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

[FeelTheRads]

I assume you know it was already said that combat is impossible in the third person view and that at most it would be usable for simply walking around, right?

 

[G3m1n1]

And? Did Bethesda ever say third-person will be playable in Morrowind or Oblivion? Can you cite these remarks? You asked the question yet failed to answer it.

No, I don't have any quotes. I think we'll have to roll with something called "common sense".
What do you think they would say about Morrowind's and Oblivion's tpp? Playable or unplayable?

I think it would depend on who you ask. Ask a marketing person for Bethesda and they would tell you instantly that yes it's playable and absolutely amazing. Ask a developer and I'm sure you'd get a much more toned down and reasonable answer.

 

[Vault 69er]

So are you assuming that this is the last we will see of Fallout 3 until it's released? Are you certain that feature or ideas will or will not change during the time until the game is released?

From my perspective, if I were Todd Howard and had an iso mode ready to please the hardcore fans, I'd freaking well show it as soon as I could.
He didn't. Nevermind the fact that everybody at Bethesda is spewing the FPP = immersion line, FPP is better than iso blah blah blah.
How exactly are we going to assume Fallout 3's 3rd person/iso mode is going to be anything other than a barely playable gimmick given Bethesda's track record and the fact that they're making a game that's meant to be played in FPP.

 

[Sander]

That's not true, he made sure that everything put into Fallout was philosophically and psychologically appropriate to the Fallout theme. Fallout came from an idea to do a sequel to Wasteland, which Fargo helped create. Do you really think his name would be on both Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 if he didn't have THAT much to do with them?

Yes. You are wrong. He was something of a producer, that's it. Fallout's core gameplay came from Tim Cain, the setting came mostly from Boyarsky. You can go 'but he has his name on the box' all you want, that doesn't change anything about it.

So who then exerted creative control over the games? Who determined if a feature or idea was appropriate for Fallout? Brian Fargo perhaps?

No, the core design trio. Specifically Tim Cain. Fargo did not decide whether or not a feature was appropriate, at most he defended some features in front of the board.

Well, that's just not true actually. Read Brian's own words here. He admits he wasn't too involved with Fallout 2, but after Fallout he really only had to make sure the Fallout vision was blurred or sidetracked.

Yeah, and he did a great job on Fallout 2, huh?
Hah.
Read Brian's words again. He claims he was heavily involved in making the 'vision document' and overseeing consistency of the game. Whoop-dee-doo. That's a very, very, very, very far cry from actually designing the game. Which is exactly what Tim Cain, Jason Anderson, Leonard Boyarsky and the others did. And I'd much sooner take the word of someone who actually designed Fallout on Fallout's design than someone who did not do that.

Also note that his name does not appear *anywhere* in the game credits.

 

[xdarkyrex]

I know what a bloody strawman is. I asked how was I strawmanning you.

And don't give me the "car explosions are fun!" argument. That's entirely relative. I for one don't consider it fun or cool. I got my fill of cars going up in nuclear fireballs back when I played Die Hard Trilogy in 1996.

It *contradicts* Fallout 1 + 2 and Bethesda is contradicting them for no reason whatsoever.

change is not synonymous with contradiction. How many cars did you shoot in fallout?

I don't care if it's a series of 2 or 2 million. Many, many aspects of this universe have been established, and their cars not exploding when you sneeze on them is one of them.

And you are 100% sure that this was intentional?

That's a complete assumption. There's some evidence that this might be so, but to arbitrarily declare that every single car in Junktown wasn't fusion powered even though it was common is ridiculous.

You don't remember seeing gas stations in the fallout world?

 

[knightablaze]

It seems this thread has been hijacked to argue the plausibility or canon-i-ness of exploding cars.

In real science, I don't think the fuel for a fusion reactor, nor the reaction itself can go critical with bullets or even grenades disturbing the oddly unpilfered car's power plant.

To maintain a fusion reaction you need precise control and a lot of energy being dumped into the system. So, an abandoned car probably won't be idling. Also, once the powerplant is damaged the reaction would immediately come apart in a non-explosive fasion.

The hydrogen isotope used to fuel a fusion reaction isn't something that's suddenly going to go all nuclear and mushroomcloudy. It is hydrogen, so I guess it could explode.

The waste from a fusion reaction is radioactive, but the fuel isn't. I assume there wouldn't be waste because the car wouldn't be idling or running.

Radiation from an exploded car doesn't make sense.

Yes, Fallout is science fiction. But why would we call it science fiction if the fiction wasn't at least partly based on science?

At no point is Bethesda's take on fusion powerplants going critical sensible in a real-world or Fallout Science sense.

It doesn't make internal sense given the lack of mushroom clouds and radioactivity when other fusion based equipment failed in Fallout 1 and 2.

It feels too much like a gimmick. I don't want a god damn gimmick. I want a sleek new Fallout...

---
I'm pulling my knowledge of fusion reactions from readings i did a long time ago. I started here: http://www.iter.org/

 

[xdarkyrex]

Yes, but they have lasers that shoot in pulses.

What part of real science is that from exactly?

It's pulp science, and in pulp science, it's entirely plausible that nuclear things explode despite the logic.


The lack of exploding cars in fallout 1 and 2 could have NOTHING to do with an intentional ommission of it.

 

[Black]

How about unexploding Power Armor which also runs on fusion cells?

Oh right, the lack of unexplodig PA in Fallout 1 and 2 could have NOTHING to do with an intentional ommission of it.

>_>

 

[xdarkyrex]

How about unexploding Power Armor which also runs on fusion cells?

Oh right, the lack of unexplodig PA in Fallout 1 and 2 could have NOTHING to do with an intentional ommission of it.

>_>

Thats assuming that the cars and power armor use the exact same type of power and same level of technology.

Because obviously, civilian technology and military technology are at the same level, right?

 

[Black]

No, because people would gladly see mini-nuclear explosions in their city because of some drunken driver who crashed his nuclear car.

 

[xdarkyrex]

No, because people would gladly see mini-nuclear explosions in their city because of some drunken driver who crashed his nuclear car.

Which is different than a gas tank exploding... how?

 

[FeelTheRads]

Which is different than a gas tank exploding... how?

Forgetting for a moment that's so rare that even in the most violent crashes it doesn't happen, it also doesn't makes you bald, you know?

 

[Vault 69er]

And don't give me the "car explosions are fun!" argument. That's entirely relative. I for one don't consider it fun or cool. I got my fill of cars going up in nuclear fireballs back when I played Die Hard Trilogy in 1996.

I was pre-empting an oft-heard argument. That isn't a strawman.

change is not synonymous with contradiction. How many cars did you shoot in fallout?

It has already been explained why it contradicts the world of Fallout.
Besides, why don't you toss a plasma grenade at the Highwayman in F2 and see what happens?

And you are 100% sure that this was intentional?

It's common sense. It's not realistic. It's not 50s Science! It's just gratuitous.

You don't remember seeing gas stations in the fallout world?

And? They could've been relics even in pre-war times. Or reserved for the military. Or used by the few gasoline powered cars left.

 

[Sander]

No, because people would gladly see mini-nuclear explosions in their city because of some drunken driver who crashed his nuclear car.

Which is different than a gas tank exploding... how?

Gas tanks don't explode when shot at.

 

[Black]

It also doesn't make people near crash bald.

-Sir, we have the technology to make fusion cells safe so they don't explode in mini-nuclear explosions, our Power Armor already uses that kind of fuel, should our cars also run on safe fusion cells?
-No, mini-nuclear explosions in big cities are amusing.
-But sir...
-DON'T QUESTION MY ORDERS! CARS ARE SUPPOSED TO BLOW UP WHEN CRASHED AND I DON'T GIVE A DAMN THING THAT WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE'EM SAFE!

Did people in 50s believe that people in the future will be retarded?

 

[Vault 69er]

Did people in 50s believe that people in the future will be retarded?

Psychotic maybe? These are after all the same people who make ticketbots with military grade lasers that summarily execute anybody who forgets their ticket.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Besides, why don't you toss a plasma grenade at the Highwayman in F2 and see what happens?

Considering that i can set 20 plastic explosives in the trunk of the highwayman and detonate them and NOTHING HAPPENS TO THE CAR....


Should we also make cars indestructible?
Or maybe just car trunks?
I mean, that IS what they intended for the fallout universe, right?
If they thought cars should be destructible at all they would have put it in, RIGHT!?

You couldn't hurt cars at all, so whether they're potentially explosive or not is a moot point, as they did not choose to include the gameplay mechanics that would have shown whether they are or not, simple as that.

 

[xdarkyrex]

double post

 

[Vault 69er]

Considering that i can set 20 plastic explosives in the trunk of the highwayman and detonate them and NOTHING HAPPENS TO THE CAR....


Should we also make cars indestructible?
Or maybe just car trunks?
I mean, that IS what they intended for the fallout universe, right?
If they thought cars should be destructible at all they would have put it in, RIGHT!?

*sigh* Obviously your sarcasm detector requires repairs.

And your argument is a red herring. Simply because they weren't destructable in Fallout 1 + 2, it doesn't mean it's okay for them to go Hiroshima in Fallout 3 since it still violates continuity and the spirit of the universe.
Like it or not, the chances of Junktown somehow not having a significant amount of nuclear cars in it's walls are zero to none. And if they did explode, Junktown would be a crater. That alone is a contradiction.

 

[Sander]

Considering that i can set 20 plastic explosives in the trunk of the highwayman and detonate them and NOTHING HAPPENS TO THE CAR....


Should we also make cars indestructible?
Or maybe just car trunks?
I mean, that IS what they intended for the fallout universe, right?
If they thought cars should be destructible at all they would have put it in, RIGHT!?

You couldn't hurt cars at all, so whether they're potentially explosive or not is a moot point, as they did not choose to include the gameplay mechanics that would have shown whether they are or not, simple as that.

Straw Man. The Highwayman was purely a transportation vehicle and never intended for anything else. Having it explode would've been a lot of work put in for no reason.
Instead, people here are arguing from the background you see in Fallout, not the actual game mechanics. Exploding nuclear cars make even less sense when you consider the fact that nuclear explosions are supposed to be world-ending happenings, not cheap 'eeh, I kill a mutant' booms.