sephiroth_king

Ah, there you are! Sorry, I haven't seen you on for a little while, I had noted that you had the first thread. But thanks for letting this thread be. :) It is, of course, going to be a very long, tedious wait of 11 months. But I think I can endure it, as long as they bring the screenies soon. :D

[spoiler=News] 2/24/2011: First trailer is up, and it looks pretty. Have fun. 1/6/2011: First off, happy new year! Second, here's some screens on the new Gameinformer, expected to hit shelves January 14th, and shipped to subscribers earlier. It is not legal to post any screens, so the most I can do will be to scour the internet in hopes of someone else doing so and linking to that. Gameinformer say they will also post screens o their website, so stay tuned for that. 12/11/2010-12/12/2010: So to my surprise and many others surprise, Todd Howard had some strange entrance during the Video Game Awards yesterday, where a bunch of men dressed up as Monks entered a foggy stage with the background screens depicting epic mountains. Behind the monks appears Todd Howard, who built up the anticipation to what the next game would be. I remember shaking my leg and hoping it would be the Elder Scrolls. My silent prayers were heard and my week was made. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim will take place in...Skyrim, the land of the Nords. Already there has been much speculation going around, but there are already a few things that have been confirmed about the game: -Screenshots are forthcoming soon. I will post them as Bethesda posts them. -Gameinformer will be covering the Elder Scrolls in their new cover issue. I can't post screens to my knowledge, but hopefully they will be released online elsewhere. -IMPORTANT: Bethesda has created a new engine for this game. Yup. No more Gamebryo. [spoiler=Skyrim Lore & More] [spoiler=Uesp.net Lore]Skyrim is the northernmost province of Tamriel, and is a cold and mountainous region. Although it is one of Tamriel's less hospitable provinces, it has been home to both elven and human civilization since time immemorial. It is currently inhabited by the human race of Nords. The Aldmer and Falmer occupied Skyrim until the late Merethic, when the final wave of Nordic immigration, led by Ysgramor, finally drove out the mer. Skyrim is a rugged, ravaged place, the site of many past battles. The Nords believe that they were created here, on the mountain known as High Hrothgar. Settlers from Atmora made landfall here many times before claiming the region as their own. These spaced-out migrations often resulted in clashes with the Aldmer. "Out of this time also rose one of the most legendary of all Tamrielic figures, Ysgramor, from whom all Nordic kings are descended." [1] His clan expanded their territory, and it continued to expand and contract by winning and losing territories in Morrowind and High Rock. After quarrels from the rivalries of the Ysgramor clan however, Skyrim weakened and separated into multiple states during the War of Succession. Thenceforth it would only be united for brief periods. Skyrim engaged in multiple clashes with High Rock over its western Reach, a civil war involving The Wolf Queen of Solitude, an invasion of Cuhlecain's Cyrodiil, and wars with Hammerfell and High Rock during the Imperial Simulacrum. Architecture Skyrim's architecture is reflected in Bruma, situated in northern Cyrodiil. The buildings in Bruma are built partly underground to conserve heat, and are made with stones, with wood used only for support, and roofs of straw above the wood. These houses are essential to keep in heat in the freezing climate. Politics Redguards and Bretons are still giving resistance today, as The War of the Bend'r-mahk expanded Skyrim far into Hammerfell and High Rock. Resistance is mostly encountered in the cities of Jehenna and Elinhir, and of course, along the border to those provinces. Economy Skyrim is a powerful province, and thus has some wealthy areas. For example, "Solitude, always one of the richest and most influential counties in Skyrim, has grown ever more powerful, controlling much of the northern coastline following King Thian's alliance by marriage with Macalla, the Queen of Dawnstar. It has sought to expand its influence further by annexing several former Imperial fiefs, such as the island of Roscrea, ruled directly by the Emperor since Uriel V conquered it in the 271st year."[1] There are also influences from Morrowind, such as in the city of Winterhold, Solitude's rival, since refugees from Morrowind escape there, bringing new ideas, cultures, and stimulating the economy. However, Hrothgar and Whiterun, once places with powerful economies, have been crippled by floods, droughts, and fires, along with attacks from frost trolls and bandits. The area is now under the control of Jsashe, the leader of the local witches coven, and a self-proclaimed priestess of Lorkhan, although the area is still struggling. Notable Places Dawnstar A city in the north of Skyrim. Falkreath A city in Southern Skyrim. High Hrothgar The famed mountain known as Snow-Throat, where the Greybeards live and Shor created man. Markarth Side A city in Western Skyrim. Rifton A city in Southeastern Skyrim. Solitude One of the most influential and wealthy counties in Skyrim, rival of Winterhold. It is located in Northwestern Skyrim. Whiterun A city in Eastern Skyrim. Windhelm A city in Northeastern Skyrim. Winterhold A wealthy and influential county in Skyrim. It is heavily affected by Dunmer ways and ideas, being close to the border. It contains the Ysmir Collective, and the well known College of Winterhold. It is located in Northeastern Skyrim. Check out the Elder Scrolls wiki as well. [spoiler=Original Teaser Trailer Breakdown]There is an extensive trailer breakdown for hype-people on the official beth forums, and if anyone is interested in lore and trying to figure things out, its in the spoiler tags below. BEWARE, IT IS LONG. Be sure to watch the trailer before reading, or watch and read at the same time, if you want an understanding on what is going on. [spoiler=New Engine Info]Skyrim will utilize Bethesda's in house engine creation...called the Creation Engine. I will post the details about it soon, despite the fact of knowing some of its features for over a month and knowing a bit more each day...I'm just a little bit busy. So forthcoming: the released screens and engine info. Hey, Sephiroth, TL;DR nub! Fine. At least read this: So Lets discuss anything about Skyrim. I think a good hot topic will be about the New Engine, as this is the first departure from the Gamebryo engine in 6 years 7 years. Its been used since Morrowind. It is also interesting to see a release date of...11-11-11. It could mean something, but it probably doesn't mean anything. Who knows. The change of land is also really cool, as the temperate zone that is Skyrim is different than everywhere else; snowy in some areas, warm and familiar (ala Morrowind and Oblivion) in others. If you have any things to add or edit, just PM me or post it and I'll be sure to edit it. This also applies if there are typos in this post, I miss some things sometimes. Alrighty. Have fun guys and gals.

Ok. :) I'll get going. I have plenty of free time to do so. should get it done before my blasted finals this week

Wait a second, new development on the Gamebryo engine. Bethesda posted a tweet that I found on the Beth forums: "Seeing lots of speculation about #tesv game engine. It's brand new... and it's spectacular!" http://twitter.com/bethblog We may have a new engine, or are they simply using a brand spanking new Gamebryo with upgrades? Even more speculation since they tweeted that, lol. I hope they have the former. EDIT: Looks like its confirmed! New Engine! Victory!!! "We can now confirm that the TES V: Skyrim engine is all-new. And it looks fantastic." http://twitter.com/nickbreckon Oh hot damn, this is exciting. Can't wait for the screenshots forthcoming from Gameinformer and Beth's website! =P~

Already posted that in my posts above :P Posted it right after the VGA's had it, rushed here to spread the knowledge. Thats OK, though, hopefully the person who created this thread will change the name to Skyrim and post the trailer in the first post. Or, someone could just make an Official ESV thread. The speculation in the Official Bethesda forums is crazy, including the age old PC vs. Console in terms of power war, and an entire breakdown of the Elder Scrolls V's trailer. Speculation is endless right now. The only thing I hope for is that the Bethesda team attempts to outdo Morrowind, not Oblivion. Oblivion was a great game in its own merit, but the main quest line wasn't as great as Morrowinds, and Morrowinds map...I dunno, I just liked it better. Plus, there was less lore in Oblivion. They should try to outdo Morrowind as such. This is my opinion, of course. Also, this should be the last time we'll ever see the bloody Gamebryo engine again, but knowing the in house Bethesda team they upgraded it, its probably better now than both Fallout 3's and Oblivions ever were. Todd Howard said it was upgraded leaps and bounds, so this game will be epic, and probably just the game to have on my new computer build.

Thats what I was thinking. The ESV isn't the only game on my list this year, but its at the top of the list, that's for sure.

Here's the trailer for those who missed it! (I'm ignorant at embedding because I haven't dwelled in many forums lately, so sorry :P) Skyrim

Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim just announced at the Video Game Awards! EDIT: Release is 11-11-11! Good trailer for it, too. I'll link it later. Mortal Kombat trailer is on. kthxbai

The first sentence says it's a different building. Not even built the same way. For future reference, it might be a good idea to read it before you say something. I apologize for being busy and having a life. Don't have a ton of time to type lately at the near-end of the Semester Still, it does warrant worry for the current building that was built. Anyway, got some stuff to do.

If this is the same building I just read about, it just fell over. LINK

Whew. Long Absence is long. Was a tad busy with my school work, only had enough time to come on here and check out the answers. Nice and relaxed, as well. I find it very noble that you try to keep out religion in your arguments, but unfortunately (and this has nothing to do with anything at hand, and I am not trying to start anything here, but in my 6 years of Catholic school your arguments are very similar to theirs, albeit frustrating as it has always been to me. There are flaws with your arguments, fundamental flawsso lets start from the beginning. You seem to put a lot of emphasis on the fact that the individual with Asperger syndrome cannot develop social connections with others due to this condition, and in that sense, you are correct. What I cannot agree with you is that this person/child has 2 parents that know it and take care of it physically. A fetus is isolated within the mothers womb, and not a single person knows what it is likeit is still unlike someone with Aspergers syndrome. Also, many individuals with Asperger syndrome still has quite uncanny abilities that many people will never have. The fixation on a subject that they love is genius within itself. So I can grant you that they will probably will never develop emotional bonds but people still care about them. You can, I suppose, make a case that people can love and care for a fetus, but that's highly improbable due to the fact that said fetus is unknown to the universe. So, what, am I supposed to agree with you on the brain dead part? Well, I'm not. That's just silly. Here's what separates me from a brain dead person: thought and awareness of existence. Unfortunately, all I can do is argue what I am about to argue, but in the end the brain dead argument is based off of personal thought. So hear me out. People often make the mistake of calling something that can no longer think or function anymore human, due to this bizarre notion that the human body contains some sort of foreign entity like a soul dwelling within it. In reality, its all brain stimuli. So, if you are brain dead, then no, what made you human has now made you a mass of muscle and still-functioning organs. On a personal matter, I haven't heard this argument since the Terry Schiavo case when I was in middle school, which was a Catholic school. So, NO. The very thing that separates us from a dog or cat is the ability to think. There are few other animals that are self aware as we, but no other animal that we know of can form complex thought. Where does all of the complex thought come from? The brain. Where does the consciousness come from? The brain. Where do feelings come from? The brain. Where does every function that we do come from? THE BRAIN. If someone is brain dead, how can they still be human? Blood, body, and organs? Demonstrate to me that these things alone will still make someone human, and I will accept your claim. Furthermore, demonstrate to me that a fetus or brain dead person can think, and I'll except your claim. The burden of proof is on you. Think for a moment. If they are stripped of the very thing that makes us human, especially the ability of awareness and thought, how can you still call a human being a human being? In my opinion, no. That's not parasitic, they aren't forcing something else against their will to live. One cannot force a ventilator to make another live, it is built with the function to help that person live. There's a difference between dependency and parasitism. The difference between this and a fetus is the fetus is forcefully using the womans body to survive, whether or not that seems cruel to say. The women is not willingly allowing the fetus to absorb nutrients, this is all done within biological and uncontrollable boundaries, just like facial expressions. One could argue that a women can allow the fetus to live in her body, sure, but she's technically not controlling what is happening biologically. A paralyzed person isn't acting like a tick and living off of something else as a fetus must. They are using machines, which are unfeeling, mechanical objects. Also, the person is still an individual, they still have thoughts, feelings, and interpersonal relationships (unless they are completely alone). An awesome example of someone who is paralyzed but is an utter genius is Stephen Hawking, someone who depends on others to live, but doesn't force them (or maybe he does, but the likelihood?) Again, demonstrate to me that the fetus has thoughts, feelings, etc. and also doesn't act like a parasite and I will grant this to you. That's not what I wholly asked. That was the main part of my question. The second part you answered. And so what? You aren't making a very strong case, the question is, are you killing something? Complete DNA or not, are you not killing something through masturbation? Do they not have potential? The main reason this is a weak argument is that the sperm that makes it and the egg that unites with the said sperm are BOTH unique to begin with, and in that union become a zygote, and will divide to create the new human. To be of no offense, but this argument is arrogant. To put it bluntly, YES, psychopaths have feelings. Your argument seems to stem off of the human belief of monstrosity, or the psychopaths that murder people with no remorse. If this is the case, then you are only strengthening my argument. A fetus has never felt guilt. How can it? Its done nothing to make it feel guilty. Now, in general, if you mean a psychopath has no feelings at all, how can you make such a jumpy assertion? Where is your evidence for this statement? People like Jeffrey Dahmer murdered and cannibalized many he ate (and if I'm mixing serial killersapologies), and in an interview admitted that he knew what he was doing was wrong, but did it because he felt no remorse for his actions. Who's to say he didn't feel anger? Hatred? Love? Or any other feeling in his life? As a human, he probably did. Also, I think that if the fetus did have feelings, then nature is cruel. Why would something isolated within the womb have feelings? Just saying. Also, a definition: Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with abnormally immoral conduct despite an ability to appear normal. For psychopath: psychopath - sociopath: someone with a sociopathic personality; a person with an antisocial personality disorder (`psychopath' was once widely used but has now been superseded by `sociopath') In conclusion to this argument, I didn't know empathy was the only feeling we had. And, if meaning the other definition, then we would be dealing in sociopathic studies, which in the end has nothing to do with feelings, just antisocial behavior. And I apologize if I didn't see your argument as you envisioned it, and would be happy to revise my argument if you meant something else. If so, be a tad more specific so I don't create a strawman. Do you know why crack is illegal? Because the government made it illegal. Should it be illegal? ABSOLUTELY NOT. This is exactly like the prohibition era, where people weren't allowed to do with what they want with their bodies because its harmful. Why should a governing body have ANY right to tell you what to do with your body? If we made it legal, we could tax it and sell it in stores, and STRENGTHEN the economy to boot with the people that want to consume it. Am I saying drugs are good? Absolutely not, but I don't believe any governing body has the right to tell me what I can and CANNOT do with my body. And be making abortion illegal, this is EXACTLY what its like; a governing body telling a woman what they can't do with their bodies.. And do you think that will stop women who want to get abortions from getting one? NO. Its the same thing with drugs, they'll just do it illegally and cause more problems, more health risks, and so on. Lastly, demonstrate to me that a fetus is wholeheartedly a life, hands down, and I will believe you. The burden of proof rests with you. A human being is someone who can think who are intelligent beings who have the ability to form complex thought, gaining friendships and people who love you through complex dialogue that exists within human language, and lastly, someone who is not like a parasite, though they may depend on objects or people to move along, i.e. autistic people for instance need to be taken care of, but then again we all need attention and dependency in some points of our life. Collaboration is something that also makes up humans. Now, as to when a fetus becomes a human, I can't tell you. I am going to be intellectually honest and say, I DON'T know, because I am not going to be dishonest with myself and pull a random trimester out of my ass and say OH! ITS HUMAN IN THIS TRIMESTER! DERP! nor am I going to assert that life begins upon conception. Truth be told, until science figures it out, none of us know, and so I submit to you, I don't know. None of us do, its only a belief. The closest belief that I have is 7 months, if one is VERY lucky like my friend was, as premature births aren't always lucky enough to live. And my friend was the size of a can of peas. But even then, he was extremely close to death and said he was lucky, and knows he was lucky. But as said before, I can't give you any true assertion because its dishonest in my standards to do so, until proof comes around. To the next part, I don't know how you pulled the baby drowning out of that question unless its a form of counterargument...To be honest, I was truly confused when I read that. I'm not going to lie. But anyway...Anyway, the only reason why its immoral to kill a newborn baby is because of our cultural morality. In contrast, in Greek times, Spartans would leave babies to die that they didn't want. In my own morality, killing something which is now within the realm of existence and living with 6 billion other beings in this earth is horrible. Something which is no longer potentially human but now are human is a whole lot different that something that is in the process of development. That's my opinion. It seems that the last part of that comment wasn't really supposed to be anything more. Correct me if I'm wrong. You know why they are vocal? Ostracization. The preexisting notion within people that they are disgusting, demonic, vile women who wouldn't let that life live. I know of no woman that would want to give up a right to what they can or cannot do with their bodies. That's like a group trying to make circumcision mandatory, and some men being vocally for it, only because people ostracize and make fun of them for having funny looking penises. If I recall correctly, my father experienced being made fun of for not being circumcised, then he got circumcised and thought he was doing me a service when he got me circumcised. Its the same thing with many women, and like my father getting the circumcision because he didn't fit in, these women will go against what they did and live in the shadow of what they did only because people demonize them. Its sad. If people didn't see it as bad, you wouldn't see anyone feeling bad. But people will do anything to not be ostracized. Its human nature. So I submit to you that those vocal pro-life women are just pawns to the men who oppose it. But nevertheless, this was still a simple question. I wanted to know who had more say, I could give a rats ass about the right to life, I just wanted to know your thoughts. By the way, the woman has more say. Its her body. Just my opinion though. Slavery is now immoral and now illegal because you are forcing someone to be your pack mule against their will. It violates basic human rights. Fetus's shouldn't have human rights because they aren't of this earthy yet, and because, like I always say, they are parasitic. Anyway, I don't agree that all laws are based off of morality, that's silly in my mind. It seems,t though, if you imbue such things as Christian law and things like that into our constitution, or any law, then sure, killing Fetus's would be bad. But fortunately, in the day and age of sciences, its safe to say reasonably sane and non biased individuals who don't lean towards religion will look at what we know about the subject and come up with conclusions that won't harm society as a whole. As in not making it illegal as we did drugs and prohibition. Prove to me that it is a human and is alive as we know humans to be alive rather than asserting such, and I will believe you. Hell, the world will, and most likely your side will win. Otherwise, the assertion that they are alive on conception will get you no where, religiously believing this or not. We can just make arbitrary laws based upon a belief that it is alive. We know nothing nowI no not if it is alive, and you should assert the same, until we can prove such. Even in the formation argument, you cannot assert it is human unless you take into account everything that makes us humanincluding complex thought. Just bear that in mind. Apologies for any mistakes. Its getting late, multitasking isn't always fun.

(Make sure you go into the hidden text to see where I start from! :P) So what if it is a baby? I'm tired of these poor arguments from people who wish to strip choices from simply because they would wish to guilt the parties that would receive abortions. I need to ask--I haven't actually read any past parts of this thread. So I don't know if you've argued these points ever, I will admit this. Its late in New Hampshire and I'm taking a break from watching the Naked Prey for my class. So no, I'm not going to tool back until tomorrow because I have one early class and I will attain freedom. So, my questions: 1) Does this fetus/unborn baby have any interpersonal connections emotionally to any other human beings? Meaning, does it have an emotional connections such as having friends, true emotional connections to its mother and father, or having loving relationships with another? If not, then it is unlike me, a living human, and therefore cannot be like many other humans. 2) Does the fetus/unborn baby have any rationale thoughts, or awareness? Not much is known of this, but think a bit and come up with your own conclusions. Scientifically speaking, absolutely not. Born human babies aren't even aware of their existences until they are months in, and even then memories and rational thought is all based off of trial and error through a learning stigmata. 3) Is the fetus/unborn baby an individual human being? This is broad, so I shall elaborate through this: Can an unborn fetus/baby live without the umbilical cord? If no, then its is, again, unlike me. GRANTED, a born human baby cannot fend for itself, but it clearly does not need to act like a parasite as it is in comparison when inside the womb. 4) Is the fetus/unborn baby like that of a sperm? By this, I mean does this fetus/unborn baby have the potential to be something? If yes, then you must take into account every time a man masturbates he has killed approximately 200-300 million potential lives, and when a couple have sex the womens body kills approximately 199,999,950-299,999,950 sperm due to biological mechanisms in destroying foreign bodies, in this case the sperm. You must also take into account people that use condoms and birth control and see this as "wrong" because of preventing any said potential life at all. But anyway. 5) Does the fetus/unborn baby have feelings? This one if the most straightforward of my questions. 6) Completely detached from those questions is a personal challenge to anyone: do you enjoy stripping the right for people to get safe and legal abortions? Let me put it this way: making abortion "illegal" due to a preexisting notion that you have that these unborn beings are truly alive...is that a good thing? Women (and couples in general) will still obtain abortions if they want one, but in extremely unsafe and unsanitary conditions, and worse, horrid, HORRID risks. I'm not saying abortion doesn't have risks as it does now, but it will be worse if made unethical and illegal. 7) This stems from when I said "who cares if its a baby or not?" Either way, in your eyes, you are still KILLING something. But what exactly are you killing? Murdering me is different from murdering a fetus for example; I have interpersonal relationships, I am mature (debatable) and can think cognitively (debatable), hell I don't need to live off of someone else. So are we truly killing a human being, or something that resembles a parasite? 8: Who has more of a say, a man, or a woman? It seems that many men (who are either religious or conservative [not ALL conservatives]) seem to be against it without taking women's thoughts into account. In a relationship, both people should consolidate together, but think about it: a man does not have to bear the fetus/unborn baby. Personally, I think religious beliefs and some men should be ashamed of themselves for Guilting women and demoralizing, or worse, DEMONIZING them. So who should have the most say? 9 (Final Question): Without a cultural and relative morality, do you think that abortion would still be demonized? Without Religion, would it still be demonized? The reason why many think its wrong is because people think a soul exists and god created it uniquely. Its lovey-dovey and its a religious tactic to emotionally interconnect with the religious person (i.e., god made you in his own image). Think back to Roman ages, where abortions could still be performed. Much of the same was thought then, too--i.e., killing a human life. Nowadays, we know more about these subjects then they did all those years ago. Furthermore, if you free yourself from this cultural bond for a second, what do you truly believe? Take every question into account on this one, or many other world views for that matter. These questions aren't only directed towards you, but anyone willing to free think and answer them, but I'm mainly directing them towards you because I'm curious. I feel very strongly about this subject, and I myself am a male seeking womens rights to a safe abortion and expulsion of the demonizing factor in abortion. I look forward to any responses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHHEsMTeUYs :D

Anyone been to Vault 11? Absolutely one of the best gaming experiences in the game itself, and probably the best vault since Vault 69. :P But seriously it was absolutely awesome, the person who wrote it should win an award and given a significant pay raise. I'm 36 hours in on the new file, and still having a blast. Cybernetic implants are awesome. And I brought my energy weapons up to 100 because I wanted to completely affirm if I hate energy weapons and have to say, I love them more now, but the ammo consumption rate is atrocious and rate of degradation is pretty horrific as well, and that's with 100 repair. Perhaps its because I have use Maximum Charged rounds, but even without them the degradation rate is bad. Even with those bad sides, though, most were forgiven with the Meltdown perk, but the nerf is still evident in comparison to Fallout 3. Whatever, time to go blazin' with my recharger rifle.

Try to find a service rifle. Basiclly a semi-automatic M16. Another rifle is the cowboy repeater. They worked well for me when I was level 14, too bad I restarted my game. ewwwwww the service rifle. :P I just restarted today. I'm attempting right now to make many people happy at once...basically, everyone right now hates me. muahahahaha

You know, the only energy weapons I like are the Gauss Rifle, which destroys all, and the Plasma Caster. With the Meltdown perk, the plasma caster is amazing, and I will give it that. Otherwise, its kind of distasteful how weak they made energy weapons imho. :( I'm restarting the game in a bit with new mods. Can't wait. Should be tons 'a fun. :D I got the Classic pack from someone, and now I have the canteen; all I really wanted it for, and I'm playing it on very Hard and Hardcore again with a few awesome mods (the western sky mod is <3). Hopefully the gateless New Vegas mod will be done soon and the gateless Freeside mod, too.

I always use my companions as a pack mule, obviously. :P Being a Fallout buff I know too much. :geek: But I like to keep the major weapons and ammo with me, and that tends to be a lot because I switch around a lot. In regards to the DLC idea, I hope they don't. I would prefer a Grand Canyon DLC and stuff like that, non in relation to characetrs back in the towns tbh. Not rying to put down your ideas or anything. But my change of heart in regards to the subject of pointless locations...I discovered a [cabbage] ton new locations today and am getting more and more content with the exploration side, so in the end whatever I have said before in regards to boarded off buildings in such...well, a lot of locations make up for it. :D Even the locations that are useless...they DO remind me of classic Fallout randomness. Boones side quest was awesome, but his other quest is even more fun lol. Particularly I don't use Lady Killer or Confirmed Bachelor (though Confirmed Bachelor does kickass), because I don't particularly like to shortcut quests lol. I'm thinking of restarting after this first playthrough is satisfied, 1 level till I'm 30 and many quests and locations to go. Oh, and the Remnants Power Armor dominates you all.

The Mojave Wasteland wasn't hit by the bombs as hard as everywhere else. And even without that one reason, its a poor excuse because Fallout 3 had enterable locations that were marked. Thats what I'm saying, many (if not just a few) are useless areas; i.e., some random shack with an empty metal box...yes, I just found that about 2 hours ago. Fallout 3 had a ton of enterable places iirc, some marked and unmarked, all I'm saying is I don't like finding a town with boarded up houses that are inaccessible when they could have allowed the player to go down into a wrecked piece of crap ruin. I could care less if society recovered there, just let us explore the ruined areas is all I'm saying. Nevertheless, this is only am minor complaint as there are, what, 400 locations in this game? with some unmarked ones, too. I'm simply talking about the places that are marked with nothing in them besides a random gang to kill, and thats it. Bonnie Springs, for example. I did have a great 1 or 2 hours randomly exploring when I found a location within the All Roads Graphic novel, and trekked far, far ahead and found the beginning location of the novel in the form of a marked location and followed the road until the end. I got a reward for doing that. :D Leads to the Goodsprings Graveyard. It was really awesome, seeing stuff from the graphic novel. I also obtained a new perk that causes all items in my inventory that are below 2 pounds to way half as much as they actually are. Very, VERY helpful if you have hardcore mode on, since ammo has weight. It cut off 90 pounds for me. Its called Pac Rat, if anyone needs to know. ;P

Energy weapons in this game suck. Horribly. Friggin' guns are better than them. :/ Deathclaws and Cazadors are minor annoyances on Very Hard and Hardcore mode. In fact, that was my first playthrough, and the game was definitely a good challenge. I use AP bullets on the Deathclaws to drop 'em, and Boone uses his anti-Material Rifle in order to weaken Cazadors for me while I strike back. I also carry a ton of Anti-Poison when I have it and Doctors Bags. But yeah, its better than Fallout 3 in many, many aspects in my opinion. The only thing that could have made the game better would have been to add interiors to a lot of the locations where they were instead sealed off for whatever reason. I hope one of the DLC's will allow people to go to Caesar's territory in Arizona/Grand Canyon and have quests for the Legion. There's barely ANY. I understand it in the context of an NCR-gripped land, I just hope they do a Grand Canyon DLC or somewhere like that. No Area 51 though. Aliens in Fallout 3 already [bleep]ed up my Fallout canon enough. :P

I thought the story in Fallout 3 was mediocre and hero oriented non sense to be honest. you could barely be evil in that game. In fact, the story barely permitted you to be evil. Sure, you can poison the water and blow up the brotherhood, but thats just black/white morals. I'm deleting all of the saves i have and replaying it after I beat the game in a few. Reason? Well, I was playing the game on lowest settings with horrid lag, and then installed the directx 9 dll fix. Long story short, I can run it on max settings flawlessly. :/ I want a full experience, too, and make the decisions I would have truly made. I won't mention anything here, but lets say I betrayed everyone, including those I wanted to help. Who knows, maybe I'll make different choices, or more of the same. Nevertheless, I will admit there were choices in this game that I would have never made had the world been real and I was there. Thats why I want to replay it for the most part. On a last note, very easy play through on Very Hard and Hardcore mode. Or is that just me?

I don't know exactly what top say...other than this game is better than Fallout 3 in nearly every friggin' category. I'm pretty much taken with this game at the moment, so...bye. :)

Single player took me four hours on the hardest difficulty watching every cutscene...multiplayer is an absolute campfest with idiotic semi auto snipers and shotgunners. I'm extremely surprised by all of the accuracy in the weapons. This game just fails. The next MoH, if on does exist, better not be made by DICE and better be a GoTY in multiple sites, plus it better be an all star title. its the only way they're getting ANY money from me next time. That being said, I will continue to play the multiplayer to get a full experience. I've only played a half an hour of it. My opinion probably won't change that much the next time I post..I had a better time with the open beta. :/

I played the single player, I can firmly say that Greg Goodrich/the Danger Close team kinda lied about the length or are just generally stupid, because it took me 4 hours, not the 8-12 they promised me, and thats on the hardest difficulty. There's also that Tier 1 mode, which is basically an arcade mode like in CoD4. Its just...dammit, the single player was shorter than the friggin' CoD campaign...and the sad part is, the single player had a lot going for it. Rate of fire selectors for guns, the Apache Heli mission, the authenticity in the reload animations and the sound of guns, and the badass characters...all ruined by only a four a playing time and a story that jumped around in many respects. Thats not to say I didn't enjoy it. I just expected it to be longer. The multiplayer is as expected. I'm having fun, but its still generic as hell. Whatever though, like I said, I still have fun aside from being camped and semi auto snipers, but still do fine for myself. Its just disappointing that the damn single player is so short, lol.

http://www.justin.tv/mrbbg/videos It was this stream that completed it around 4 hours. He had to take the ending down, but he says in the 30 min video it took just over 4 hours to complete Thats the one I put in my edit link...he took it down after 4 hours because of a complaint from EA, he started playing it again later. As far as remember, it was trolls that were saying it was only 4 hours. Nevertheless, if it is only 4 hours, I'm pretty sure he was playing it on a really low difficulty. That is, if it really took him 4 hours, and I don't have a ton of time to watch videos right now, so I'll take your word for it.

Also, that beta argument is just as useless as the last beta was only a beta to stress test the server load while still allowing you to play around with a better build. You took a beta changelog from the first beta also, this one had no fixes as of yet. I have fun with it, but they need to lower the damage on the semi auto sniper rifles, and the shotguns. The semi auto snipers feel way too cheap, it takes me 1 to 2 shots at any range and its semi automatic, so you just need to spam the trigger to get a kill. I understand they're snipers, but I like their damage in the first beta personally; 3-4 shots. The shotguns keep killing me at long ranges in 1 hit. Its [developmentally delayed]ed. I can understand close ranges, but not when I'm a decent distance away. Most matches I played in combat mission were just M21/SVD snipers, and Sector control was a talentless shotgun and sniping fest, though I still did decent on both, it's extremely frustrating. I agree with Nadril on the recoil, though. Or moreover, gun kickback, I can shoot far with many weapons. They did release a statement saying that recoil is not something they can emulate easily. Or something along the lines of that, I apologize that I cannot find the specific link to the article they wrote, I will edit this post if and when I find it. There is also a bit of controversy surrounding the level system. Here is a video for the unlock tree thus far. Its a pretty small list, but apparently a new tree may unlock after you attain Tier One Warfighter Status. Hopefully this is the case, because the tree in that video is pretty tiny. Bunches of people saying that's the beta tree, etc... Despite my constant rambling, I do thoroughly enjoy the game, it's by no means spectacular or revolutionary, but I have my fair share of fun. The single player is where I think it will be at, though. Everyone who has the early release says its pretty incredible. Tier 1 mode, which is basically CoD4 arcade mode, might be fun as well. EDIT: Also, the singleplayer. I've heard it can range anywhere from 5 to 12 hours. Many different stories on that, I think they said its based on difficulty. Danger Close said 8-12 hours, so thats what I'm hoping for. The four hour thing is bull [cabbage], though, those were a bunch of trolls trolling when the live stream of the singleplayer campaign went offline after 4 hours because EA requested the live stream to be taken down. Its now back up in case anyone wants to view it here. I'm sure as hell not watching it. *restrains hand from clicking link*