Independent New Vegas : Fallout: New Vegas

» Wed May 02, 2012 11:28 pm

I entered the discussion when Tranquilus stated that the BoS annihilation was completely justified.
The OP is about whether the Indy ending was satisfying enough, or not.

» Thu May 03, 2012 2:27 am

And they will never be again, as they are lacking the sheer numbers, more than ever.
And as we know, the codex will maintain this Status Quo.
I know, you are constantly ignoring that fact, because you don't have a valid point against it, but that won't stop me from reminding you :wink:

Eh, I actually did address this, when I mentioned that (a) what makes them not a threat now is partially a psychological impediment, and (b ) a group of highly-trained PA warriors can cause a lot of havoc, ala the Remnants at Hoover Dam. You can disagree with me, but don't imply that I'm being disingenious.

Come on dude. I haven't been condescending or snide (in this thread). I only ask the same courtesy of you.

That is highly questionable. a lot of historical sources indicate, that Japan was already willing to capitulate.
With the first bomb you could have argued, no one really knew what would happen exactly.
The bomb on Nagasaki was not more than cynical field research.
Ask the ten thousands of survivors who died slowly and horribly afterwards about the 'good', even decades after...

Hm, everything I've read about the end stages of the war in the Pacific suggests that the Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man and cause as many Allied casualties as possible going down. I'll direct you to the WP page for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall, in particular the Operation Ketsugo and estimated casualties sections. The atomic bombs convinced the Japanese (or at least the pro-final-stand clique) against that particular course of action.

I say 'bombs' in the plural because Nagasaki said 'there's more where that came from'. But really this is splitting hairs. Even if nothing good, period, came out of the bombing of Nagasaki you'd still have to concede that the bombing of Hiroshima was no less of a huge tragedy, but still saved hundreds of thousands of other lives. Which was the point of my bringing it up.

You have nothing to back that claim up, other than an urgent need to justify a little mass murder :no:

I thought it was a reasonable extrapolation, but obviously it's possible that I've thought about it the wrong way. Are you going to point out which parts were implausible, or are you just going to leave it as 'NO U'?

Yeah, i've seen enough of him, too. Obviously my observations were a bit different.
House doesn't know moral categories. The only thing he cares about, is securing his own position.
That's the reason, why he employs the snuff-affine Omertas, why he doens't give a damn sh** about everything outside the Strip, and why he wants the BoS exterminated.
The slightest possible chance of a danger is enough for him to extinguish other peoples lives.
On the other hand, he pays no attention to what's happening in his own yard, as longs as the caps are rolling.
The usual behaviour of a, let's use the term applied in the end slide to him, Tyrant.

Of course he's an amoral tyrant. I never implied otherwise. But the reason I said he probably wouldn't use violence unless it was necessary wasn't because I thought he was morally pure, but because being resented by the residents of the Mojave is detrimental to his goal.

You are not really believing this, or? :biggrin:

It was the ambition of the developers to illustrate the downfall of a former major power.
A downfall which is heavily propelled by overzealous sticking to an outdated ruleset, and the unwillingness to adjust and react to new conditions.
For sure it was not the intention of the developers to make up some silly plot enabling the leaders to read the minds of every single member, thus sending a Veronica rescue squad that renders the Courier unnecessary....buut I think I don't need to tell you that :smile:

I'm not disagreeing with the bolded part, at all. I think you just overlooked that part of the "overzealous sticking to an outdated ruleset" involves, you know, trying to liquefy Veronica. A bunch of pacifist, isolationist monks overzealously sticking to an outdated ruleset is regrettable, even risible, but ultimately of no consequence. This is not the case when the group overzealously sticking to an outdated ruleset has advanced and lethal weaponry, as well as an interventionist mindset (what with the whole monopolizing advanced weaponry thing).

As The Lobotomite pointed out, Ramos at least would have been aware of the Paladins leaving. That suggests that the Paladins aren't an isolated core of extremists within the Brotherhood.

I entered the discussion when Tranquilus stated that the BoS annihilation was completely justified.
The OP is about whether the Indy ending was satisfying enough, or not.

Yeah, I said House was justified, you apparently took it to mean that I think the Brotherhood deserves to die. They don't, not all of them. But a lack of evil intentions does not mean a person doesn't have a detrimental effect on the world.

But yeah, sorry for the thread hijack, OP.

» Wed May 02, 2012 4:30 pm

I entered the discussion when Tranquilus stated that the BoS annihilation was completely justified.
The OP is about whether the Indy ending was satisfying enough, or not.

Oh. Well I wouldn't say it was justified, but I can understand why House would want them removed as a threat.

» Wed May 02, 2012 2:35 pm

Independant ending svcked, no one seemed to follow, in the slightest, the rules I would have implemented, they just killed each other and basically it svcked. I put YesMan in place so I owned it all not so the factions could be their own <_<

I'm sorry House......