TheGM
The voice of reason
Even if the uranium was still active I doubt the explosive used to make it go off would work after 200 years. That stuff would be dust by now. No matter what kind of fancy gizmo Burke gives you.
Fallout 3 at PAX: GayGamer and That VideoGame Blog
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Also keep in mind that objects propelled by gravity have a maximum force limited by terminal velocity. Now if it did achieve a high enough velocity to create a crater then it would be buried in the ground. Don't believe me?Brother None said:
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/16/lebano14011.htm
http://www.strangemilitary.com/images/content/107449.jpg
http://redcoates.net/Photographs/WritePix/LaoBombB.jpg - Has been pulled out of the ground a bit
http://www.scearce.net/images/Viet Nam/Bao_Bomb.jpg
Texas Renegade
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
No, I am saying survivors of nuclear bombs would be desperate for something positive to cling too.
As for the inhabitants of megaton--stupid? no. Uneducated yes!
Though if they have been drinking water laced with radioactive materials they may very well be stupid!
As for the crater, I had thought he was referring to the crater around the actual bomb.
If Megaton is actually built in a giant hole in the ground from an unexploded nuke then I will concede the stupidity right here.
As for the inhabitants of megaton--stupid? no. Uneducated yes!
Though if they have been drinking water laced with radioactive materials they may very well be stupid!
As for the crater, I had thought he was referring to the crater around the actual bomb.
If Megaton is actually built in a giant hole in the ground from an unexploded nuke then I will concede the stupidity right here.
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Impacts on the moon and on earth from extraterrestrial bodies are not even close to the same as objects impacting at terminal velocity, the former is going exponetially faster.ArmorB said:
aronsearle
Still Mildly Glowing
squinty said:
squinty said:
And i will ask you again.
If it was a film or book, people would be ripping apart a story full of such plot holes.
But when it's a game you get people defending it by saying "you can fill in the plot holes yourself".
This seems doubly illogical, when you take into account that when such criticism is levelled at films/books, they are already out. Whereas here such criticism is aimed at something that can still be changed or polished.
/Scratch head.
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
If it was a small crater I'd agree but the problem is that it's a crater big enough to build a town in.ArmorB said:
TheGM
The voice of reason
Texas Renegade said:
That is what the town looks like though. Houses and such built on various levels with this Atom bomb at the bottom.
The crater is pretty big too.
Texas Renegade
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Again though, it isn't a plot hole. People have built civilizations around active volcanos because they thought they were the homes of gods.
To me an active volcano would be a much bigger concern then a nuke that didn't go boom when it was supposed to.
To me an active volcano would be a much bigger concern then a nuke that didn't go boom when it was supposed to.
If it didn't presume to be a sequel, that would be fine. Fallout 2 should have less bearing on it, anyway, since the Bethesda folks have already declared that the silly stuff doesn't belong and they want to make the game closer to Fallout 1.PaladinHeart said:
Or the devs should just come out and admit that they're stupid hypocrites for criticizing Fallout 2 about the silly stuff and then putting silly, stupid and even nonsensical shit in Fallout 3.
I very much agree, though, that people should stop using past mistakes to defend current stupid things in Fallout 3. Mistakes should be noted, corrected and avoided next time instead of used as a template to repeat. Bethesda is using Fallout 1 as the main influence, right? So, does anyone think that it would be fine to be able to become trapped by a NPC and not be able to push them out of the way or get around them in any way? Come on. It was in Fallout 1, so doesn't that make it totally OK in Fallout 3? Great game design is all about aping mistakes and using them as an excuse instead of learning from them, right?
Becky was standing right next to me when I picked the lock in her casino and went down to destroy the still. She didn't say a damn thing.
This is just a direct comparison based on what we know for sure about the Megaton quest: Simms will approach you if he sees you planting the bomb, whether or not there is a speech check to get out of it (and I think it is reasonable to assume there is) I'd say that counts as an improvement (in one small aspect).
In general this sort of "getting away with it" is par for the course. For the most part, no one in Fallout 2 cared if you looted them to destitution. A couple of merchants, the Dutton brothers, that's almost it.
(And yes, I do remember having to wait for the guard at the casino door to walk off, but Becky is still standing two feet from you.)
I would like to clarify that I don't view unrealistic NPC consequences as a mistake. It's a necessary videogame convention. Real life consequences cripple our desire to have the kinds of awesome adventures that we have in videogames. Where you draw the line with those consequences is a taste issue, I guess, but I don't want to keep my finger on the quick-load/quick-save keys quite as much as the original Fallouts had me doing.
This is just a direct comparison based on what we know for sure about the Megaton quest: Simms will approach you if he sees you planting the bomb, whether or not there is a speech check to get out of it (and I think it is reasonable to assume there is) I'd say that counts as an improvement (in one small aspect).
In general this sort of "getting away with it" is par for the course. For the most part, no one in Fallout 2 cared if you looted them to destitution. A couple of merchants, the Dutton brothers, that's almost it.
(And yes, I do remember having to wait for the guard at the casino door to walk off, but Becky is still standing two feet from you.)
ookami said:
I would like to clarify that I don't view unrealistic NPC consequences as a mistake. It's a necessary videogame convention. Real life consequences cripple our desire to have the kinds of awesome adventures that we have in videogames. Where you draw the line with those consequences is a taste issue, I guess, but I don't want to keep my finger on the quick-load/quick-save keys quite as much as the original Fallouts had me doing.
Don't double post, eff-out.
Becky is busy/distracted/not watching the door, which is exactly why it is guarded. She also hates you for it, 'member?
Fallout did have "what were you doing there" moments, 'member? Like Killian's safe.
You mean videogames condition you to avoid failing?
True
But hardly a design convention worth saving. The linear succeed-fail scale is off (and stupid), it's simply too simplified an approach and encourages quick-loading. I'm more for long-term consequences, mixed in with a scale of results to the way you approach quests, with each choice opening and closing different paths, rather than "you succeed" or "you fail"
Fallout made a step in this direction. It is sad to see the progress it made is being negated by more consequence-free gameplay.
eff-out said:
Becky is busy/distracted/not watching the door, which is exactly why it is guarded. She also hates you for it, 'member?
Fallout did have "what were you doing there" moments, 'member? Like Killian's safe.
eff-out said:
You mean videogames condition you to avoid failing?
True
But hardly a design convention worth saving. The linear succeed-fail scale is off (and stupid), it's simply too simplified an approach and encourages quick-loading. I'm more for long-term consequences, mixed in with a scale of results to the way you approach quests, with each choice opening and closing different paths, rather than "you succeed" or "you fail"
Fallout made a step in this direction. It is sad to see the progress it made is being negated by more consequence-free gameplay.
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
That's a poor comparison, one is naturally occurring and the other isn't. One can be made to do it's worst by a single person and the other can't. Also the only active volcano that I know of people building around is Hawaii and such a volcano is hardly dangerous to a town, especially considering that they didn't build their town around the top of the volcano. The dangerous volcanoes are ones that are dormant in which case people still don't build around the top of them, they build at the base of them sometimes, but not at the top (not that I'm aware of anyways).Texas Renegade said:
A better comparison might be people who build and rebuild in flood zones but a nuke being detonated is going to kill you without warning, a flood isn't.
Still doesn't solve the problem of a football field sized crater. As you said, it's a stretch, why would these people dig it up? Why would people who know the power of nuclear weapons (it's destroyed their world) want to live anywhere near an undetonated one? apathetic people, okay. One or two nuts, okay. A large number of people crazy enough to form this religion, let alone dig up the nuclear weapon without other people objecting? That's one hell of a stretch.ArmorB said:
ArmorB said:
Only it's not cool.
Rivet City, the stranded aircraft carrier made into a town: that is bad ass.
Megaton just looks like < Junktown, with an illogical backstory.
ArmorB said:
Two reasons:
1. Fallout's feel. Fallout always treated nuclear weaponry with a certain amount of respect, which "hey let's blow up this town" kind of sets against. Not to mention the contradiction of feeling: nuclear bombs destroyed the world, people should be whispering of it in awe not building houses around it.
2. Logic. Too many holes. The cult being there makes sense, but aren't there any sensible people in the town? Was there never anyone with a smidgen of technical knowledge who knew enough to know how to permanently disable the bomb (I dunno, take out its active core or whatever). Why is there a crater? Why isn't the bomb guarded? How can Tenpenny ask you to destroy it in the middle of a bar?
It's not like it's impossible to believe a bunch of nuts would set up a cult around a bomb. It's impossible to believe a town would be built around it to then treat the whole thing so laxly.
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Because as stupid and illogical as people are, they aren't going to go from worshiping some god (religious people would be the ones to convert) to worshiping a nuclear weapon, a device which destroyed their world, their friends, and their extended family. Remember that these are the people who lived there and survived this nuke landing here, not a bunch of crazies gathering together over a long period of time to form this cult. The religion is something that a crazy guy on a streetcorner would come up with and follow, not a whole town. Also there are bound to be some people around who aren't crazy idiots who aren't going to let a bunch of crazies dig up a nuclear weapon which did the above.ArmorB said: