So everyone could be a synth in your logic ? Ummm and not human intresting


Problem with your theory is that 3rd gen synths were built on shuarn , you are frozen before there were 3 gen synths , so you can't be a 3 gen synth. So u are human simple !


With your logic , u can't confirm if someone is human or a synth , so you can't clam that sturges or any other chr in fallout is a synth or human. Or an Alian .

How do you know being frozen are real memories and not planted ones? How do you know you are even Shuan's real father, all those memories could have just been planted by the Institute, for all you know you have only been around since you woke up in the Vault. There is no way to prove you are not a Synth.

You'd think either the RR or the Institute would use the recall code if you're a synth instead of letting you exterminate them.

Not if you are a Synth without a chip and thus without a recall code. I could come up with a lot of explanations to why even if you have a code no one knows it.

So I will once again ask how do we know if the SS really is who he thinks he is?

You can be killed by radiation, something synths should generally be resisted or immune against. Because the Institute knows about you and claims to free you, so you're likely the Institute synth. The notion that they don't give you any failsafe option and just put you in there is just ridiculous, considering any slight defect will get a synth mindwiped and retrain completely. The theory that nuclear caused by aliens is even more believable than SS being a synth.

Btw, skip through the initial dialogue at Concord and see what your character has to say on Sturges. The thing I did understand was "Stick to the grease ...." and then something like "Jockey". Probably something playing to his hairstyle.

I'm disinclined to assume anything, ever. Moreover, the onus of clarification is always on the author.

So, the fact that some synths lack this component communicates to us that it can be removed, not that it is an oversight. By going down the oversight path, we would have to buttress the oversight hypothesis with the further assumption that the part is not removable.

The reason for looking at things in this way is two-fold:

1. Firstly this is because each new assumption we add to a hypothesis further distances that hypothesis from reality. And that's why we give priority to the hypothesis built on the least assumptions to the exclusion of all alternative hypotheses - until such time as emerging facts change the balance of assumption.


2. Secondly, irrespective of whether or not it might be an oversight, it defines a key part of the game's lore -whether intended or not- in exactly the same way that the words of a text dictate what the text says irrespective of what the author claims to have meant or intended.

Well, there's the thing. You can't wipe a ROM chip - and that's where all the last-resort recovery programming goes.

The point of the mind wipe, as I understand what's been presented, is to deprive the synth of the kind of knowledge which could compromise it's identity if it slipped out in conversation.

No he is jangles, the moon monkey.

Why are we even arguing for some deep hidden meaning about whether or not synths can have a chip or not. ThE Doctor outright says the institute manages to bridge the gap between computers and a human brain using the chip. The only way to tell if a person is a synth is after death. If you can't perform an operation just to see if a chip is in a brain, exactly how are you planning on removing it without killing the synth it is in. It's an oversight, plain and simple.


My only question is why could they not implant new false memories from a comouter into the synth body Curie gets, but could implant them from a robot....?

How so? It could very well be communicating to us that it was never there in the first place. The 'removable' hypothesis requires exactly as much buttressing as the 'integral' one, as there is not a single mention of a potential component-removal surgery in the game.

What forms the lore in Fallout is often intertwined with game mechanics to the extent that human errors occurring on the meta level find their way into gameplay, that does not turn them into elements of lore. Moreover, a game is not the work of a single author, and its lore is defined by the writers, not the programmers. Certainly if words of a text read 'I died' that would be exactly what that text says, but if the context strongly suggested it was a typo made during printing and the words were meant to read 'I lied' any claims that the printed version said what it said and therefore should be treated as the correct one wouldn't be taken seriously. And certainly if the author confirmed he intended for the text to read 'I lied' no one would have any reason to claim he was wrong. And then there is that thing human language is capable of, that is having levels of meaning.

But regardless, if we were to treat every game programming oversight as lore-relevant, should we claim the Art character is a resurrecting abomination, because someone clearly forgot to program the encounter to cease occurring after the npc was killed once already?