[the new JR Jansen]

Originally posted by Luvian: You are forgetting a few points here. First of all, FOT and the other fallouts where not happening in the same region, so there are lots of possibilities to explain it. Here's a few. I haven't forgotten that. That does not explain the inconsistencies regarding the deathclaws, though. And saying something like 'Who knows what could have happened' is really a weak argument. By saying that, you except everything and not questioning the developers. [img]graemlins/check.gif[/img] The enclave experimented on a deathclaw matriarch, she escaped, went north, and founded her tribe. They quickly became very powerful thanks to their intelligence and replaced every stupid deathclaws in that region. Unlikely. Even if they were more intelligent, it is highly unlikely that the 'normal' deathclaws would be extinct. Besides a pack is a pack not an entire race, meaning that one pack couldn't have stood up to every other deathclaw pack out there. Besides the notion of a matriarch is also an inconsistency. If you talk to the doc in Fallout 2's vault 13, he'll mention that a pack's leader is an alpha MALE. How come then that in tactics the leader is a female ? [img]graemlins/check.gif[/img] Deathclaws are the only monster that does not originate from a regular monster in the real world, so maybe they where created by the mutant master as a new species, but the mutant master was killed, and they escaped his lab. Some of the smarter more evolved one escaped north with some super mutants, while the inferior one where too stupid and settled close to the former military base. Wrong, the same doc will tell you that they originated from Jackson's chamelions. So your entire starting point on this is wrong. So you see it, there are any number of reason why deathclaws could be intelligent. We do not know why the devs put them in the game, we can only speculate. Your opinion is not better than mine. So, you see, debunked. It's also pretty weird that the developers had to admit that they went overboard with tactics themselves. Chris Avelone has made that clear on more then one occasion. Seeing the big loss they got with the blimps, I can see why they discontinued that project and would like to forget about it... The BOS members that were transported by those blimps were outcasts. How could the BOS from Fallout 2 have known that they were hit by a lightning storm and went down ? That in itself doesn't mean a disaster. Normally, that would be seen as an accident, therefor i don't think they would have 'forgotten' all about it. It would make more sense, even with your example, that they would have worked on the things more in an effort to perfect them. You have misunderstood the information there... Yes, the vaults where built by the US, but they where build by the real pre-war US, not the survivor on the oil platform. Just watch the intro movie to fallout 1 and 2 again. Why do you think there has been multiple generations of people living in those vaults before they first started coming out? Yes, the "president" said "they" built them, but he meant the US, the real one. He is a deluded guy. Ok, granted it's not 'his' US that built them but that doesn't explain the existance of vault 0. Either they were all built as part of an experiment or you have a supercomputer. Not all Fallout fans are Fallout Tactics fans, and even if they where, it's only an opinion, you really need to understand the distinction between facts and opinions...[/qb]

If a large group of people have the same opinion, then it becomes an acceptable argument.

You don't seem to be familiar with "tactics" games. Two roleplaying game had a tactic game released loosely based on the universe of the rpg game. Ogre Tactics, and Final Fantasy tactics. Both of which are only loosely based on their parent game. It's the same thing for Fallout Tactics. They are all alternate games set in a world similar to the original games.

Loosely based does not mean scewing the time line and certainly doesn't mean being inconsistant. Besides that, read some reviews of the game. As was mentioned in the first post, Gamespy has dropped all support for this game. Should tell you something.

Fallout Tactics was never intended to be officially part of the Fallout universe, I'm sure of that. You are taking it way too seriously.

Funny, the developers seemed to think differently at the time they were making it. It was only after it got so much heat that they said otherwise.

But you know what? Those are only my opinions, and they mean nothing, as are yours. Who made the game? The devs. Who is building that universe? the devs. Who are the masters of that universe? the devs. If they decide that 2 years before Fallout 2 there was a huge army of giant pink rabbits [img]graemlins/bunny.gif[/img] that conquered the nrc area by using giant explosive purple easter eggs, but then in a freak accident they all mutated into human tribals and created the town of arroyo, and that in fact the original vault dweller really died of thirst in the desert, well, that is now the new official updated fallout world, like it or not.

The devs are creating this world. Maybe they had a good reason to do what they did in Fot, maybe they didn't. But guess what... they don't need a reason, it's their world, what they say is the law. And no self appointed master and historian of the Fallout universe can change that. So why are we arguing over their world
[/QB][/QUOTE]

Sorry, i don't want to insult you but that's really weak. I mean, what you are saying is that because they are the developers and it's their world, you're going to swallow everything they ram down you throat ? What if they make a Fallout game with no radiation, no broken down buildings, everything nice and clean, no drugs and none of the other things wich make Fallout to what it is. Byt they put the Fallout name on it and say that that's what the world has evolved to. I wouldn't buy that, it's your choice to do that, but i wouldn't.