Fallout series

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Star Classic said:
This is true. I think it doesn't help that Neeson doesn't ever add any emotion into his performances, that works great for a reserved character like Qui-Gon, but man James just comes off as emotionless in the game. His holotapes are also like the only time I have to actively tamer with my audio settings because he whispers in all of them.
Click to expand...
>IMPLYING said:
3) "I'm so proud of you/disappointed in you." (Megaton choice)
Click to expand...
I just find it funny that you can personally blow up an entire city and kill nearly everyone in it for no reason whatsoever and he's barely even mad at you, and then completely forgets about it. I thought he was supposed to be some virtuous humanitarian?
 
Serbian Peacekeepers said:
I must have the best luck ever, because I've honestly never ran into issues playing the Oblivion Remaster, and my copy is a outdated version I pirated months ago.
Click to expand...
What actually makes these remasters worthless is that they're completely hostile towards mods.
No titans of the new west just makes all the UE5 generic slop graphics pointless
1769814657921.jpeg
 
Boxless said:
That's hilarious given it's literally just the game ran through a retarded frontend. Why be so hostile to the one redeeming factor?
Click to expand...
After the thing with Fallout London and how long it took to release the Starfield CK I'm starting to believe Bethesda has legit heat towards modders. At least the ones not making them free DLC.
 
scathefire said:
I just find it funny that you can personally blow up an entire city and kill nearly everyone in it for no reason whatsoever and he's barely even mad at you, and then completely forgets about it. I thought he was supposed to be some virtuous humanitarian?
Click to expand...
Then again, the guy also left 101 in complete turmoil with his child in the middle of it. The panic and subsequent riot killed a bunch of people and potentially forces his child into becoming a killer themselves. Unless the player intervenes (or because they do intervene lmao) later on, the entirety of 101 could end up dying and it's largely the fault of Liam Neeson. He didn't have to raise the protag in 101, Rivet City was within walking distance, but he went to 101 because it'd contain the info he needed to get Project Purity back online.

If you hate the 101 overseer for being a smarmy prick, remember that he allowed Liam Neeson and the protag into the vault out of a mix of pity and pragmatism. Liam Neeson could come inside with his kid but he'd have to become a physician for the vault – a decent trade. Liam Neeson had an ulterior motive for entry, and he basically spent 18+ years building up enough trust to gain access to the Overseer's terminal and get the info he needed before fucking off at light speed.

Personal log 5:
Even in Vault 101, my work on Project Purity never really stopped. Soon after we arrived, my nightly routine included sneaking into the restricted areas, searching for... I don't know. Whatever I could find. It was a Vault-Tec facility, after all. The place was built with some of the most advanced technology this country had ever developed. Those excursions never turned up anything particularly useful. So... one night, after half a bottle of scotch, I broke into the Overseer's office. It was easy enough to hack his console, gain access to the restricted files. Most of it was garbage. Propaganda, spy reports, just plain rambling bullshit, really. But there was one thing, one name that stood out amongst all the others -- Doctor Stanislaus Braun. I knew of Braun's work, of course. He was a celebrity in his day, Vault-Tec's "Sorcerer Scientist," leaving his peers in awe of his technological wizardry. But it was in Vault 101, that night in the Overseer's office... I first learned of Braun's involvement in Vault-Tec's Societal Preservation Program, and his work on something called the G.E.C.K. The Garden of Eden Creation Kit.
Click to expand...

It's one of those things where the longer you dwell on things and break it down, the more of a prick Liam Neeson becomes. Like, yeah, no shit he doesn't care the protag nuked Megaton, he only cares about Project Purity. The only reason he might've become uncooperative with the Enclave is because they would've taken him off the project or something.

Here's what Li says about James:
"James? He was very driven. Determined to change the world. Well, we all were back then, I suppose. He was focused on two things, really. Making Project Purity work, and your mother. When she died, I think... I think he gave up. I know he wanted to keep you safe, but I think part of what he did was run away. But it seems that he never really was able to get over the idea. I'm frankly shocked that he waited all this time, and wants to try again."
Click to expand...
And in his entries, the way he refers to his child is oddly... impersonal? It's largely an issue of not being able to reference the character by name but in combination with everything else he only gave a shit about 2 things: the mother & Project Purity.

Log 3:
Well, there's no more mystery behind Catherine's health problems. The news of her pregnancy has lifted the spirits of everyone here, and given us a renewed interest in making the purifier work. We now have a future generation to provide for. The latest tests show that our methods are horribly inefficient, but I think we're on the right track. Catherine refuses to rest; she insists on spending all day in the lab. I've never seen her more driven. She's determined to resolve the power problems before the baby is born. I've tried to reason with her, but it's no use.
Click to expand...
Log 5:
The team has made plans to scale back our work once the baby is born. We're also trying to compensate for the increase in mutant attacks; no one is really talking about the implications of it. There are more of them than before. We know it, and the Brotherhood soldiers know it. Our relationship with the Brotherhood is straining. They're concerned by the lack of concrete results from the project, especially in light of the mutant attacks. They haven't come out and said it, but we all know what's going on. They're questioning whether their involvement in our project is worth the trouble it's causing them. They lost two good men this week, with three more injured.
Click to expand...
Log 7:
I am at a loss. My beloved wife is gone. In her place is my son/daughter, small and helpless. As much as this place means to me... As much as it meant to Catherine, this is no place for an infant. Especially an infant without his/her mother.
Click to expand...

TLDR: Liam Neeson has a particular set of skills. Being a good dad isn't one of them lmao.
(The bb gun for your 10th Birthday is pretty sweet though. One drunken night is all it took for Liam Neeson to hooked back on Project Purity though so I don't think his heart was ever truly set in it.)
 
Dorkwan said:
After the thing with Fallout London and how long it took to release the Starfield CK I'm starting to believe Bethesda has legit heat towards modders. At least the ones not making them free DLC.
Click to expand...
Bethesda didnt make the oblivion remaster tho, it got outsourced to Virtuos which is a port and support studio as they did ports like xcom2 on switch and worked on MGS3 Delta.
If anything i think its more that Bethesda expects way too much from modders if we go off of the Starfield modding scene and the attempts at modding oblivion remastered, they think because their games are known for the modding scenes and being pro modder in the past that the modders will come regardless of what they do but Unreal 5 put a stop to those ideals.
>IMPLYING said:
And in his entries, the way he refers to his child is oddly... impersonal? It's largely an issue of not being able to reference the character by name
Click to expand...
Would have been an interesting angle to view James from if they included details like not wanting to name the kid until after birth or not feeling close to his child because he has more important matters to deal with expecting his wife to take care of baby LW but that would require bethesda to actually write full characters and not walking talking plot points.
 
Replaying New Vegas, and I hate Daniel from HH so fucking much. He basically comes across as a reddit tier trad Christian who thinks "turn the other cheek" means any violence towards you is to be ignored. If you're a Daniel chud, here's specific passages about self-defenses:
“If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” - Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36)
Exodus 22 has a weird understanding of self defense (you can kill a thief before sunrise, but in the light you should use lethal force as an absolute last resort): “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed”

Turning the other cheek is more about personal slights, as in, you should forgive people who are wrong about you, but not retaliate in the same way, as in don't purposefully judge or slight someone who has slighted you in a form of "vengeance".

EDIT: Daniel is also a bad missionary. The Sorrows believe Randall Clark was Jesus, so in a way he's hypocritical as he's arguably damned many of them to hell if they truly believe in the false prophet. I wish there was a way to convince him that Joshua is right, but in the end it seems Joshua knows more of the actual King James Bible, while Daniel seems to be a protestant insisted on creating his own branch based off his personal experiences and views of the Bible. I also find it funny how they mention being Mormon despite the book of Mormon being practically never mentioned. I could just be retarded though, who knows.
 
Last edited:
Buster Scruggs said:
Turning the other cheek is more about personal slights, as in, you should forgive people who are wrong about you, but not retaliate in the same way, as in don't purposefully judge or slight someone who has slighted you in a form of "vengeance".
Click to expand...
I prefer to use KJV so apologies for the archaic language, but that sermon is preceded by a very important modifer:
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Click to expand...
Jesus is basically telling you do not stop at the bare minimum of the law, go beyond it if you can, and be an example of virtue to others. That is how you can become greater in heaven.

Which, yes, Joshua Graham is a better example of than Daniel, because by showing Mercy to Salt-upon-wounds, he has not only fulfilled the law (eye for an eye) he also does not teach others to break it (taking vengeance on an already surrendered enemy.)
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Click to expand...
Romans 12:19

Graham's righteousness and teaching virtue to others rather teaching them that the commandments can be broken would ironically put him higher on the totem pole than Daniel, whose acts of virtue are primarily for his own sense of righteousness which doesn't help anyone other than himself.

The issue isn't bloodshed. The Bible isn't retarded on the issue of self-defence, it's by and large an application of common sense in many instances. The issue is completing a personal revenge when the reason for fighting (defence of home and people) has already been complete.

It's very dependent on the denomination whether things are meant to be taken literally or metaphorically however. I think literal + incomplete verse is generally retarded and leads to a lot of bullshit because a lot of quotes are simply metaphorical and meant to emphasise the point being made that is left out of the verse.

A lot of Bible quotes typically have these modifiers to them, and many of them are more exclusionary than you'd think. The "love thy neighbour" passage takes on a whole new meaning when the rest of the chapter clearly demarcates between, "neighbours"/"strangers"/"vagrants" (in context: "neighbour" = fellow Israelite). Turn the other cheek in a vacuum is about not taking revenge, sure, but in context it's about how going further beyond with your virtue is simply more righteous. It's not forbidding eye for an eye, it's merely stating your odds of being regarded more greatly in heaven will increase. It doesn't even necessarily translate into you being forbidden from entering heaven if you hit someone back, it just means you're better off not succumbing to wrath, if that, but you're not outright forbidden from hitting a nigga back.

TLDR: Daniel is a bitch and God would look more favourably on Graham.
 
>IMPLYING said:
TLDR: Daniel is a bitch and God would look more favourably on Graham.
Click to expand...
Yes but also no, i would argue that Graham would not be on the point that his entire motivation is rooted in his hatred at Caesar, himself, etc. He even tells you as much during the final quest if you convince him not to kill general gobbledygook.

The problem is that Graham's outside motives are kinda fabricated, I'm not saying that he genuinely doesn't believe in helping his people or God, more that the killing of the white legs is less about the heavenly reward and more about the earthly one.

also they're Mormon, so...
 
Buster Scruggs said:
“If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed”
Click to expand...
Sounds more to me like a commentary on how self defense is seen. It's harder to rationalize a dead guy in your home if he's killed during the day because it takes a real idiot to break into someone's house in the middle of the day when the owners are still in the house, people in the neighborhood, etc. unless it's a shit neighborhood.
 
Star Classic said:
Yes but also no, i would argue that Graham would not be on the point that his entire motivation is rooted in his hatred at Caesar, himself, etc. He even tells you as much during the final quest if you convince him not to kill general gobbledygook.

The problem is that Graham's outside motives are kinda fabricated, I'm not saying that he genuinely doesn't believe in helping his people or God, more that the killing of the white legs is less about the heavenly reward and more about the earthly one.

also they're Mormon, so...
Click to expand...
Yeah, and if you don't convince him to spare Salt-Upon-Wounds he continues down that path where he mistakes his own desires for bloodshed as God's vengeance, whereas if you do convince him to show mercy he winds up repenting of his past misdeeds. He doesn't stop wanting to resort to bloodshed as the first option, but he does start showing mercy afterwards when the time for killing has passed.

The whole point of Graham's story is that deep down he's still the Malpais Legate, no matter what he's calling himself these days. He's just traded out the Legion for New Canaan, and he even whips the Sorrows and Dead Horses into a killing frenzy unless he's convinced to repent.
 
Last edited:
Star Classic said:
Yes but also no, i would argue that Graham would not be on the point that his entire motivation is rooted in his hatred at Caesar, himself, etc. He even tells you as much during the final quest if you convince him not to kill general gobbledygook.

The problem is that Graham's outside motives are kinda fabricated, I'm not saying that he genuinely doesn't believe in helping his people or God, more that the killing of the white legs is less about the heavenly reward and more about the earthly one.

also they're Mormon, so...
Click to expand...
I think you're correct to some extent, my point of contention is over Joshua's motivations.

I think he has a bunch of motivations all conflicting with one another internally but you can separate one from the other and cauterise one before Joshua becomes truly lost.
No. He } drove them out. It is one thing to forgive a slap across my cheek, but an insult to the Lord requires... no, it demands correction.
Click to expand...
There's an argument to be made that Joshua's conflict is something of an Old Testament thing vs New Testament thing. Just like the example I provided, Jesus encourages his followers to go beyond the Pharisees (Jews) in their righteousness, but similarly Joshua ignores the New Testament's words on how to deal with trespasses against God and non-believers in general.

Matthew 12:36–37
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Click to expand...
In the Old Testament, Leviticus 24:15–16
Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him
Click to expand...

Insults against God are grave, but judgement does ultimately rest with God, according to the New Testament.
Matthew 12:31–32
All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Click to expand...

Joshua categorises Salt-upon-wound's actions as being an insult to the Lord, thus a crime worthy of death according to the old Testament. However you are correct in that, in the end, Graham's motive stops being about solely about the insult to God, but revenge. Revenge not just on Salty, but also Caesar.
Don't listen to this... thing! His cries are those of a mad beast caught in a thicket! He gave no mercy to my family, and I will give none to his.
Click to expand...

By sparing Salt-upon-wounds, you also protect Graham from committing the gravest sin there is: using the Lord's name in vain.
Exodus 20:7
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Click to expand...

By using God's name to justify his revenge, he's effectively committing the most unjustifiable act there is. By sparing Salt-upon-wounds, you're pretty much saving Graham's soul. Judgement is reserved with God, something that not only is reinforced by the Archangel Michael:
Jude 1:9
Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil… durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee
Click to expand...
But something Joshua acknowledges himself:
A day will come when our Lord returns to judge us all. Until then, we must honor his laws and start others along the path of salvation if we can.
Click to expand...
Joshua will fail to honor the laws of God if he carried out the execution of Salt. The player, regardless of whether they believe or not, helps recentre Graham.

Joshua, as a servant and teacher of God, is also allowed to carry out Judgement, so long as said judgement is done in the actual law of God and not his own feelings i.e. carried out in vain.
Romans 13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain
Click to expand...
Romans 12:19
Avenge not yourselves… Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Click to expand...

Regarding self-defence from invasion, there's verses in Nehemiah which support it, even endorse it, when it's done on behalf of protecting others.
Nehemiah 4:14
be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses.
Click to expand...
Nehemiah 4:17–18
They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens… every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon.
Click to expand...
And Proverbs contains a verse that basically says to defend the innocent and not participating in the fight itself.
Proverbs 24:11
Deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain.
Click to expand...

Daniel, meanwhile, depending how you view him, does not have a pleasant afterlife to look forward to.
Revelation 21:8 Yes, this verse comes after the waters of life verse from Fallout 3
But the fearful, and unbelieving… shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone…
Click to expand...
In this context, the word "fearful" comes from the Greek word "deiloi," which means those who avoid their duty out of fear. If you perceive Daniel as someone who prefers to abandon Zion out of fear of carrying out his duty, then he's a lesser Christian than Graham.

And according to Timothy, cowardice is unnatural to Godly life, and not something God instils within people.
2 Timothy 1:7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind
Click to expand...

TLDR: Joshua has a righteous motivation and an unrighteous one. Preventing him from fighting at all is arguably unrighteous but so is having him kill Salt-upon-wounds to satisfy his revenge. It's more moral to sin and teach others not to do it than to sin and encourage others to do it, which Graham does if he kills Salt-upon-wounds. Daniel is not instilling virtue by discouraging self-defence, he is actively encouraging unnatural and ungodly cowardice by fleeing Zion. Daniel's dissatisfaction in all his endings says a lot about him, since it means he values his own assessment over the Lord's.

Regarding the Mormon thing:
Romans 2:14–16
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness…
In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ…
Click to expand...
They'll still be judged by Christ, right, but so long as they've lived by the law (whether they know it or not) and haven't done any super egregious shit, it's possible Graham, regardless of whether or not you view Mormons as true Christians, can still achieve entry into heaven due to acting in accordance to the law of God and being of a favourable disposition.

Taking the fact this is a post-apocalypse however into account, here's an interesting verse in Luke:

Luke 12:47–48
That servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself… shall be beaten with many stripes.
But he that knew not… shall be beaten with few stripes.
Click to expand...
Basically, Judgment is proportional to knowledge, right? If Joshua isn't aware that Mormonism isn't a deviation, then it's less of a mark against him than someone who is fully aware but actively rejects. Unless Joshua is fully aware of the entire history of Christianity itself, to him, Mormonism is the true branch of Christianity, and his ignorance wouldn't be held against him.

Sorry for all this, I'm not even religious. I just find the topic interesting.
 
>IMPLYING said:
Regarding the Mormon thing:
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking, not only is there 200 (300) years in the way, but they may not even have started as Mormons (as we know them).
There's soft splits in the timeline well before Fat Man and Little Boy blow up so hard that the timeline hardforks from our own, and they could have heavily deviated to the point of not having their faith affixed with dubious.
 
>IMPLYING said:
Revenge not just on Salty, but also Caesar.
Click to expand...
I would also like to include that Graham's vengeance upon Caesar is also a proxy revenge on himself. Which in turn is an additional layer of taking God's judgement into his own hand, and that by letting go (almost like they have themes in the writing or something), he can find it in himself to not continue in the essentially masochistic martyr complex he's developed in a quest to make up for the crimes he committed as the Malpais Legate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom