yeah. I've heard speculation about at least one of the DLC taking place on the moon. Theres a bunch of stuff in game that references the moon and even the sea of tranquility. So maybe moon commies, maybe more aliens. Doesn't matter. They could turn fallout into full on 1950s scyfy campyness and as long as the writing was good I wouldn't care.

Yeah. I find little pockets everywhere, but they are very little pockets and are very few. Elder scrolls has a bajillion books, NPCs willing to tell you the whole history of the universe, and enough random dialogue that it fills out the world as a cohesive whole.

Fallout 4 feels like a deep world but they refused to fill it in with history and interesting tidbits. I find new stuff all the time, and I love it. But it feels they spent more time putting the world together than they did... well everything else.

Thats why I have high hopes for the expansions. Bethesda has shown before that they have the chops needed to make a deep story, look at the Elder scrolls, very deep world. The expansions need to be like New vegas, but better. In New Vegas the DLC formed a coherent and full story broken into chapters. Fallout 4s DLC needs to do the same on a greater scale. I hope in a year or two people go around saying "Man the expansions for fallout 4 are some of the best pieces of content bethesdas put out. I bought fallout 4, for the expansions". It's terrible to rely on DLC but i feel bethesda can pull it of.

yeah. I've heard speculation about at least one of the DLC taking place on the moon. Theres a bunch of stuff in game that references the moon and even the sea of tranquility. So maybe moon commies, maybe more aliens. Doesn't matter. They could turn fallout into full on 1950s scyfy campyness and as long as the writing was good I wouldn't care.

Yeah. I like that they have fun with their own canon and lore but at the same time the serious and visible stuff that alters the whole state of the world has to stay consistent and good. Otherwise they turn into Games workshop.

I love Fallout 4 and the rest of the franchise. But compared to the Elder Scrolls series, they are lazy with Fallout. Elder scrolls keeps coming back with deeper and deeper lore and history, characters that make sense, a vibrant world. On the other hand they treat Fallout as far less than that, a franchise they can do what they want with even if it turns to shit.

Yeah. I find little pockets everywhere, but they are very little pockets and are very few. Elder scrolls has a bajillion books, NPCs willing to tell you the whole history of the universe, and enough random dialogue that it fills out the world as a cohesive whole.

Fallout 4 feels like a deep world but they refused to fill it in with history and interesting tidbits. I find new stuff all the time, and I love it. But it feels they spent more time putting the world together than they did... well everything else.

Thats why I have high hopes for the expansions. Bethesda has shown before that they have the chops needed to make a deep story, look at the Elder scrolls, very deep world. The expansions need to be like New vegas, but better. In New Vegas the DLC formed a coherent and full story broken into chapters. Fallout 4s DLC needs to do the same on a greater scale. I hope in a year or two people go around saying "Man the expansions for fallout 4 are some of the best pieces of content bethesdas put out. I bought fallout 4, for the expansions". It's terrible to rely on DLC but i feel bethesda can pull it of.

yeah. I've heard speculation about at least one of the DLC taking place on the moon. Theres a bunch of stuff in game that references the moon and even the sea of tranquility. So maybe moon commies, maybe more aliens. Doesn't matter. They could turn fallout into full on 1950s scyfy campyness and as long as the writing was good I wouldn't care.

Owen Lyons was originally from the BoS home bunkers. As he grew older he became unhappy with the brotherhoods methods and often spoke out against their ways and traditions. Over the years he gained a fairly large following among him peers. The BoS command could silence him due to his ability as a leader and his ever growing following. So they gave him and his group the task of traveling to the East coast to scavenge the DC wasteland for technology and set up a new chapter. With him gone no one would join his cause and he might even straighten out.

Months passed and Lyons and company made it to the DC wasteland where they found the ruins of the pentagon, super mutants, and the ailing people of the Capital. Not only did he not straighten out, but he outright forsook the teachings of the brotherhood to help the people of the wasteland and beat back the mutant hoards and the other terrors of the wasteland. He's been out on the east coast for 20 years trying to make things better. But he and his men don't have the manpower, technology or the resources to fight a war on the scale needed. Thats when the Wanderer showed up. This one man army came in and did what the brotherhood needed done, paving the way for them to become the powerhouse that they are.

Thanks to the wanderer the brotherhood beat the Enclave, gained vast amounts of tech, secured new bases and were able to set forth plans to build the Prydwen. That's when Lyons died of old age, shortly after that his daughter died in battle. And after that some poor group of wrighters had to wright out most of the named BoS characters who would have been viable Elders so that Maxson could be elder and lead the brotherhood.

Yeah. I like that they have fun with their own canon and lore but at the same time the serious and visible stuff that alters the whole state of the world has to stay consistent and good. Otherwise they turn into Games workshop.

I love Fallout 4 and the rest of the franchise. But compared to the Elder Scrolls series, they are lazy with Fallout. Elder scrolls keeps coming back with deeper and deeper lore and history, characters that make sense, a vibrant world. On the other hand they treat Fallout as far less than that, a franchise they can do what they want with even if it turns to shit.

Yeah. I find little pockets everywhere, but they are very little pockets and are very few. Elder scrolls has a bajillion books, NPCs willing to tell you the whole history of the universe, and enough random dialogue that it fills out the world as a cohesive whole.

Fallout 4 feels like a deep world but they refused to fill it in with history and interesting tidbits. I find new stuff all the time, and I love it. But it feels they spent more time putting the world together than they did... well everything else.

Thats why I have high hopes for the expansions. Bethesda has shown before that they have the chops needed to make a deep story, look at the Elder scrolls, very deep world. The expansions need to be like New vegas, but better. In New Vegas the DLC formed a coherent and full story broken into chapters. Fallout 4s DLC needs to do the same on a greater scale. I hope in a year or two people go around saying "Man the expansions for fallout 4 are some of the best pieces of content bethesdas put out. I bought fallout 4, for the expansions". It's terrible to rely on DLC but i feel bethesda can pull it of.

yeah. I've heard speculation about at least one of the DLC taking place on the moon. Theres a bunch of stuff in game that references the moon and even the sea of tranquility. So maybe moon commies, maybe more aliens. Doesn't matter. They could turn fallout into full on 1950s scyfy campyness and as long as the writing was good I wouldn't care.

its not that he turns to the dark side its how and why, it explains the relationship between Ben and Anakin. it explains why yoda was so careful and hesitant with luke (because of his father). It gives us a look on who obi wan was as a younger man. it shows us why the Jedi are no more. It shows us who anakin really is not just as vader but as a young man trying to discover who he is and what the force means to him. of course they didnt need to happen, not many prequels do, it just helps expand our knowledge of star wars. plus it has some pretty nuts light saber duels

i've heard the prequels are considered okay except for episode 1
i've only watch about an hour into episode 4 out of all the movies so i actually have no idea

Am I the only one who thinks the whole Jar Jar/Sith thing is even more retarded than the Jar Jar character in the first place?

You are correct, but if you're going to go bad, you may as well go all the way, and hope it circles back round to being good by being so bad

its not that he turns to the dark side its how and why, it explains the relationship between Ben and Anakin. it explains why yoda was so careful and hesitant with luke (because of his father). It gives us a look on who obi wan was as a younger man. it shows us why the Jedi are no more. It shows us who anakin really is not just as vader but as a young man trying to discover who he is and what the force means to him. of course they didnt need to happen, not many prequels do, it just helps expand our knowledge of star wars. plus it has some pretty nuts light saber duels

You ain't wrong.

We tend to have a very domenent personality. And we adhear to facts and logical conclusions more then faith. We don't always need hard facts so long as all the evidence adds up and there is a 90% chance our conclusion is right. Although we're quick to admit we're wrong so long as our hypothesis no longer has merit that could be tested.

We're often quick to fall in love, but because of our robotic personality, we find it very easy to suppress that. When we do choose to show our love, we can swing from apparent indifference to absolute adoration and back in a way that could shame any bipolar nut-case on the planet.

We keep very few friends very close to us and are indifferent to people who will probably be simply passing through our lives. We will die for the people we love. Regardless if they would die for us.

More then anything, it warms our hearts to see people we care about perform actions that prove their loyalty to us as much as we have loyalty to them. Betrayal is the worst sin anyone could commit against an INTP. We often shrug off other greivences or problems other people have as their emotional issue of the day and we're very quick to understand and forgive people for most things. Much to our friends confusion, especially if they feel they offended us (INTPs often get heated in the moment, but often feel no real lasting emotional damage by the confrontation and are quick to forgive.)

If we are quite, we are probably in a daydream or mid-thought. It offends us to be disturbed. Be we'll forgive you easily if you have something funny or interesting to say.

INTP's make GREAT parents and listeners. Our constantly thinking mind has often lead INTP's to understand themselves to a great degree and in turn can easily understand the emotional turmoil of others with our empathy. Although our grasp of their emotions will sometimes give our friends relief, our overly logical solutions to their problems may annoy them.
Often times, our only expectation for the people we care about is to be smart, be independent, to survive, be happy, and to do what they feel is right, not what is easy.

INTP's are best at manager roles and working on solitary puzzles or problems to be solved.
We often hold other people to the same high expectation we hold ourselves and as a result, we need to constantly remind ourselves that everyone is different and has different limits. Others often view this as aristocratic. We simply view it as a logical step towards tolerating and understanding other people.

If I were to describe the INTP's in one word it would be "Vulcan"

Well I know I'am.

INTP-T Masterrace