.

Where are the boundaries on these variations? Can you objectively pinpoint them? I'll save you the answer: No. It will be a subjective assessment.

[QUOTE="Grive"]There is a set of elements that you personally attribute as essential to the fallout franchise.There is another set, which partially overlaps your own, and that someone else (not you!) attribute as essential to the fallout franchise.Now, can you see how it is even possible that someone else (as in, someone who isn't you) might consider Fallout 3 to be a worthy successor to Fallout 1 & 2?Or once again, do you believe that your personal experience and expectations of what made Fallout 1 and 2 what they were have to be the standard for everyone else on planet earth (and likely, beyond?). Vandalvideo

You are using your personal experience. You're just rimshooting "the most reputable source of the english language" in the world to discredit any possible argument.

You're arguing that your perception of what "set" the atmosphere in Fallout, and that your limited perception of what Fallout 3 will include will not be able to live up to that. So far, so good.

However, you're also explicitly stating that nobody else is allowed to have a different set of characteristics unique to Fallout that they consider essential to the game.

I could simply kill your argument with a claim of petitio principii (begging the question).

"The atmosphere of fallout is essential to what Fallout is. The current fallout, according to Oxford, does not have the same atmosphere. Thus, this is not worthy of the name fallout".

There is a problem in the first proposition.

That atmosphere is integral to what "fallout" is. This is not true on the very basis that we're talking about a subjective assessment of importance. Yours can be different from mine without either one being wrong..

Your thumping of the dictionary seems like nothing but a rather cheap attempt to cover this through a definition that doesn't really matter.

However, we can go further: "From a purely objective point of view, the things that define fallout are; dark humour, light satirical story, deep consequence system, and its story".

This is flat out incorrect. You cannot claim that what made fallout for you is an objective assessment. Just because you find a partial subset of elements common to both games appealing doesn't mean they're the only elements common, or that they're the essential ones.

These are great news.

SNK-Playmore, please, put all them titles on XBL. Heck, would it be possible to release an "official" emulator for 360, price it 800 points with a game included, and then just put up roms there for, say, 400-600? I'd bite. A lot of times. I have a credit card, the limit is decently high.

Pretty please? Pretty, pretty please with sugar on top?

Waiting for KoF2002, thanks to my irrational love for that game and it's weird blonde pirate mexican wrassler.

[QUOTE="Grive"]So you were saying it, then.Yes, this is quite scary. I don't think there is much that can be added to this.Vandalvideo

Once again, you're saying it. To quote you, "I'll set it out nice and clear to you":

There is a set of elements that you personally attribute as essential to the fallout franchise.

There is another set, which partially overlaps your own, and that someone else (not you!) attribute as essential to the fallout franchise.

Now, can you see how it is even possible that someone else (as in, someone who isn't you) might consider Fallout 3 to be a worthy successor to Fallout 1 & 2?

Or once again, do you believe that your personal experience and expectations of what made Fallout 1 and 2 what they were have to be the standard for everyone else on planet earth (and likely, beyond?).

[QUOTE="Grive"]So you are saying it, then. Vandalvideo

So you were saying it, then.

Yes, this is quite scary.

I don't think there is much that can be added to this.

Actually, the Arcade is the only x360 model I would buy today. If you buy an Arcade + the upcoming starter kit (or what it's called) @ $99 you get a 60 GB HDD, headset, ethernet cable, 3 months XBL gold etc. So for the same price as a Pro you get a 256 MB memcard and 3 months gold as a bonus, and you don't have to spend more than $200 to get started. The only thing you miss out on is the component cable... but that's not a problem if you plan to use HDMI anyways.

The $99 package is called "Xbox 360 60GB LIVE Starter Pack" and contains:

· 60GB Hard Drive

· 3 Months of Xbox Live

· Xbox 360 Wired Headset

· Xbox 360 Ethernet Cable (same one that is included with Pro and Elite)

Pretty sweet deal.

Pripyat

Wait, is there confirmation of that pack?

I haven't heard anything of it and it sounds quite sweet.

Not to mention, you also save a buck over the pro :P

[QUOTE="Grive"]So you are proposing that your experience when playing Fallout and Fallout 2 is objective? That it's absolutely impossible for anyone else to have found something else that appears in both games, and that defined Fallout for him? Vandalvideo

So you are saying it, then.

So 4 player coop makes it better?

Its not as if 4 player coop made Halo 3s singleplayer campaign any better than the 'meh' it was.

Unless coop is completely in mind when designing the game, its not going to add much, and probably ruin some of the experience - detracting from singleplayer immersion.

What is a good coop game that has singleplayer?

Armed Assault / Operation Flashpoint works perfectly because of its design nature.

A good dedicated coop game?

Left 4 Dead seems like how it should be done.
There are loads of mods out there, specifically for coop, that deliver excellent experiences.

Just dumping more players into your single-player missions does not make the feature good, or the game better.

Just like a bigger player count in a multiplayer game doesent make it a better game.

skrat_01

Yes, yes it does.

More people around a couch monkeying around, in my experience, has improved every single game I have ever played that allowed it.