Drakehash said:HOW THE HELL A MEDICINE CAN LAST 200 years
Normally I'd agree, but this is still retro-50s we're talking about. Guns, drugs, medicine, canned food and beef jerky lasting forever kinda fits.
Fallout 3 QA guy on subject of "200 years later"
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
Normally I'd agree, but this is still retro-50s we're talking about. Guns, drugs, medicine, canned food and beef jerky lasting forever kinda fits.
PaladinHeart
Mildly Dipped
Maybe Fallout 3 should have taken place before Fallout, considering all the intact buildings and such. I mean if they zoom the time frame forward enough, then would there even be any radiation left? I have no idea how long radiation of the magnitude found in Fallout is suppose to last, but 200 years after Fallout 2 (which is quite some time after the wars as it is) is a pretty long time.
Or am I mistaken and Fallout 3 is suppose to be 200 years after the war?
I can understand why Bethesda wants to have all the spiffy buildings to explore, but an earlier time would have made more sense. Otherwise, most of the structures should have been more recently constructed.
btw it's also possible that a raider simply decided to restock the shelves. lol But yeah if it's suppose to be in an inhabitable area and left untouched for 200 years then it must have been rat poison. x] But even then, there's those giant molerats...
Would have probably been more realistic to simply set up a town or group of merchants in the store with armed guards and they're selling the old stocks of food and such at really high prices, and the area was just somewhat radiated, so it's safe to pillage now.. but then again, why do we never find random adventurers who are loaded down with goodies who happend to die of radiation poisoning? (gotta love the glow...)
Wouldn't that be interesting? You put all your anti-rad gear on, go to this place like the glow, find NOTHING, and you're like.. "Where is all the stuff!?!" and then you go in a nearby cave and find a dead guy with piles of loot. So yeah I think even highly radiated places would get looted eventually.. The idea of going in somewhere and finding stuff just because it's highly radioactive is more fun than simply picking something up in an area that has been inhabitable the whole time.
Or am I mistaken and Fallout 3 is suppose to be 200 years after the war?
I can understand why Bethesda wants to have all the spiffy buildings to explore, but an earlier time would have made more sense. Otherwise, most of the structures should have been more recently constructed.
btw it's also possible that a raider simply decided to restock the shelves. lol But yeah if it's suppose to be in an inhabitable area and left untouched for 200 years then it must have been rat poison. x] But even then, there's those giant molerats...
Would have probably been more realistic to simply set up a town or group of merchants in the store with armed guards and they're selling the old stocks of food and such at really high prices, and the area was just somewhat radiated, so it's safe to pillage now.. but then again, why do we never find random adventurers who are loaded down with goodies who happend to die of radiation poisoning? (gotta love the glow...)
Wouldn't that be interesting? You put all your anti-rad gear on, go to this place like the glow, find NOTHING, and you're like.. "Where is all the stuff!?!" and then you go in a nearby cave and find a dead guy with piles of loot. So yeah I think even highly radiated places would get looted eventually.. The idea of going in somewhere and finding stuff just because it's highly radioactive is more fun than simply picking something up in an area that has been inhabitable the whole time.
The medicine still being on the shelf makes no more sense than all the cars sitting around still able to explode. Explaining it requires stretching out too much bullshit which convolutes other aspects of the world and it presents no verisimilitude to Fallout's established setting. Obviously, Bethesda just doesn't care about the logic of details within a setting. Most of their current fans don't seem to either. The devs could put in flying ghouls that attack with radioactive farts and we'd still get people explaining it away and defending it.
Yes, it's 200 years after the Great War. Only ~30 years after FO2.PaladinHeart said:
PaladinHeart said:
Exactly. To make a comparison:
The Glow: radiated, dangerous, nobody dared explore it (yet). Stocked with guns.
L.A. Boneyard: no guns lying around, because everything is being scavenged, repaired and sold by the Gunrunners.
That's the difference between a spot in the middle of the desert or a spot in the middle of the city. For DC, something like the Gunrunners makes more sense than a store still carrying its stock.
BowserJesus
First time out of the vault
To be honest, how would the raiders know what the medicine is for?
requiem_for_a_starfury
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Ah that's where the SCIENCE! comes in.Drakehash said:
How would the raiders know how to set up a working, password protected, computer controlled turret?BowserJesus said:
How likely is it that the raiders were the only people to ever scavenge this area?
How likely is it that on hearing that the bombs had been launched that people didn't panic buy/loot the supermarket clearing the shelves of everything remotely useful before trying to flee the city. After all they had enough warning to not only get to the vaults but also to picket the vaults with hand made let me in signs.
Dracon M'Alkir
Vault Senior Citizen
BowserJesus said:
Assumingly in two generations, people don't forget how to read. Even if they couldn't, they'd still just plunder it because they could.
aenemic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I'm gonna jump in on this one as well.
I agree fully with Anani Masu. if you're gonna go down that road you're gonna have to apply the same criticism towards the old Fallouts first and foremost and then to pretty much any other game.
using the argument that "we KNOW it's just a game, captain Obvious. that still doesn't explain why it's unrealistic" is not a good argument. it's just as obvious that games are unrealistic. and no matter how much immersion the creators want to add to their game, they still know that it's unrealistic. and that it has to contradict reality in certain ways to make for a fun gaming experience.
I'm sure I could make a list with unexplainable and unrealistic things from Fallout 1+2 just as long as you can make from what we know of Fallout 3 so far. the difference here is that Chris Avellone has had the time and energy to come up with explanations for a lot of things a long time after the games were made. if you're alright with that, then you're going to have to accept that Bethesda does the same thing (in their case though, they seem to be aiming at explaining things beforehand or in the game itself).
if we were talking about, say... Baldur's Gate 3 here - would you all cry about there being lots of magical items lying around? and people giving away magical items as rewards for you for doing random stuff they're too lazy to do? or that there are endless armies of orcs, monsters, demons and half-gods - but they still don't manage to kill you because they're too dumb to make any kind of planning ahead?
this is exactly what I've brought up before when there was talk about in-game sex: do you want to play a real-life simulation or a fun game? make up your mind. and don't give me any crap that the old Fallouts in any way were more realistic than Fallout 3 or any other game. it was still just made to be entertaining. just like every other game.
and one last point - "If you don't feel it's worth discussing, don't discuss it." is just as an invalid argument as "I don't think this is a subject worth discussing" as this whole discussion is wether to care about these things or not. and we're currently having this discussion because we think it's worth brining up. you're gonna have to live with that, unless you want to censor your forums from free speech.
I agree fully with Anani Masu. if you're gonna go down that road you're gonna have to apply the same criticism towards the old Fallouts first and foremost and then to pretty much any other game.
using the argument that "we KNOW it's just a game, captain Obvious. that still doesn't explain why it's unrealistic" is not a good argument. it's just as obvious that games are unrealistic. and no matter how much immersion the creators want to add to their game, they still know that it's unrealistic. and that it has to contradict reality in certain ways to make for a fun gaming experience.
I'm sure I could make a list with unexplainable and unrealistic things from Fallout 1+2 just as long as you can make from what we know of Fallout 3 so far. the difference here is that Chris Avellone has had the time and energy to come up with explanations for a lot of things a long time after the games were made. if you're alright with that, then you're going to have to accept that Bethesda does the same thing (in their case though, they seem to be aiming at explaining things beforehand or in the game itself).
if we were talking about, say... Baldur's Gate 3 here - would you all cry about there being lots of magical items lying around? and people giving away magical items as rewards for you for doing random stuff they're too lazy to do? or that there are endless armies of orcs, monsters, demons and half-gods - but they still don't manage to kill you because they're too dumb to make any kind of planning ahead?
this is exactly what I've brought up before when there was talk about in-game sex: do you want to play a real-life simulation or a fun game? make up your mind. and don't give me any crap that the old Fallouts in any way were more realistic than Fallout 3 or any other game. it was still just made to be entertaining. just like every other game.
and one last point - "If you don't feel it's worth discussing, don't discuss it." is just as an invalid argument as "I don't think this is a subject worth discussing" as this whole discussion is wether to care about these things or not. and we're currently having this discussion because we think it's worth brining up. you're gonna have to live with that, unless you want to censor your forums from free speech.
aronsearle
Still Mildly Glowing
Guys
I'm really not understanding the issue with the woden houses surviving 200 years.
If they survived the initial bombing and fires, then it's not that unrealistic for them to last 200 years, sure they would be dilapitated, but knowing about wooden houses i know it's not really that much of a stretch.
Also, it really doesnt matter that much, stop whining about unimportant shit, there are plenty of more critical issues with the game.
Take note, This is what grasping at straw looks like.
I'm really not understanding the issue with the woden houses surviving 200 years.
If they survived the initial bombing and fires, then it's not that unrealistic for them to last 200 years, sure they would be dilapitated, but knowing about wooden houses i know it's not really that much of a stretch.
Also, it really doesnt matter that much, stop whining about unimportant shit, there are plenty of more critical issues with the game.
Take note, This is what grasping at straw looks like.
I think the wooden houses are a double wammy of bad design. First you have the whole "they shouldnt be standing!" issue.
Then you have the fun screenshot showing three of the wooden houses with the exact same damage pattern all next to each other, and we start to explore a whole new dimension of bad/lazy design.
Then you have the fun screenshot showing three of the wooden houses with the exact same damage pattern all next to each other, and we start to explore a whole new dimension of bad/lazy design.
aronsearle
Still Mildly Glowing
My whole estate is made of identical houses.
Fucking council with their lazy/bad design.
Fucking council with their lazy/bad design.
Blazerfrost
First time out of the vault
I think the guy about the medicine was referring to the label on the bottle not being able to survive for 200 years? So you have a bottle of pills, might be a cure for cancer, might be cyanide, you don't know. Unless they tested it on one of their own, ooh, volunteer anyone?
I think i'll agree on the "relax, it's just a game". Ofcourse it should be realistic, but after a certain point, it just gets to be a pain and not a game.
In a post apocalyptic world, most of the wooden houses won't be standing, unless they have been repaired. If i am not mistaken, fallout 1 and 2 had some of these houses too right?
About that DC would have been destroyed completely, there are 2 options. One says, nuke the **** out of the capital, destroy it completely so the enemy loses a good chunk of it's population plus it's main city. The other says, send a small nuke, destroy part of it and leave thousands of injured people in need of shelter which would greatly burden the nearby settlements which for example wouldn't be nuked. Let's say option number 1 is correct however. So, the player exits the vault.... and finds nothing. Everything is dead. Game over. And before someone says "don't move the setting if you have to ressurect DC" the very same thing could have happened everywhere. In a real post apocalyptic world, pretty much everything would be dead.
About finding random loot in locations that doesn't make sense. Again, it's about how they implement it. For example, i don't want to find a flamethrower in a bookcase like in boneyard! (if i remember correctly). Random loot in random locations that would have been scavenged is ofcourse always silly. BUT 200 years after the world, in the REAL life, any power groups that remain would have probably gathered all the valuable things in one location. So you want a game, where you start with 12 ammo, you can't find anything else, you soon end up with only your knife and the only locations that you can find things is in:
The power base of the brotherhood
In the enclave
In random powerfull group A or B?
Because in the real life, you wouldn't be able to find a "weak" raider camp which you could murder and rearm yourself. They would be a few camps, all armed to the teeth. So again, you exit the vault, you wander around a little, you become a farmer, you get married, have children etc, just because you can't do anything else! Also, bethesda renames fallout 3, to fallout The Sims
In a post apocalyptic world, most of the wooden houses won't be standing, unless they have been repaired. If i am not mistaken, fallout 1 and 2 had some of these houses too right?
About that DC would have been destroyed completely, there are 2 options. One says, nuke the **** out of the capital, destroy it completely so the enemy loses a good chunk of it's population plus it's main city. The other says, send a small nuke, destroy part of it and leave thousands of injured people in need of shelter which would greatly burden the nearby settlements which for example wouldn't be nuked. Let's say option number 1 is correct however. So, the player exits the vault.... and finds nothing. Everything is dead. Game over. And before someone says "don't move the setting if you have to ressurect DC" the very same thing could have happened everywhere. In a real post apocalyptic world, pretty much everything would be dead.
About finding random loot in locations that doesn't make sense. Again, it's about how they implement it. For example, i don't want to find a flamethrower in a bookcase like in boneyard! (if i remember correctly). Random loot in random locations that would have been scavenged is ofcourse always silly. BUT 200 years after the world, in the REAL life, any power groups that remain would have probably gathered all the valuable things in one location. So you want a game, where you start with 12 ammo, you can't find anything else, you soon end up with only your knife and the only locations that you can find things is in:
The power base of the brotherhood
In the enclave
In random powerfull group A or B?
Because in the real life, you wouldn't be able to find a "weak" raider camp which you could murder and rearm yourself. They would be a few camps, all armed to the teeth. So again, you exit the vault, you wander around a little, you become a farmer, you get married, have children etc, just because you can't do anything else! Also, bethesda renames fallout 3, to fallout The Sims
shorrtybearr
First time out of the vault
Drakehash said:The question will be.
HOW THE HELL A MEDICINE CAN LAST 200 years
Done.
Any good explanation?
i think certain medicine can last quite a bit, as long as its not things like oils, liquids, insulin ect then i think most are safe to use. The military have an invested interest in drug life because of their turnover so i think they test for that sorta shit.
20 years? maybe.
200? thats pushing it.
But then again desperate measures call for desperate actions so if its still there they'll prob take it.
Obviously refrigeration would help but whether or not you could get the supermarkets units up and running again is another matter.
The wooden house thing? I've been around wood work for a long time and depending on conditions (proximity to coast, general moisture levels, use of preservative ect) wooden structures can last a very very long time. Its not unconceivable that it would last 200 years.
However,
A: its a primary resource, it would have been used for something
B: preservative helps against woodrot not nuclear fallout.
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
1) ok, so lets say a wooden house survives the initial blast. if its not kept up, termites would have gotten to it. if it is kept up, it would have tons of "patchwork" done to it. where would the manufacturing work be done to plane the logs to boards? or else they would have to use some other materials. wood shanty without any patchwork after 200+ years? cannot be explained by artistic liscense.
2) all medicines have an expiration date. if not kept under ideal conditions some of them turn to poisons after a couple years. couple as in 4-5. not 200. could be explained by artistic liscense.
3) with how valueable a power cell or generator from a car with enough power still in it to blow up after 200 years, it would have been scavenged. not explainable by artistic liscense.
4) there are lots of ways to conduct nuclear war. most people envision it with large nukes with ground bursts. throws up lots of radiation. think chyrnoble. not inhabitable after even a number of years. the reality is air burst smaller nuclear warheads. vastly more destruction than ground burst, smaller warheads for either similar or more physical destruction, and vastly lower fallout. much easier to clean up and much shorter period of time to be inhabitable. but then again, no building would be left intact.
either an area got hit with a nuclear blast or it did not. the totality of the destruction being everywhere is non-sensical. there would be areas not hit with blasts, they would be intact, and there would be no blast damage. this is my biggest complaint about FO1+2 but with the huge surface area they do have areas without bomb damage, but in FO3 it looks like everywhere got bombed but there are still buildings intact.... cannot be explained by artistic liscense. too big of an issue really.
2) all medicines have an expiration date. if not kept under ideal conditions some of them turn to poisons after a couple years. couple as in 4-5. not 200. could be explained by artistic liscense.
3) with how valueable a power cell or generator from a car with enough power still in it to blow up after 200 years, it would have been scavenged. not explainable by artistic liscense.
4) there are lots of ways to conduct nuclear war. most people envision it with large nukes with ground bursts. throws up lots of radiation. think chyrnoble. not inhabitable after even a number of years. the reality is air burst smaller nuclear warheads. vastly more destruction than ground burst, smaller warheads for either similar or more physical destruction, and vastly lower fallout. much easier to clean up and much shorter period of time to be inhabitable. but then again, no building would be left intact.
either an area got hit with a nuclear blast or it did not. the totality of the destruction being everywhere is non-sensical. there would be areas not hit with blasts, they would be intact, and there would be no blast damage. this is my biggest complaint about FO1+2 but with the huge surface area they do have areas without bomb damage, but in FO3 it looks like everywhere got bombed but there are still buildings intact.... cannot be explained by artistic liscense. too big of an issue really.
requiem_for_a_starfury
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
No you don't. Other than the fact that people have discussed, dissected and analyzed the games and gaming in general over the years, you compare good design to bad, you don't excuse bad design by pointing out other bad design. You don't say oh I did wrong but that's okay all my friends were doing it also. That excuse never cut the mustard with parents or the law.aenemic said:
Thing is Fallout 3 is being released over a decade after the first game, from a company that's said the original games would of been made this way if they'd had the technology back then, and that they are making it this way for the immershun!!! Yet they aren't showing any progress in game design.
aenemic said:
Verisimilitude.
aenemic said:
Oh man totally and I just punched a guy in the face but it doesn't matter since people do that all the time.
Seriously, we have criticized Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. There's heaps of threads dedicated to points of lore to be found in the old Fallout forums, and if the Interplay forums were still around there'd be even more there. But we're not talking Fallout 1/2 right now, we're talking Fallout 3. Crying "Fallout 1/2 made mistakes as well!" isn't going to solve anything, because we never actually denied they made mistakes.
aenemic said:
This is a private forum with rules. You have no right to free speech. None.
That's said, limiting the topic to the actual topic at hand instead of discussing whether or not the topic is worth discussing is a very valid rule. Why? Well, what good will a discussion of "this topic is worth discussing yes/no" do anyone? All it does is avoid discussing the actual topic, and we don't like avoidance here. It's essentially off-topic.
Your post is 3-for-3 on invalid arguments. "Games do silly things so never criticize their inner consistency", "the previous games have flaws too so you can't criticize flaws in this game" and "it's not important anyway!"
We're big fans of sensible, content-filled discussion here, in which people make actual arguments about the subject at hand rather than heaping up logical fallacies like your post does. And yes, we do censor people who fail to construct a logical argument. Why? Well heck, if we don't, pretty soon we'll all be spouting logical fallacies, and that's not the type of forum we'd like to be.
Now, if you can bring up actual, valid arguments, or explain how your arguments have been unfairly qualified by me as invalid, I'd love to hear it. If you're just going to rattle off the same lines, then well yawn.