Chicago area was already covered in Fallout: Tactics. I know some fans claim it's not canon, but I suspect the devs would have tried to keep from bulldozing it over.
Kind of sad, given that FO3 didn't have DRM, and the copy protection only existed during installation. You could bypass the launcher and run the game directly after install meaning you did not need the DVD in the drive in an era where getting no-dvd hacks was common. Then FO:NV screwed the pooch there by getting into bed with Valve/Steam, but it was from a different company. So when Bethesda got into bed with them too with Skyrim then I knew there was no more hope.
Because having their soundtrack is better than having my own soundtrack from itunes. My music list isn't necessarily lore appropriate or in character. Sure some players want to have their deathmetal background music but that just wouldn't be the same thing. It's like wishing you could have your own music playing when you go to the movies. Didn't like the mix tape in Guardians of the Universe and wish you could have put some 90s music on it? I want to hear what they dream up, the good songs and the bad ones. It creates the atmosphere. Save using your own music for some dumb shooter game.
And face it, the Ink Spots got a whole new generation of fans from being included in the games, people who had never heard of them before and would never have added them to their own custom playlist. And Fallout New Vegas without songs from Dino? That would be a crime.
I kept dogmeat alive all the way through and it was not very difficult except for the military base, and only because of those electric barriers. When your dog is better at killing super mutants than your followers who have guns, then why worry? FO3 was harder of course.
Re:with the graphite magnet solar powered star car
on
Fallout 4 Announced
·
· Score: 1
No, he sounds like one of the optional crazy ghoul companions you can have in FO4.
I don't care. HL1 was great, but by the time of HL2 they should have improved so that you weren't continually stuck on the rails with no freedom of action. But then I put up wiht it for the story, only to have it abruptly end and was told "please buy HL2 Part Two to continue". No thanks, they lost a fan with that.
In Bethesda games since nearly the start, you have to use mods to get the UI to be usable. Even when consoles were rare the default UI seemed to be built around having low resolution and lack of a mouse.
Steam got slapped back for trying to add the paid mods to Skyrim. I don't know if Bethesda learned the lesson though. The majority of their fan base wants the open source mods far more than they want DLCs.
Keeping the dog alive in some places was a challenge, but doable. Set yourself a goal to do it even if the game never penalizes you for it, and you just added some fun. I think a lot of newer game players don't understand this part about adding your own objectives or goals in many games being half of the fun.
Why do you think this game requires you to have a dog? It's in the video, but no hints at all that it was required. After all FO3 had a dog in its ending video sequence but you weren't required to keep it alive. The dog even ends up in the official lore (as having died at Mariposa even though I kept mine alive).
So if a ghoul was your companion in the teaser video would you think you were required to have a ghoul friend?
Yes and no. There were things I liked better with FO:NV, and things I liked better with FO3. FO:NV had better characters, but it forced a lot of false moral dilemmas on you too much. FO3 felt more open, world wise, no big mountains or deathclaw hordes forcing you to go through Nipton. FO3 also had many more of the small details to bring some life to it, like the chess set at the top of the raider infested satellite dish. FO:NV had better crafting, a reasonable hardcore mode that wasn't onerous like many of the survivalist mods, etc. FO:NV though felt a bit too civilized at times, sort of the problem FO2 had.
It was an RPG game, it really slipped through the cracks for a lot of people who thought gaming was about first person shooters. It was also on PC only at the start, so kids sitting in front of the TV to play games would never have heard of it either. It's a fair comment, I've probably never heard of even a tenth of all the JRPG titles out there.
Also if the game does takes 40 hours to play, make sure that 38 of those hours aren't unskippable cut scenes or running on rails. Modern games (which I hate) are increasingly becoming interactive movies with game play being scaled down, exploration removed, quick time events added, etc.
I really want a refund reason of "your game's design decisions piss me off."
This no longer works. It has not worked for quite some time now. The choices are now something like "always keep this game updated" versus "update when playing". So if a game has yet another snafu and a patch breaks it, you're stuck until there's a hotpatch. No rollbacks allowed, except for the few games that you can start and run without going through the pointless Steam front end.
It's an extremely stupid design decision. If I don't want an update it shouldn't be forced on me. Also when there *is* an update I would like to know what's in it.
Still have to jump through hoops to get refunds for older games that you got more then two weeks ago, even though their letter says to contact them anyway and see what happens. But contacting them requires you to create an additional account (beyond your normal steam one). If only I had a way to give those games away to someone who might use them, but DRM forbids such an unpatriotic act.
Wow. What purpose does GFWL actually have? Honestly I don't see the point except to slow down the computer, the first thing I remove in the extremely few games I have that include it. Is GFWL still even actively supported?
Steam has utterly destroyed the used game market. That's what game DRM is all about, not anti-piracy but anti-resale. Of course Game Stop wasn't a good player in the used game market, with bad trade in values and miniscule discounts, but it was the most significant player still supporting used games. I only got Steam because of Fallout: New Vegas, naively thinking it was like FO3 with minimal copy protection.
I was at a company that one time started a new marketing gimmick with the word "Synergy" standing by itself. The next day Gartner Group upgraded our ranking from the bad quadrant to the good quadrant by saying "they finally get it". Never underestimate the ability of clueless analysts to believe your bullshit.
Soccer has been around awhile in the US, generally something played at most high schools for P.E., even if there were no tournaments or pro leagues. At university there were soccer intramural teams in the 80s as well. It's grown huge over the years because we have lots of immigrants too and you can't shut out the outside world forever. It's also a sensible outdoor team sport which isn't as violent as American football or rugby or with lots of standing around like baseball.
Remember that 100 years ago these "traditional" sports in the US were also relatively new.
Of course it has jurisdiction if the crime is committed on US territory or using US assets. If, if you electronically rob a bank in the US then you fall under the jurisdiction. Of course if you do that at the direction of another country and refuses to extradite you then you can get away with it.
This FIFA issue isn't about cheating at sports, but about money fraud, bribery, etc. And FIFA is not being charged with any crime, but some of the officers and employees of FIFA. Belonging to a rich club does not always protect you if you commit a crime. The US does have stricter statutes for some of this as well, but any professionally run organization would know this and be smart enough to keep their corruption in countries that look the other way more often.
Sure, the US may be pissed at FIFA for losing their bid, but the US spent a lot of money on this and people aren't going to just sit back and accept the money loss especially when it's been an open secret for so long that FIFA doesn't play fair. You cheat and we lose money then we're going to get pissed about it, old lesson from the wild west.
To be honest, I'd be really pissed off if I learned I had wasted my time interviewing someone who had no intention of taking the job.
If you're changing jobs every few years it stands out like a sore thumb on the resume too. It says "hey, I won't be here very long". I'm not joking, we've brought up that topic a few times when evaluating candidates.
It is a distinct problem if you're getting a job in a different area. I know when I moved to Bay Area from San Diego, from a job where I was underpaid to begin with, that I really had to push hard to the recruiter how much I felt I needed. He balked at this, he thought a "40% raise" was unheard of. But he was an idiot because this wasn't a raise but a new job and I wanted something fair (after getting the job and dealing with him some more made me realize he really was just clueless and not just trying to save money).
But the point stands. If you're going from a high cost area to a low cost one, or vice versa, that one's current salary is irrelevant. Fair would be to start people off with an average salary of those in the company with similar duties or experience, then adjust over time by raises or the lack of raises. But it's not how things really work.
Slashdot Mirror
Chicago area was already covered in Fallout: Tactics. I know some fans claim it's not canon, but I suspect the devs would have tried to keep from bulldozing it over.
Kind of sad, given that FO3 didn't have DRM, and the copy protection only existed during installation. You could bypass the launcher and run the game directly after install meaning you did not need the DVD in the drive in an era where getting no-dvd hacks was common. Then FO:NV screwed the pooch there by getting into bed with Valve/Steam, but it was from a different company. So when Bethesda got into bed with them too with Skyrim then I knew there was no more hope.
I think FO2 wasn't as good as FO1. But FO3 reinvigorated it.
Because having their soundtrack is better than having my own soundtrack from itunes. My music list isn't necessarily lore appropriate or in character. Sure some players want to have their deathmetal background music but that just wouldn't be the same thing. It's like wishing you could have your own music playing when you go to the movies. Didn't like the mix tape in Guardians of the Universe and wish you could have put some 90s music on it? I want to hear what they dream up, the good songs and the bad ones. It creates the atmosphere. Save using your own music for some dumb shooter game.
And face it, the Ink Spots got a whole new generation of fans from being included in the games, people who had never heard of them before and would never have added them to their own custom playlist. And Fallout New Vegas without songs from Dino? That would be a crime.
I kept dogmeat alive all the way through and it was not very difficult except for the military base, and only because of those electric barriers. When your dog is better at killing super mutants than your followers who have guns, then why worry? FO3 was harder of course.
No, he sounds like one of the optional crazy ghoul companions you can have in FO4.
I don't care. HL1 was great, but by the time of HL2 they should have improved so that you weren't continually stuck on the rails with no freedom of action. But then I put up wiht it for the story, only to have it abruptly end and was told "please buy HL2 Part Two to continue". No thanks, they lost a fan with that.
In Bethesda games since nearly the start, you have to use mods to get the UI to be usable. Even when consoles were rare the default UI seemed to be built around having low resolution and lack of a mouse.
Steam got slapped back for trying to add the paid mods to Skyrim. I don't know if Bethesda learned the lesson though. The majority of their fan base wants the open source mods far more than they want DLCs.
Keeping the dog alive in some places was a challenge, but doable. Set yourself a goal to do it even if the game never penalizes you for it, and you just added some fun. I think a lot of newer game players don't understand this part about adding your own objectives or goals in many games being half of the fun.
Why do you think this game requires you to have a dog? It's in the video, but no hints at all that it was required. After all FO3 had a dog in its ending video sequence but you weren't required to keep it alive. The dog even ends up in the official lore (as having died at Mariposa even though I kept mine alive).
So if a ghoul was your companion in the teaser video would you think you were required to have a ghoul friend?
Yes and no. There were things I liked better with FO:NV, and things I liked better with FO3. FO:NV had better characters, but it forced a lot of false moral dilemmas on you too much. FO3 felt more open, world wise, no big mountains or deathclaw hordes forcing you to go through Nipton. FO3 also had many more of the small details to bring some life to it, like the chess set at the top of the raider infested satellite dish. FO:NV had better crafting, a reasonable hardcore mode that wasn't onerous like many of the survivalist mods, etc. FO:NV though felt a bit too civilized at times, sort of the problem FO2 had.
This is not your vault, dweller.
It was an RPG game, it really slipped through the cracks for a lot of people who thought gaming was about first person shooters. It was also on PC only at the start, so kids sitting in front of the TV to play games would never have heard of it either. It's a fair comment, I've probably never heard of even a tenth of all the JRPG titles out there.
Also if the game does takes 40 hours to play, make sure that 38 of those hours aren't unskippable cut scenes or running on rails. Modern games (which I hate) are increasingly becoming interactive movies with game play being scaled down, exploration removed, quick time events added, etc.
I really want a refund reason of "your game's design decisions piss me off."
This no longer works. It has not worked for quite some time now. The choices are now something like "always keep this game updated" versus "update when playing". So if a game has yet another snafu and a patch breaks it, you're stuck until there's a hotpatch. No rollbacks allowed, except for the few games that you can start and run without going through the pointless Steam front end.
It's an extremely stupid design decision. If I don't want an update it shouldn't be forced on me. Also when there *is* an update I would like to know what's in it.
Still have to jump through hoops to get refunds for older games that you got more then two weeks ago, even though their letter says to contact them anyway and see what happens. But contacting them requires you to create an additional account (beyond your normal steam one). If only I had a way to give those games away to someone who might use them, but DRM forbids such an unpatriotic act.
Wow. What purpose does GFWL actually have? Honestly I don't see the point except to slow down the computer, the first thing I remove in the extremely few games I have that include it. Is GFWL still even actively supported?
Steam has utterly destroyed the used game market. That's what game DRM is all about, not anti-piracy but anti-resale. Of course Game Stop wasn't a good player in the used game market, with bad trade in values and miniscule discounts, but it was the most significant player still supporting used games. I only got Steam because of Fallout: New Vegas, naively thinking it was like FO3 with minimal copy protection.
I was at a company that one time started a new marketing gimmick with the word "Synergy" standing by itself. The next day Gartner Group upgraded our ranking from the bad quadrant to the good quadrant by saying "they finally get it". Never underestimate the ability of clueless analysts to believe your bullshit.
They had to remove relevant PC games to make room for all their consoles games.
This is the first day that I've heard of Hot Topic.
Soccer has been around awhile in the US, generally something played at most high schools for P.E., even if there were no tournaments or pro leagues. At university there were soccer intramural teams in the 80s as well. It's grown huge over the years because we have lots of immigrants too and you can't shut out the outside world forever. It's also a sensible outdoor team sport which isn't as violent as American football or rugby or with lots of standing around like baseball.
Remember that 100 years ago these "traditional" sports in the US were also relatively new.
Of course it has jurisdiction if the crime is committed on US territory or using US assets. If, if you electronically rob a bank in the US then you fall under the jurisdiction. Of course if you do that at the direction of another country and refuses to extradite you then you can get away with it.
This FIFA issue isn't about cheating at sports, but about money fraud, bribery, etc. And FIFA is not being charged with any crime, but some of the officers and employees of FIFA. Belonging to a rich club does not always protect you if you commit a crime. The US does have stricter statutes for some of this as well, but any professionally run organization would know this and be smart enough to keep their corruption in countries that look the other way more often.
Sure, the US may be pissed at FIFA for losing their bid, but the US spent a lot of money on this and people aren't going to just sit back and accept the money loss especially when it's been an open secret for so long that FIFA doesn't play fair. You cheat and we lose money then we're going to get pissed about it, old lesson from the wild west.
To be honest, I'd be really pissed off if I learned I had wasted my time interviewing someone who had no intention of taking the job.
If you're changing jobs every few years it stands out like a sore thumb on the resume too. It says "hey, I won't be here very long". I'm not joking, we've brought up that topic a few times when evaluating candidates.
It is a distinct problem if you're getting a job in a different area. I know when I moved to Bay Area from San Diego, from a job where I was underpaid to begin with, that I really had to push hard to the recruiter how much I felt I needed. He balked at this, he thought a "40% raise" was unheard of. But he was an idiot because this wasn't a raise but a new job and I wanted something fair (after getting the job and dealing with him some more made me realize he really was just clueless and not just trying to save money).
But the point stands. If you're going from a high cost area to a low cost one, or vice versa, that one's current salary is irrelevant. Fair would be to start people off with an average salary of those in the company with similar duties or experience, then adjust over time by raises or the lack of raises. But it's not how things really work.