27 Things About Fallout 3... and then some.

[PhoenixUltima]

So every single giant monster in the game was exposed to FEV? I'd like to see proof. As far as I know the only creatures to have been exposed to FEV were the mutants, the Master, and those talking deathclaws in FO2 (as far as I can recall the normal, non-talking ones were caused solely by radiation - I think the doctor in 2's Vault 13 said something along those lines). And even if I buy the whole "every giant creature in the game was caused by FEV" bit (and I don't), FEV itself isn't exactly plausible. This is an engineered virus that causes people to grow to giant size and turn green, other people to melt into puddles of living goo that apparently have psychic powers (judging from 1's hallway of unpleasantness), giant irradiated lizards to gain enough intelligence to speak english, and apparently it gave that magician guy in 2's military base the ability to hide fully grown deathclaws and fire geckos in that tight leather jacket of his.

 

[Vault 69er]

Oh yeah, you're right, it's also fusion-cell powered!


Silly BoS, wearing PA when it can explode... Some armor!
I wonder how did US army fight against China...

Scorched earth, man! Watch those Commies blow themselves up when they attack America's glorious army of walking bombs.

So every single giant monster in the game was exposed to FEV? I'd like to see proof. As far as I know the only creatures to have been exposed to FEV were the mutants, the Master, and those talking deathclaws in FO2 (as far as I can recall the normal, non-talking ones were caused solely by radiation - I think the doctor in 2's Vault 13 said something along those lines). And even if I buy the whole "every giant creature in the game was caused by FEV" bit (and I don't), FEV itself isn't exactly plausible. This is an engineered virus that causes people to grow to giant size and turn green, other people to melt into puddles of living goo that apparently have psychic powers (judging from 1's hallway of unpleasantness), giant irradiated lizards to gain enough intelligence to speak english, and apparently it gave that magician guy in 2's military base the ability to hide fully grown deathclaws and fire geckos in that tight leather jacket of his.

So basically your argument is:
1) Some unrealistic things in Fallout means any unrealistic thing can be in Fallout regardless of continuity, or common sense.
2) Stupid things in Fallout 2 means it's okay to have stupid things in Fallout 3

 

[Sander]

So every single giant monster in the game was exposed to FEV?

No, they weren't. They really weren't. They grew giant because of radiation.
But here's the kicker: this fits with the '50s SCIENCE! motif. Most of the additions Bethesda has made, including exploding nuclear cars, do not. The term you are looking for is verisimilitude.
Essentially, the argument that just because there's one thing that isn't scientifically plausible in the game everything else that isn't scientifically plausible is automatically okay, is a retarded argument.

 

[PhoenixUltima]

Well, except a lot of the stuff in fallout is scientifically implausible. Indeed, the game is science fiction. *FICTION*. I don't see why fusion cells scientifically being able to explode (as if we can fucking test it anyway) is a prerequisite for it being included in the game. Being a part of 50's sci-fi culture isn't a requirement either, I don't remember any 50's movies featuring guys in stylish power armor batting guys across the room with high-tech sledgehammers.

Let me just ask you this, real quick: if the other Fallouts had let you explode cars to damage enemies, would it have made the games less fun? For that matter, if exploding cars were in the other Fallouts would this even be an issue?

 

[Black]

For that matter, if exploding cars were in the other Fallouts would this even be an issue?

Not for me.
But the thing is, there weren't exploding cars in previous FOs.

 

[Sander]

Well, except a lot of the stuff in fallout is scientifically implausible. Indeed, the game is science fiction. *FICTION*. I don't see why fusion cells scientifically being able to explode (as if we can fucking test it anyway) is a prerequisite for it being included in the game. Being a part of 50's sci-fi culture isn't a requirement either, I don't remember any 50's movies featuring guys in stylish power armor batting guys across the room with high-tech sledgehammers.

It does fit the 50s retro-future style. There's a lot more to Fallout's setting than just that, but that is the essence of it.

Let me just ask you this, real quick: if the other Fallouts had let you explode cars to damage enemies, would it have made the games less fun? For that matter, if exploding cars were in the other Fallouts would this even be an issue?

No. Except that Fallout has more or less shown that car engines do not explode. Mainly because there was a town more or less built out of said cars (Junktown), and that didn't explode. Aside from that, having exploding cars all over the place is a silly and somewhat juvenile addition, like the nuclear catapult.

 

[Per]

Well, except a lot of the stuff in fallout is scientifically implausible. Indeed, the game is science fiction. *FICTION*.

Why didn't Tolkien have Cybermen and gas stations in Lord of the Rings!? He had dragons! DRAGONS!! Is that realistic!!! 1

 

[Black]

Well, except a lot of the stuff in fallout is scientifically implausible. Indeed, the game is science fiction. *FICTION*.

Why didn't Tolkien have Cybermen and gas stations in Lord of the Rings!? He had dragons! DRAGONS!! Is that realistic!!! 1

Because technology back then didn't let him put Cybermen and gas stations in LoTR :<

 

[Vault 69er]

Well, except a lot of the stuff in fallout is scientifically implausible. Indeed, the game is science fiction. *FICTION*.

Why didn't Tolkien have Cybermen and gas stations in Lord of the Rings!? He had dragons! DRAGONS!! Is that realistic!!! 1

Because technology back then didn't let him put Cybermen and gas stations in LoTR :<

If Tolkien had written LotR today you can bet it'd be full of Cybermen and gas stations. And those gas stations would EXPLODE and.. and.. the Cybermen would say "fuck" a lot.

 

[PhoenixUltima]

That's hardly fair. Fallout already has fusion cells, and there's no particular reason they can't explode in science fiction. LotR never had robots or cars or any of that stuff. It's hardly the same thing.

I'm rapidly getting the impression that your beef with exploding fusion-powered cars isn't scientific plausibility of any sort, but rather the fact that cars didn't explode in the other Fallout games. Which is, to put it bluntly, fucking retarded. Of course there are going to be things in FO3 that weren't in 2 or 1. There had goddamn *better* be new things in a game's sequel. With that said I also get the impression that most of you think FO3 is going to suck and are just nitpicking to find things to support that argument. You're probably the same guys who thought Wind Waker was going to suck because it was cel-shaded and "too kiddie" (because Zelda has always been SERIOUS BUSINESS).

 

[Black]

Oh, but there were cars in FO1 and 2! And if Falloutish cars really explode, Junktown guards really should think twice before carrying a gun.
So, FO1 and 2 cars don't explode. FO3 cars explode in mini-nuclear explosions, even with mushrooms.
Like 2 different games.
Well, I shouldn't be surprised, really. The first two are crpgs, the third one is a fps game.

You're probably the same guys who thought Wind Waker was going to suck

Whats Wind Waker? O-O What has that to do with anything?

 

[Sander]

That's hardly fair. Fallout already has fusion cells, and there's no particular reason they can't explode in science fiction.

There's a reason they can't explode in *Fallout's* science fiction.

I'm rapidly getting the impression that your beef with exploding fusion-powered cars isn't scientific plausibility of any sort, but rather the fact that cars didn't explode in the other Fallout games. Which is, to put it bluntly, fucking retarded. Of course there are going to be things in FO3 that weren't in 2 or 1. There had goddamn *better* be new things in a game's sequel.

That doesn't mean that suddenly the new game gets to contradict the old games just because it's 'new'.
Because that, sir, would be fucking retarded.

With that said I also get the impression that most of you think FO3 is going to suck and are just nitpicking to find things to support that argument. You're probably the same guys who thought Wind Waker was going to suck because it was cel-shaded and "too kiddie" (because Zelda has always been SERIOUS BUSINESS).

And strike one for trolling.

 

[PhoenixUltima]

How do you know Fallout cars don't explode, exactly? There weren't any cars that didn't have their parts stripped in 1 that I could see, and the only working one in 2 couldn't be targeted at all, either by you or by the AI. In fact, that brings up another related topic: the previous Fallout games didn't even let you shoot cars. So I suppose being able to shoot cars in 3 is a travesty, right?

EDIT: Oh, and hey, how is that trolling exactly? You guys are behaving just like the idiots who bashed Wind Waker a year before it came out just because it wasn't Ocarina of Time 2.0, and I don't see how saying so is trolling. Assholery, sure, but not trolling.

 

[Per]

With that said I also get the impression that most of you think FO3 is going to suck and are just nitpicking to find things to support that argument.

So you didn't actually have any argument, besides helium being an explosive gas?

 

[Sander]

How do you know Fallout cars don't explode, exactly? There weren't any cars that didn't have their parts stripped in 1 that I could see, and the only working one in 2 couldn't be targeted at all, either by you or by the AI. In fact, that brings up another related topic: the previous Fallout games didn't even let you shoot cars. So I suppose being able to shoot cars in 3 is a travesty, right?

Nice straw man there, Phoenix.
Here's a hint: there was an entire fucking *town* built out of cars that surprisingly did not explode when they got hit by nukes. It did not explode. The cars engines did not functionally survive either. There was only a single functional vehicle in either game. See how all of this directly contradicts the 'Weee, cars go boom!' Bethesda put in?

EDIT: Oh, and hey, how is that trolling exactly? You guys are behaving just like the idiots who bashed Wind Waker a year before it came out just because it wasn't Ocarina of Time 2.0, and I don't see how saying so is trolling. Assholery, sure, but not trolling.

Oh, I'm sorry, I was under the impression that trying to provoke people by calling them idiots and somehow bringing in the completely unrelated subject of Wind Waker fans is trolling. Oh, right, that *is* trolling. Because we are not arguing that Fallout 3 is going to be a shitty *game*. We don't know that. We are arguing that Fallout 3 is going to be a shitty Fallout game.

 

[Vault 69er]

How do you know Fallout cars don't explode, exactly?

Because they don't.

There weren't any cars that didn't have their parts stripped in 1 that I could see,

Logically, they have their parts stripped.
But then logically, the cars in Fallout 3 should have their parts stripped but no! Every single one still has a working power source. What?

and the only working one in 2 couldn't be targeted at all, either by you or by the AI. In fact, that brings up another related topic: the previous Fallout games didn't even let you shoot cars. So I suppose being able to shoot cars in 3 is a travesty, right?

It didn't let you because that'd be, you know, stupid.
You also miss the point that in universe these cars would not explode because if they did nobody would be stupid enough to make *walls* out of them.

 

[P-Funk]

I don't think the car's shouldn't explode just "because they didn't in the past games." It is not a major continuity issue, just a minor one, and the developer deserves some chance for creative freedom, as long as it does not violate the plot in a major way.

I think the major issues with respect to exploding cars are gameplay and the spirit of the game.

So, the spirit of the game, taken directly from quotes from the developers, is what 1950's science fiction predicted for the future. I don't think it is unreasonable for them to imagine fusion powered cars exploding. It is, however, unreasonable if the prediction is from the scientists point of view, as they knew about the stability of fusion reactions in the 50's. But that is also minor.

The problem with exploding cars is the gameplay issue. Think back to the previous fallout games. Combat wasn't a simple issue of blowing up environmental objects. I'm sure we've all grown to love shooting somebody in the eye with a high powered assault rifle and they survive. That is fallout gameplay.

So, in the unlikely event that they manage to preserve the gameplay of Fallout in the new game, exploding cars will cheapen it somewhat. But this is not a deal-breaker, its their creative choice. So, as long as the rest of the game preserves the fallout we all love, its a small complaint. If they pulled that off, I know I would just play the hell out of it and not use a Fatman or shoot cars, and I would be happy.

But I think the canon argument is a little senseless. Give them the freedom to introduce new things a little as long as they preserve the Fallout atmosphere and gameplay. Which, for reasons that have nothing to do with exploding cars, it appears that they won't.

 

[P-Funk]

How do you know Fallout cars don't explode, exactly?

Logically, they have their parts stripped.
But then logically, the cars in Fallout 3 should have their parts stripped but no! Every single one still has a working power source. What?

Thats the only continuity argument I agree with so far. Its pretty valid. The fallout world is a ransacked one which has been picked over for anything useful so the residents can survive. So unless someone has been actively defending every car in the game, the cars would be ransacked as well.

 

[PhoenixUltima]

I'm not trying to provoke anyone, honest injun. I was just making an observation.

Just because there weren't any functional cars (besides yours in 2) in the area you explored in the first two games, that doesn't mean there aren't any functional or half-functional cars anywhere. And it's not like Bethesda is putting exploding cars every 20 feet in the game. There'll probably be an explodable car or two occasionally dotting the landscape, but not a whole garage full of them. Hell, there might be piles of unexplodable stipped car chassises (or however the plural of chassis is spelt) all over, and only like 10 explodable cars in the entire game. Hell, there could even be a 360 achievement for exploding them all (and yes, I'll be playing the 360 version, as my PC is basically a 5 year old glorified calculator). That would rule.

On FO3 being a shitty Fallout game: what, exactly makes a fallout game? That's probably something you folks have been arguing about since the game was announced, but here's what I think of when I think Fallout. I think of exploring a bleak, desolate wasteland dotted with the occasional settlement or village. I think of a distinct visual style that mixes 50's era charm with cruel, brutal reality. I think of making choices that have an impact not just for you and your allies, but for the town you're in and even the world in general. I think of killing a great mighty fuckload of giant scorpions, slavers, raiders, deathclaws, mutants, and anything else the wasteland can throw at me. I think of a game that doesn't take itself so seriously that it can't go "oh, to hell with continuity" for a second so it can throw me into a special encounter with a teleporting phone booth or a crashed Star Trek shuttle. If FO3 can deliver those things while being a fun game to play, well, then it'll be a good Fallout game. It doesn't have to be isometric or turn-based or mention Vault 13 or even have anything to do at all with the previous two games. It doesn't even have to take place in the same universe as the fallout canon. If a game came out with all the above aspects and was called "Annihilation: The Fall" and was made by Ubisoft, it'd be a good Fallout game.

 

[Vault 69er]

I don't think the car's shouldn't explode just "because they didn't in the past games." It is not a major continuity issue, just a minor one, and the developer deserves some chance for creative freedom, as long as it does not violate the plot in a major way.

I'm telling you why it is major.
You couldn't shoot cars in Fallout 1 + 2, but you *could* shoot people in Power Armour, which are powered by fusion generators. Ever see them explode?

I think the major issues with respect to exploding cars are gameplay and the spirit of the game.

So, the spirit of the game, taken directly from quotes from the developers, is what 1950's science fiction predicted for the future. I don't think it is unreasonable for them to imagine fusion powered cars exploding. It is, however, unreasonable if the prediction is from the scientists point of view, as they knew about the stability of fusion reactions in the 50's. But that is also minor.

Wrong. in 50's Science! Fusion power is safe, clean and reliable. Exploding fusion cells go directly against that.
Moreover constant nuclear explosions violate the very spirit of Fallout, that nuclear weapons are world changing things. They destroyed the world. Then they saved it twice. Whatever their role, they made history.
Fallout 3 has no such respect for this power. We have nukular catapults, exploding nuclear cars and players detonating nuclear warheads for money.