Fallout 3. Is it really so bad?

[Slaughter Manslaught]

1. Nuclear weapons being thrown around like stones are ridiculous. The world was destroyed by nuclear weapons. It cheapens the mood to use nuclear weapons like mere rocket launchers. Yes, there's the Davy Crockett. But that weapon could be summed with one word: FAIL.

You can't make a nuke that's that small and is still capable of doing something useful.
Yes, there's the davy crockett, but even that weigthed some 71lbs.
And that's as close to the minimum as they could without making the nuke useless.
Try running with that around blasting enemies.
Oh, and I forgot, that's without the launcher. Which adds even more weight to the thing. And I doubt that anyone would walk around with a gun weigthing at some 100lbs with a single round of ammunition.

Onisuzume, I used a metric conversor and 100 is around 45 kilograms.

Holy mother-fucking shit! That's heavy! That's VERY heavy!

I can imagine someone in POWER ARMOR using one of those with some strain, so there's a little sense there. But why would someone carry something like that with so much few power? With all that strength, it would be much more pratical to go into battle with a Vindicator Minigun and slice people apart like they're made of butter.

 

[Humpsalot]

Ugg. I still can not find much of FO 1/2 being left out of Fallout 3.

-You will be able to talk your way though many quests.
-You pick your stats, which will determine: How hard you hit and how much you can carry (str) What you notice ect. (per) How much life you have (end) how people react to (char) How smart you are with speech explosives and how many points you get per level (Int) Your ranged dmg and armor count (agi) and your crit and generally buff in a minor way everything (luck)
-You can shoot your way through FO1/2. I chose to play sniper with lots of int and speech skill because I like to talk through what I can. (I have never tried to do it stealth or with no combat so not sure if you even can, or even if you can I'm not sure if you could do all the side quests non violently) And you can choose to do it stealth/speech in all the fallouts.
-You will be able to beat last boss without firing a shot in FO3, whether this means you program a computer to fight for you and watch your npcs fight for you is yet to be seen. But there might be a way to talk your way through it.
-FO had a main quest with side quest options.
-Pretty sure in FO1 you could skip some of the main quest and go straight for the water chip instead of going here then there then there to find out where the water chip is (again not 100 percent sure) You can do the same in FO3, if you know where your Father is you can go right to him and skip all the clues.
-Gore in all of them, it is what hooked me in at first. I was watching someone burst point blank on someone and parts went flying. Then I got to put points into main stats (special) then minor stats (small arms ect) and tag some perks, I was so sold by then. Guess what you can do that in FO3 too.
-Silliness, I mean if you want to talk about a relative term. Silly to one person is over the top for someone else. When fallout 1/2 came out does anyone know which demographic they were marketing to? (NOT what demographic you THINK they were trying to market to, I want to know if anyone knows the exact age the marketing team of interplay was targeting) I would have to guess 12-24. And not FO3 is trying to market to the same age group 12-24, we have grown up, companies have to market to same age group, we can not complain that they are not marketing 100 percent to the old f/o fans, because many of those people who played video games 10 years ago have grown out of them or play games less or buy less games. We have grown out of the demographic and most games do not market to our age groups anymore. So we either have to play and sigh at content that is too silly for 25+ year old and keep playing, or dont play at all. The fatman fits into this. 12-18 year olds will be like cool a mininuke which is more real then you know (http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/SPBI103.HTM and ive seen more just google it) but when you get older you start to think logically and less fun "the nuke would mess you up too" its a game, and it does increase your rads. What else do you want? There were plenty of wacky guns in Fallout 1/2.
-Good story, good depth, good character building. Is a halmark in fallout 1/2 and looks like will be in fallout 3.
-Unrealistic/realistic Fallout 1/2 are pretty realistic considering its a game. Assuming there are aliens somewhere in universe (some believe and some dont) and that we will create "futuristic" weapons one day with lazers. And there is unrealistic parts about super mutants (COULD it happen? maybe) and they can talk and reason ect. But you can not nit pick FO3 without looking at fallout 1/2, anyone, even fans, can nit pick those about being too unreal or too silly.

I don't see why everyone can not admit the 95% similarities. If it was still isometric and battle was the exact same as 1/2 then the game would get no scrutiny from and core fans. Besides that I feel 95% of game will have same feel, atmosphere, story quality, depth, rpgness, and the list goes on.

 

[Sander]

Ugg. I still can not find much of FO 1/2 being left out of Fallout 3.

-You will be able to talk your way though many quests.

Pure conjecture and probably very unlikely given Bethesda's track record.

-You pick your stats, which will determine: How hard you hit and how much you can carry (str) What you notice ect. (per) How much life you have (end) how people react to (char) How smart you are with speech explosives and how many points you get per level (Int) Your ranged dmg and armor count (agi) and your crit and generally buff in a minor way everything (luck)

Yes, they kept the SPECIAL stats. That's neat.

-You can shoot your way through FO1/2. I chose to play sniper with lots of int and speech skill because I like to talk through what I can. (I have never tried to do it stealth or with no combat so not sure if you even can, or even if you can I'm not sure if you could do all the side quests non violently) And you can choose to do it stealth/speech in all the fallouts.

You can play through Fallout 1 without ever shooting something. You cannot do the same with Fallout 2, although you can come close.

Also, the fact that there is combat was never an issue. The problem is with the way combat is handled, ie as a shooter instead of a more tactical stat-based RPG.

-Pretty sure in FO1 you could skip some of the main quest and go straight for the water chip instead of going here then there then there to find out where the water chip is (again not 100 percent sure) You can do the same in FO3, if you know where your Father is you can go right to him and skip all the clues.

Oh really, you can do this? How, exactly, do you know this?
Also, the 'main quest' wasn't really the Water Chip in Fallout 1.

-Gore in all of them, it is what hooked me in at first. I was watching someone burst point blank on someone and parts went flying. Then I got to put points into main stats (special) then minor stats (small arms ect) and tag some perks, I was so sold by then. Guess what you can do that in FO3 too.

The gore has changed completely in style and gotten ridiculously over the top, with in most interviews gore being seemingly the main selling point of the game.
Guess what: Fallout had gore, but it was in no way its most important feature.

-Silliness, I mean if you want to talk about a relative term. Silly to one person is over the top for someone else. When fallout 1/2 came out does anyone know which demographic they were marketing to? (NOT what demographic you THINK they were trying to market to, I want to know if anyone knows the exact age the marketing team of interplay was targeting) I would have to guess 12-24. And not FO3 is trying to market to the same age group 12-24, we have grown up, companies have to market to same age group, we can not complain that they are not marketing 100 percent to the old f/o fans, because many of those people who played video games 10 years ago have grown out of them or play games less or buy less games. We have grown out of the demographic and most games do not market to our age groups anymore. So we either have to play and sigh at content that is too silly for 25+ year old and keep playing, or dont play at all. The fatman fits into this. 12-18 year olds will be like cool a mininuke which is more real then you know (http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/SPBI103.HTM and ive seen more just google it) but when you get older you start to think logically and less fun "the nuke would mess you up too" its a game, and it does increase your rads. What else do you want? There were plenty of wacky guns in Fallout 1/2.

Ugh.
Okay, first of all, what age group they are marketing to isn't exactly relevant. What is relevant is the tone and content of the games. If you look at Fallout 1, nuclear technology is sparse and feared. It is not used as a quick-fix as a handheld weapon, since that doesn't fit with the tone of the world.

Similarly, there really aren't that many silly weapons in Fallout 1 or 2. There were alien blasters in very rare, special random encounters, and there was the Red Ryder LE BB gun - an homage to Fallout's predecessor Wasteland. That's about it. There weren't catapults killing people with teddybears (which is really, really stupid).

Third, yes theoretically handheld nuclear launchers are possible. What isn't possible is handheld nuclear launchers for use on a very small range (ie 10 metres in front of you).

-Good story, good depth, good character building. Is a halmark in fallout 1/2 and looks like will be in fallout 3.

Actually, this is exactly where most of us are disagreeing with you. It does not look like character building will be good, seeing as still the only example of moral dilemmas and character-defining moments we have seen is 'Hey do I blow up this entire town or not'. That's not a moral dilemma or a grey choice, it's the classic 'Do I play good or evil' choice.
[quote-"Humpsalot"]
-Unrealistic/realistic Fallout 1/2 are pretty realistic considering its a game. Assuming there are aliens somewhere in universe (some believe and some dont) and that we will create "futuristic" weapons one day with lazers. And there is unrealistic parts about super mutants (COULD it happen? maybe) and they can talk and reason ect. But you can not nit pick FO3 without looking at fallout 1/2, anyone, even fans, can nit pick those about being too unreal or too silly.[/quote]
It isn't about realism. It's about verisimilitude. Ie. what fits in a given universe.
This argument is ridiculous. It's like saying 'Hey if there can be dragons in Lord of the Rings, which is obviously unrealistic, why can't Darth Vader appear and squash Sauron?'

I don't see why everyone can not admit the 95% similarities. If it was still isometric and battle was the exact same as 1/2 then the game would get no scrutiny from and core fans.

This is complete and utter nonsense. If you look at the graphics, it doesn't look one bit like Fallout 1 or 2. The emphasis on action is much, much greater from what we have seen. Railroading is far more present as we already know (you start out as a teenager, you have to go look for daddy etc). The atmosphere is gone, the iconic organisations have completely changed, the treatment of nuclear power as a serious concern is again, gone.
The question should be: why does anyone even think this game warrants comparison to the previous 2 games?

 

[Texas Renegade]

Pure conjecture and probably very unlikely given Bethesda's track record.
You can play through Fallout 1 without ever shooting something. You cannot do the same with Fallout 2, although you can come close.

Also, the fact that there is combat was never an issue. The problem is with the way combat is handled, ie as a shooter instead of a more tactical stat-based RPG.


Actually, this is exactly where most of us are disagreeing with you. It does not look like character building will be good, seeing as still the only example of moral dilemmas and character-defining moments we have seen is 'Hey do I blow up this entire town or not'. That's not a moral dilemma or a grey choice, it's the classic 'Do I play good or evil' choice.

This is complete and utter nonsense. If you look at the graphics, it doesn't look one bit like Fallout 1 or 2. The emphasis on action is much, much greater from what we have seen. Railroading is far more present as we already know (you start out as a teenager, you have to go look for daddy etc). The atmosphere is gone, the iconic organisations have completely changed, the treatment of nuclear power as a serious concern is again, gone.
The question should be: why does anyone even think this game warrants comparison to the previous 2 games?

Ok: first off, the combat is stat based. It has been known for a long time that if you do not have the skills for shooting or whatever, no amount of FPS skill will let you be accurate in combat. Several previewers have flat out mentioned being horribly inaccurate even though the sites were dead on.

2nd: Emil has said you can talk your way through most of the quests without having to kill anyone. I guess he could just be lying though.

3rd: Judging the whole game based off of Megaton is about like judging FO2 based off of the temple of trials and Arroyo.

4th: Go find your dad isn't railroading anymore then go find a water chip or go find a g.e.c.k. It isn't railroading it is creating a human element/interest to the story. Granted they could totally foul this up, but if they do all the vault stuff well it could come off nice. Actually, the railroading will be less I think considering there isn't a time limit that will end the game if you go and wander off the quest for too long. Wasn't as bad in FO1, but dang it is annoying in FO2.

5th: granted the gore is retarded and some of the weapons are downright dumb. However, I think the atmosphere looks promising. I could be wrong, I have been wrong about 1 or 2 games before

 

[Sander]

Ok: first off, the combat is stat based. It has been known for a long time that if you do not have the skills for shooting or whatever, no amount of FPS skill will let you be accurate in combat. Several previewers have flat out mentioned being horribly inaccurate even though the sites were dead on.

I'm not saying it isn't stat based. I'm saying that it doesn't reflect character skill importance nearly as much as the previous games did, and it also removed much of the tactical possibilities by simply being a shooter.

2nd: Emil has said you can talk your way through most of the quests without having to kill anyone. I guess he could just be lying though.

Bethesda has been known to do that with previous games, but fair enough.

3rd: Judging the whole game based off of Megaton is about like judging FO2 based off of the temple of trials and Arroyo.

So wait, what are you doing exactly? Judging the game based on...ehm....what?

Also, your comparison is way off. Megaton seems to be rather important and it offers a seemingly crucial choicee early on in the game that has been constantly upheld as a great example of the moral choices you'll face in Fallout 3 (which is obviously ridiculous, since it's about as polarised a choice as you can get; Bethsoft should merge their ranges better ). It is also something that has been consistently used by Bethesda as propaganda. In other words: it's supposed to reflect the best elements of the game.
So, yes, it is quite fair to judge the game by that. Until there is some other, better way of judging the game, that is.

4th: Go find your dad isn't railroading anymore then go find a water chip or go find a g.e.c.k. It isn't railroading it is creating a human element/interest to the story. Granted they could totally foul this up, but if they do all the vault stuff well it could come off nice. Actually, the railroading will be less I think considering there isn't a time limit that will end the game if you go and wander off the quest for too long. Wasn't as bad in FO1, but dang it is annoying in FO2.

Fallout 2 had no timelimit, so you're probably confusing the two here.

There is more railroading involved here, though, since it defines the character you play to a much bigger extent, and a seemingly bigger part of the overall plot hinges on this (in Fallout, the water chip wasn't important for the plot at all. In Fallout 2, the GECK was largely ignored for most of the game). Although I could be wrong and Bethesda might pull this off brilliantly, they don't have the track record to suggest they well.

 

[HellVaultBoy6660]

things old school fallout fans need to realise:

the creators of FO3 owe you NOTHING.

no matter how much you argue, an ISO/TB FO3 would be no where near as successful as this one, period.(and yes success in todays gaming business = copies sold.)

fallout was hardly a "perfect" game, and FO2 was hardly a perfect fallout game, no matter how much you idolize them.

fallout was never "realistic" or based on actual science. so stop making it seem like it was.

the classification of RPG has NOTHING to do with whether or not player skill is involved.

console gamers are just as important a fan base as OS pc fallout fanboys.

you could NEVER tell if this game has lack of a deep story and dialog from 3 min of video and some screen shots.

TB combat is not the only game mechanic with stratagy involved.

FO3 is an RPG not a shooter. whether it will be a good one is still to be seen.

playing pnpCRPG's makes you superior to no one......that is all.

 

[alec]

the creators of FO3 owe you NOTHING.

Well, if you give them your money, they do owe you something, I reckon. If I go to the bakery around the corner and I give them 2€, I expect a loaf of bread. Otherwise I go kung-fu on their arse. Word.

no matter how much you argue, an ISO/TB FO3 would be no where near as successful as this one, period.(and yes success in todays gaming business = copies sold.)

Says who? Says you. Then again, you might be right because they would miss out on the console market 'cause TB games just don't work very smoothly on those contraptions. But iso view? The Diablo series come to mind, they were very successful and Diablo 3 is going to be ISO as well. Titan Quest was ISO as well and didn't flop AFAIK. The fact that they choose RT and FP view clearly shows they want to sell as much copies as possible and that they are in it for the money. That's their right, I guess, and from a capitalist point of view it makes perfect sense, but that doesn't mean we have to like it.

fallout was hardly a "perfect" game, and FO2 was hardly a perfect fallout game, no matter how much you idolize them.

Both games had some flaws, FO2 more so than FO, but dude: you're on a FO dedicated site, so isn't it normal we idolize these games? This is a fansite after all. What exactly is your point?

fallout was never "realistic" or based on actual science. so stop making it seem like it was.

I doubt you'll find members here who will claim such things. Link or it didn't happen.

the classification of RPG has NOTHING to do with whether or not player skill is involved.

It's roleplaying so that should be character skill. Or maybe I just don't understand what you're trying to say.

console gamers are just as important a fan base as OS pc fallout fanboys.

Seeing that FO and FO2 were pc games only, your point makes no sense to me. Console gamers only became a force to be reckoned with once Bethesda came into the picture. Personally, I wish that had never happened.

you could NEVER tell if this game has lack of a deep story and dialog from 3 min of video and some screen shots.

I disagree. Think again: if you were a developer and you wanted to show samples of your new game to the public, what would you choose to show them? The worst parts or the things of which you'd say: "Yeah, this will totally convince them, these things are really good." If what they have showed off so far is amongst the best/better parts of the game, then sorry, but it doesn't convince me that FO3 will be a good game.

TB combat is not the only game mechanic with stratagy involved.

True, but that's not the point. TB was chosen for a reason: to emulate a PnP experience. It's a difficult concept to grasp, but if you think about it long enough, it should make sense.

FO3 is an RPG not a shooter. whether it will be a good one is still to be seen.

As far as I can tell, FO3 has all the characteristics of a shooter with some RPG aspects added to the formula. And sorry, but that's just too much of a change from the old games for most of us to like it.

playing pnpCRPG's makes you superior to no one......that is all.

It does make one superior to people who can't read, for instance. I know that's a lame joke, but it's also a lame statement. Who said that anyway, that PnP players are superior to whatever? Link or it didn't happen.

 

[Sander]

things old school fallout fans need to realise:

the creators of FO3 owe you NOTHING.

Oh noes, what a disaster.
No one's arguing they 'owe' us anything. So? Does that mean we should suddenly not want a good game?

no matter how much you argue, an ISO/TB FO3 would be no where near as successful as this one, period.(and yes success in todays gaming business = copies sold.)

Hurray more pointless, unproven conjecture.
Also, why should we care about the game's commercial success? Britney Spears sure sells a hell of a lot more copies than most other bands, does that mean we should suddenly like only Britney Spears?

fallout was hardly a "perfect" game, and FO2 was hardly a perfect fallout game, no matter how much you idolize them.

No one said they were.

fallout was never "realistic" or based on actual science. so stop making it seem like it was.

Have a strike for trolling. No one claimed it was based on actual science.

the classification of RPG has NOTHING to do with whether or not player skill is involved.

Wheeee, more trolling.
The defining characteristic of an RPG is the emphasis on character skill instead of player skill.

console gamers are just as important a fan base as OS pc fallout fanboys.

Actually, for a predominantly PC franchise, they shouldn't be.
Also, so?

you could NEVER tell if this game has lack of a deep story and dialog from 3 min of video and some screen shots.

TB combat is not the only game mechanic with stratagy involved.

No one claimed it was. Stop trolling.

FO3 is an RPG not a shooter. whether it will be a good one is still to be seen.

Gogo false dichotomies.
Fallout 3 is both a shooter and an RPG from what we've seen. Combat sure as hell is FPS combat.

 

[HellVaultBoy6660]

if i were a troll my font would be 10x bigger in bright orange and i would be using more profanity and insults.

obviously every single original fallout fan does not fall into this so the should disregard it. (however these are just the more annoying examples.) ive seen these said multiple times in this and every fallout forum.

yes you give someone money for somthing you have a right to complain if it doesn't meet your satisfaction... you didnt buy shit though. and you probably won't since you have a problem with it.

and im sure none of you have read fatman arguments about the fatman not being realistic. these same people forgetting we are talking about a world were radiation mutates creatures instead of annihilating them.

first rule of pretty much all creative media is to stick with what you know. bethesda is doing just that. the worst thing the could have done, is to try do somthing thats not them. you may call it Oblivion with guns. i call it bethesda keeping it real.

 

[HellVaultBoy6660]

oh and in regards to RPG having anything to do with no player skill being involved.....prove it.

 

[Sander]

Don't double post.

oh and in regards to RPG having anything to do with no player skill being involved.....prove it.

Yay, strawmen added into the mix as well. RPGs don't have nothing to do with player skill, but they rely predominantly on character skill. Mainly because you are playing a role in the game, as such you are playing a different character and your own skills must be removed from the equation for you to be usefully playing that role.

Also, banned for trolling.

if i were a troll my font would be 10x bigger in bright orange and i would be using more profanity and insults.

obviously every single original fallout fan does not fall into this so the should disregard it. (however these are just the more annoying examples.) ive seen these said multiple times in this and every fallout forum.

To quote you: 'prove it'.

yes you give someone money for somthing you have a right to complain if it doesn't meet your satisfaction... you didnt buy shit though. and you probably won't since you have a problem with it.

No one ever claimed the Bethesda developers owed us something, and for your continued trolling, strike 3 and banned.

and im sure none of you have read fatman arguments about the fatman not being realistic. these same people forgetting we are talking about a world were radiation mutates creatures instead of annihilating them.

Gee more trolling. I like how you still ignore verisimilitude.

first rule of pretty much all creative media is to stick with what you know. bethesda is doing just that. the worst thing the could have done, is to try do somthing thats not them. you may call it Oblivion with guns. i call it bethesda keeping it real.

Nice troll.
So if they should've stuck with what they knew, then why did they buy the Fallout license?
Oh shit.

 

[HellVaultBoy6660]

im not trying to troll or attack anyone. i apologise if im being rude. thats not my intent. to be honest it feels like IM being trolled. and that may be true for real pnp games, but even fallout gives the player information the character doesnt know. the fact you can see people in rooms and buildings the character hasent entered yet is technical cheating in real RPGs.

 

[Sander]

im not trying to troll or attack anyone. i apologise if im being rude. thats not my intent. to be honest it feels like IM being trolled. and that may be true for real pnp games, but even fallout gives the player information the character doesnt know. the fact you can see people in rooms and buildings the character hasent entered yet is technical cheating in real RPGs.

Ugh, stupid ban list fucking up.

Also, just because I can, the fact that the player has information that the character cannot have has very little to do with the importance of character skill. The amount of information the player has is first of all, very small (there's a limit on how far you can scroll the screen

This forum used to be the most open forum on the entire web. Now it seems more and more if you don't agree with admins or try to make a counter point, or try to make a post that is edgy and not bland that we are being censored or banned. For people who hate bethesda a hell of a lot yall sure are acting like their admins lately.

Errr...I'm pretty sure I've been here a lot longer than you have and hence know a lot better what this forum 'used to be' (it certainly wasn't the most open forum on the entire web then, especially when stupidity got you a ban).

Also, I don't see where you get the idea that you get banned for disagreeing with admins or posting 'edgy'(lol) posts. You do get banned for being a troll, like HellVaultBoy here, but you're disagreeing with us and you don't even have a strike. Most people, in fact, do not get banned.

Also, no smewhat trollish one-liners, FeelTheRads.

 

[Texas Renegade]

Ok: first off, the combat is stat based. It has been known for a long time that if you do not have the skills for shooting or whatever, no amount of FPS skill will let you be accurate in combat. Several previewers have flat out mentioned being horribly inaccurate even though the sites were dead on.

I'm not saying it isn't stat based. I'm saying that it doesn't reflect character skill importance nearly as much as the previous games did, and it also removed much of the tactical possibilities by simply being a shooter.

2nd: Emil has said you can talk your way through most of the quests without having to kill anyone. I guess he could just be lying though.

Bethesda has been known to do that with previous games, but fair enough.

3rd: Judging the whole game based off of Megaton is about like judging FO2 based off of the temple of trials and Arroyo.

So wait, what are you doing exactly? Judging the game based on...ehm....what?

Also, your comparison is way off. Megaton seems to be rather important and it offers a seemingly crucial choicee early on in the game that has been constantly upheld as a great example of the moral choices you'll face in Fallout 3 (which is obviously ridiculous, since it's about as polarised a choice as you can get; Bethsoft should merge their ranges better ). It is also something that has been consistently used by Bethesda as propaganda. In other words: it's supposed to reflect the best elements of the game.
So, yes, it is quite fair to judge the game by that. Until there is some other, better way of judging the game, that is.

4th: Go find your dad isn't railroading anymore then go find a water chip or go find a g.e.c.k. It isn't railroading it is creating a human element/interest to the story. Granted they could totally foul this up, but if they do all the vault stuff well it could come off nice. Actually, the railroading will be less I think considering there isn't a time limit that will end the game if you go and wander off the quest for too long. Wasn't as bad in FO1, but dang it is annoying in FO2.

Fallout 2 had no timelimit, so you're probably confusing the two here.

There is more railroading involved here, though, since it defines the character you play to a much bigger extent, and a seemingly bigger part of the overall plot hinges on this (in Fallout, the water chip wasn't important for the plot at all. In Fallout 2, the GECK was largely ignored for most of the game). Although I could be wrong and Bethesda might pull this off brilliantly, they don't have the track record to suggest they well.

2 things- I am fairly certain there was time limit on FO2. I swear I can remember times when my game ended because the shaman died in one of those dream thingies or some such.

But I don't think they are railroading you, they are trying to draw you into the story, by making your quest "start" about someone you should have a connection to rather then just an entire faceless vault, or a bunch of dim witted villagers.

I have no clue if your father will be the entire main quest or if it will change like its predecessors.

The level of skill dependence remains to be seen. some indications are that it isn't as dependent, but some seem very promising.

I think megaton isn't being showcased as the best part of the game, I think they are really showing off the fact that you can detonate a nuke in the game as they feel it will bring in a lot of people. They are probably right, however, I doubt that quest is the best the game has to offer. Beth just knows what can sell to the masses. Now the question will be, how hard are they selling this game to the masses.

 

[daemonofdecay]

You can't make a nuke that's that small and is still capable of doing something useful.
Yes, there's the davy crockett, but even that weigthed some 71lbs.
And that's as close to the minimum as they could without making the nuke useless.

Maybe its a Science! approach to it? I mean, during the 40's and 50's nuclear weapons were getting smaller and more sophisticated, so if you extrapolate that out it could follow a 50's pulp-science idea about nuclear technology being able to get smaller.

I'm just grasping at straws, I know.

It is simply painfully obvious that bethesda knows *absolutely nothing* about nuclear radiation, bombs, energy, etc.
Even a glance at wikipedia would've showed that most of the stuff they came up with is impossible.

More impossible than Radscorpions and Ghouls?

C'mon, we all know that the Fallout world ignores reality, physics, and whatnot to help achieve that 50's sci-fi feel and style. Fallout is closer to a golden-age comic book than a nuclear-engineering textbook, and realworld "facts" are to be ignored whenever they contradict what the developers want to achieve.

Anyone remember that commercial shown in the intro from F1?
How many people do you think can afford that price tag?

Inflation.

Infact; I doubt that most of the normally radioactive stuff(reactors, etc.) would even be radioactive after a couple of decades. (most isotopes used in a reactor have a half-life of up to a century)

What about that certain nuclear reactor in FO2?

Heck, even the bible is more scientifically correct then Beth's game.

The Fallout Bible or the "And Thous Shall Not" Bible?

 

[DexterMorgan]

What about that certain nuclear reactor in FO2?

The one being maintained by ghouls and refueled from the uranium mine in Redding?

 

[Humpsalot]

I have no clue if your father will be the entire main quest or if it will change like its predecessors.

Dont want to come off like an ass but of course that will not be the entire main quest. Find your father, roll credits. Maybe you were trying to say that finding out "why?" your father left the vault might be the whole main quest. That is more likely. It'll be something like "find out why your father left" then he will tell you and that will become your new main quest, whatever that might be. Im going to go check out the "main quest" post and see what they have to say about it.

 

[Sander]

2 things- I am fairly certain there was time limit on FO2. I swear I can remember times when my game ended because the shaman died in one of those dream thingies or some such.

The only time liimit was a physical 10 year time limit. That's it. Unless you played a modded game.

C'mon, we all know that the Fallout world ignores reality, physics, and whatnot to help achieve that 50's sci-fi feel and style. Fallout is closer to a golden-age comic book than a nuclear-engineering textbook, and realworld "facts" are to be ignored whenever they contradict what the developers want to achieve.

One word: verisimilitude.
Why is it so hard for people to understand this?

 

[Slaughter Manslaught]

About the Fatman:

What makes me hate the weapon most is the fact that it's used as a super-rocket launcher with radiation. And that's that. Not only firing a nuclear weapon at a enemy ten meters of distance is stupid and incredibly crazy and suicidal (if the radiation doesn't make my Geiser Counter bleep like hell, it's going from "very stupid" to "Absurdly stupid!"). If the Fatman was used like a artillery weapon by, say, mount the cannon somewhere, aim it to where you want to fire, shoot and DUCK and COVER! Then watch the fireworks destroying what you aimed at.

If it was a one-shot opportunity of doing something like that, that weapon would get tons better already.

 

[daemonofdecay]

One word: verisimilitude.
Why is it so hard for people to understand this?

Thats not a word; its a question on the SAT.

"Use verisimilitude in a sentence."

Anyway, do giant scorpions created through radiation or a ghoul with a tree growing in its head really have the 'appearance or semblance of truth' (Thanks to dictionary.com! )?

I am not arguing that the Fatman is a stupid and rediculous concept; why not just include a normal rocket and/or grenade launcher instead? They would do the same thing without becoming idiotic.

Just that arguing that something in a Fallout game doesn't conform exactly to reality is kinda silly. Not as silly as the weapon in question, mind you, but silly nontheless.

So far one of my biggest complaints about the game is the ease in which limbs are sent flying. Sure in FO2 a burst from a shotgun might shred a target, but I never punched his head accross a warehouse!

If it was a one-shot opportunity of doing something like that, that weapon would get tons better already.

I agree 100%. I have no problem with a small-man portable nuclear weapon, but the fact that a) its no more powerful than a grenade launcher and b) it can be used multiple times seems absurd.

Make it a boss killer type dealy, where you either set it up to go off later (it starts a countdown and you have to escape the base/laboratory/etc. before it all goes up like Megaton) or it it attaches to its target and has a timer before exploding.

But if higher level raiders have Fatmans, I'm going to be quite incensed.