Poll: Snake vs. The Narrator from Fallout

[elricik]

This just came to me. In MGS4, in Snake's opening monologue, Snake states "war has changed." But in every Fallout game, the narrator states at least once "war never changes". So who's right here? Please vote and post why you chose what you chose to vote for.

 

[Kimarous]

Snake is nothing compared to RON FUCKMOTHERING PEARLMAN!

 

[Worgen]

snake knows very little about war, because war never changes

 

[Sewblon]

In a sense they are both right. We are consistently making new tools for war, but the objective is always conquest or the evasion thereof, so different means, same end.

 

[MorsePacific]

Well, if you take a minute to think about it, they're both right. The way war is waged is no longer the same as it was hundreds of years ago, or even a few decades ago, but the idea behind it has never changed. War is never a positive event, no matter how it's fought.

 

[Last of the Chinchillas]

Snake is nothing compared to RON FUCKMOTHERING PEARLMAN!

Was just about to say that.
He's Ron Pearlman. Snake has nothing on him.

 

[theultimateend]

Snake was more referring to the 'feel' of war.

It had changed from something he was comfortable with, actual people in control of their own lives being put in situations of terror and likely death to now being people who are merely husks of their original selves being put in situations unable to feel terror.

War at the conventional level hadn't changed. But the Aura that war exudes for a combat hardened veteran had.

Then again if Hellboy says something I tend to Listen. But I have a strong love for Snake, he was always a character I could relate to. Not that I'm cool like him, but just his long list of character flaws always appealed to me.

 

[slipknot4]

I'd have to say that Snake get the upper hand here but they both have intresting statments.
Prehaps the way war how is fought has changed. But not the way it is based.

 

[The Madman]

That's RON PERLMAN you're talking about!

 

[Socius]

GO kick ass mister Pearlman!

 

[Borrowed Time]

Ron Perlman all the way. The reasons for war never change, and if the reasons for war never existed, then the changing methods to wage war would not exist. Therefore, Perlman.

 

[badgersprite]

They're both wrong. The winner is Spore...Spore never changes.




PS: War. Huh. Good God, y'all. What is it good for?

 

[WolfThomas]

Ron Mutha-Freakin' Perlman

 

[Solytus]

I prefer to think that both are correct in that though the execution of war will constantly change with advancing technology, the concept of war being a large-scale conflict between two opposing factions for a certain goal will never change.

 

[Nieroshai]

On one hand war never changes because the reasons for war never change. What Snake was getting at, though, was the Patriot system drastically changing the way wars were fought; changing it from warring nations fighting for dominance to augmented mercenaries playing a deadly Team Deathmatch, with the world as the arena and the chance to fight again as the prize. No America vs Russia, no Muslims vs Christians, but simply Red vs Blue. So they're both right in their own way, but Snake wins. Because he's SOLID freaking SNAKE!!!

 

[paragon1]

I'm going to agree with Ron Perlman for two reasons.
1. He's Ron Perlman.
2. The law explicitly states that you must agree with Ron Perlman.
Ergo, I agree with Ron Perlman.

 

[setvak]

Despite the fact that it's Ron Perlman, David Hayder's Solid Snake voice sounds like his balls are somewhere down in his socks. Sort of like Batman starting in the 90's animated series.

 

[Woodsey]

Depends.

The weapons and technology that war is fought with (and the people involved) changes, but its two or more sides fighting for the same things every time; freedom, money, control, etc.

I voted the Fallout guy, because weapons and people are variables. The very foundation of war never changes, and the reasons merely float between a select few.

 

[Nova5]

Snake, since we are using Private Military Company (PMC) troops to fight proxy battles as it stands (unlike previous wars where they were fight by the parties actually involved). Look up Blackwater or one of the numerous other PMC's deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq up until recently, and a few South American and African countries.

Fallout is set in a universe that's almost a satire of 50's thinking (hence the artwork, character, and environment design). Metal Gear at least started in a relatively believable universe, and evolved into something that is somewhat foreseeable. Especially considering the bipedal robot from Boston Dynamics - the movements (specifically the compensation of the robot after they push it) reminds me of Metal Gear Rex and Ray.

Article on Boston Dynamics robot posted on the Escapist:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/95846-Boston-Dynamics-Shows-Off-Anthropomorphic-Robot-That-Doesnt-Suck

 

[Ocelot GT]

Snake's right.

I'm sorry but riding dinosaurs into battle is a little different to laser painted targets being struck by cruise missiles.

In the end, the basic premise is...yes to kill the enemy. But war constantly changes, compare Napoleonic war to WW2, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, The War of Independence etc and they differ greatly.

-Total War
-Guerrilla War
-Hegemonic War
-Proxy War

etc