My Landscape Idea

[Richoid]

Islands are float? 32-bit precision or 64-bit precision?

What does that mean and how is it relevent?

PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 20:23 Post subject:
Richoid wrote:
What? i never siad naything about a vault Roshambo although that would be a good idea,


Well, there must be SOME reason for people to waste their time writing along your idiocy other than "I want islands! I slands would be {'Kewl?' My native language is retard.}! Islands are only possible because, like, everywhere else would be under water."

Quote:

but the vault would be on the volcaneo so it makes no diffrence.


Huh? Are you fucking retarded? First, volcanoes have that problem of not being entirely dormant, in particular Hawaii. Second, building on a volcano, in particular a vault (which is by nature underground if you still didn't know), is so fucking stupid, I'm not surprised you said it.

Yeah but some of the islands wont be volcanic and as we have agreed there is no global warming so they could all be whole and do not actually have to be volcaneos.

Moron, Fallout is set 80 years after the Great War. Fallout 2 is 160 years after the Great War. If there were any effects of global warming due to the nukes, they would have been felt before "OMG suddenly everywhere is being fllooded!." at a potential 200 years after the Great War.

Global warming is not instant it takes vast amounts of time for ice to melt into water and for the water to rise due to heat convection and hence the sea levels rise and flood the islands, and anyway, there is no global warming remember so your point is irrelevent.

To put it simply enough for you - Global Warming = A Global Rise in Sea Level = NO ISLANDS.

Yeah but there is no global warming so there will be thousands of islands and thus a great amount of location potential.

Only as a single location, as they have little else to do with the ruined 50's science fiction style Americana that Fallout has at its core setting. It isn't a wasteland when you're hopping around tropical islands. Which we've now pointed out again for your benefit, so my guess is that you'll dredge up global warming again as some reason why you're right and that islands float like icebergs.

Think about the islands would be devestated to, hence it would match the setting, they would no longer be rainforests.

Given the dark ironies of Fallout and the setting, an oil rig is far more of an ironic and fitting location than a tropical island. So, until you can come up with better than the brain trust of BIS for the oil rig (though I suspect that the location was left over from when the real storywriters left their foundation for Fo2), or even try for similar, don't go for material that would make Chuck and Bethesda blush with envy. Yeah, I'm talking about that FOS magazine promo with the typical scantily clad female casually leaning against something in the tropics, which is everything everyone thinks about when they think of "post-apocalyptic wasteland".

But there are not any oil rigs out in that area of the Pacefic as all oil is to deep, hence the Enclave. You could not set the entire game on an oil rig anyway.

 

[Wooz]

Wahahahaahah, shit, this isn't happening.

 

[Sander]

Yeah but some of the islands wont be volcanic and as we have agreed there is no global warming so they could all be whole and do not actually have to be volcaneos.

I can't even begin to fathom how you wrap your mind around this, you use global warming to justify islands, and then when it's discarded you use its discarding to justify islands.
My brain is on the brink of implosion after reading this hideous 'logic'.

Global warming is not instant it takes vast amounts of time for ice to melt into water and for the water to rise due to heat convection and hence the sea levels rise and flood the islands, and anyway, there is no global warming remember so your point is irrelevent.

No it's not, it was your *sole* reasoning to put islands in there in the first place. Hence shooting it down for the umpteenth-and-millionth time is quite relevant.

Yeah but there is no global warming so there will be thousands of islands and thus a great amount of location potential.

Global warming means only islands, so that's the right location, but if there's no global warming, then islands are the bestest because of 'location potential'. Location potential, hah!

Think about the islands would be devestated to, hence it would match the setting, they would no longer be rainforests.

Hawaii is a rainforest?

But there are not any oil rigs out in that area of the Pacefic as all oil is to deep, hence the Enclave. You could not set the entire game on an oil rig anyway.

I love how you manage to take one completely irrelevant detail in someone's post and start harping on that in a completely nonsensical manner.

MY BRAIN IS ON FIRE! ARGH!

 

[Roshambo]

Islands are float? 32-bit precision or 64-bit precision?

What does that mean and how is it relevent?

It means your parents, aunt and uncle, used a 2-bit condom.

Yeah but some of the islands wont be volcanic and as we have agreed there is no global warming so they could all be whole and do not actually have to be volcaneos.

Hey, you can be taught. So you finally figured out that your whole global warming thing was just stupidity. It is about time.

Global warming is not instant it takes vast amounts of time for ice to melt into water and for the water to rise due to heat convection and hence the sea levels rise and flood the islands, and anyway, there is no global warming remember so your point is irrelevent.

So what was your point in bringing it up in the first place?

Yeah but there is no global warming so there will be thousands of islands and thus a great amount of location potential.

LOCATION POTENTIAL FOR WHAT? Again, you haven't explained why a TROPICAL island would suit a post-apocalyptic setting. Hell, we just got you to figure out that islands couldn't really exist if entire continents were flooding, and now you still want to blather on about islands.

Find a purpose or shut the hell up with this idiocy. Then you go on about islands having rainforests.

Think about the islands would be devestated to, hence it would match the setting, they would no longer be rainforests.

Islands are generally not the target of nukes, nor a sizeable human population that suddenly has to fend without any kind of social infrastructure.

Islanders would simply be able to keep on living, but with the general mutations found in the ocean from the effects of locations that had radioactivity to cause mutations.

Rainforests are entire ecological structures that involve many levels of plant growth, almost like in layers. Tropical islands do not have that, typically, unless they are near mainland rainforests themselves, and are much lesser versions of real rainforests. Rainforests exist mostly in South America and are called that for a reason, one that you chose to abuse in yet another lying defense of your stupidity.

But there are not any oil rigs out in that area of the Pacefic as all oil is to deep, hence the Enclave. You could not set the entire game on an oil rig anyway.

I'm only going to tell you this once. Don't suck on the crack pipe before you post, because while it might make some sense to you then, you already have a tenuous grasp of the setting at best on your most lucid of moments.

 

[Richoid]

I can't even begin to fathom how you wrap your mind around this, you use global warming to justify islands, and then when it's discarded you use its discarding to justify islands.
My brain is on the brink of implosion after reading this hideous 'logic'.

Ok as you wont believe the fact that the islands are the only viable location because of global warming then i can argue that the islands are full due to no global warming, hence which ever way you look at it i am right and islands are a viable location. If you choose to look at it using the evidence of global warming (the map posted with silt deposits, the date and the SF flood defences) then the islands are the only viable location. Thats the diffrence, either way islands are a practacal solution to the location problem.

No it's not, it was your *sole* reasoning to put islands in there in the first place. Hence shooting it down for the umpteenth-and-millionth time is quite relevant.

Yes but most posters in this topic have expressed that islands would be a viable addition to the game, what im saying is that you cannot have islands as a seperate setting because of global warming splitting them off from the main land with new currents and silt deposits, so if you want islands, which everyone seems to then the entire game must be based on islands.

Global warming means only islands, so that's the right location, but if there's no global warming, then islands are the bestest because of 'location potential'. Location potential, hah!

Yes location potential i have already explained this in some detail.

Hawaii is a rainforest?

I never mentioned Hawaii...

 

[Wooz]

Fallout : Samoa


Wow. Way to catch that post-apoc feel.

 

[Roshambo]

Ok as you wont believe the fact that the islands are the only viable location because of global warming then i can argue that the islands are full due to no global warming, hence which ever way you look at it i am right and islands are a viable location.

So close, yet so stupid.

If ENTIRE CONTINENTS FLOOD, then an island, which is ON SEA LEVEL, will be flooded as well. If China or "most of Asia" floods, Japan (an island) is fucked. If you'd take a look at most tropical islands that do have mountains, people don't generally don't live on them, but instead live around sea level or a bit above.

As for your Carribean idea...that is kind of funny since most of them are AS FLAT AS FLORIDA.

So your "logic" that islands would fit with global warming is by far the most retarded shit I've seen, and your straw man argument attempt of trying to argue that islands would fit because of no global warming is just as stupid. Again, there is nothing post-apocalyptic about a tropical island, you dumb shit.

If you choose to look at it using the evidence of global warming (the map posted with silt deposits, the date and the SF flood defences) then the islands are the only viable location. Thats the diffrence, either way islands are a practacal solution to the location problem.

No, they are the solution of smoking crack.

Yes but most posters in this topic have expressed that islands would be a viable addition to the game, what im saying is that you cannot have islands as a seperate setting because of global warming splitting them off from the main land with new currents and silt deposits, so if you want islands, which everyone seems to then the entire game must be based on islands.

NOBODY WANTS YOUR FUCKING STUPID TROPICAL ISLANDS UNLESS THEY ARE GOING TO BE A SINGLE LOCATION. Only YOU want islands, and can't seem to understand the setting style of Fallout. And if you can have a tanker sail out to an oil rig, then you can do the same for an island location of importance. The problem is, you haven't yet given us any reason why islands should be put into the setting, nor have you really put any thought behind your drivel.

Yes location potential i have already explained this in some detail.

Liar.

I never mentioned Hawaii...

You said "tropical". Hawaii, nor any of your other tropical ideas, really have a place in the setting, nor are large enough to be counted as "rainforest", unless you count Cuba. Which would be FLOODED with global warming, and without you'd still need a reason to go there despite the fact that limited travel would be viable there.

 

[Hotel California]

Yes but most posters in this topic have expressed that islands would be a viable addition to the game

WOAH there Tiger! Just about everyone has disagreed with you and said that islands soley as where fallout takes place are a BAD idea!

I hate to break it to you, but as much as i've dreamed of having my own little secret island get away, alla Thunderbirds style, its just not pheasable. What the fuck do you plan to do on these islands.

Ignoring totally whether or not they can exist - Complex comunities on modern islands aren't self sufficient. Therefore you can only have basic tribals. This doesn't seem to make much of a FO game to me. AND seeing as you've said they'd be "devestated" i fail to see how they could support anything. (however, consider that FO3 will probably be set a good 200+ years after the bombs so stuff regrows)

To be honest, buildilng on volcanos is a really stupid idea: firstly
the land is far from flat, secondly whilst you have fertile land it won't exactly be tillable, and finally, what are you gonna do when it blows up? And don't just argue that there will be some that aren't volcanic. Its moronic and volcanos aren't even the main threat - (over population, typhoon/hurricanes, etc)
You may not have noticed but most of the pacific islands are right in the middle of the damn ocean. No way you're gonna get there without a *sic* tanker (which we damn well hope won't happen) or a *sic* Vertibird and seeing as that istn't really pheasable what do you plan to do? Sail to it? Didn't think so.

 

[Sander]

Ok as you wont believe the fact that the islands are the only viable location because of global warming then i can argue that the islands are full due to no global warming, hence which ever way you look at it i am right and islands are a viable location. If you choose to look at it using the evidence of global warming (the map posted with silt deposits, the date and the SF flood defences) then the islands are the only viable location. Thats the diffrence, either way islands are a practacal solution to the location problem.

Garbleblarblebbfsbaksbyifdba.
Oh, sorry, my brain almost imploded.
Let me try this one more time for the road:
There is no evidence of global warming. All your blathering about silt deposits is so moronic I can't even believe you came up with it, and when you started on using erosion of mountains as a cause of *silt* deposits.....egad.
Also, let me say this as simply as possible: San Francisco had no flood defences. None. There were no flood defences on the map at all.

Now, island hopping isn't a viable solution since it doesn't fit the setting of the game in any way. A single island could be interesting, but island hopping in the Caribbean, which is what you want, is moronic.

Yes but most posters in this topic have expressed that islands would be a viable addition to the game, what im saying is that you cannot have islands as a seperate setting because of global warming splitting them off from the main land with new currents and silt deposits, so if you want islands, which everyone seems to then the entire game must be based on islands.

Eblargh? Your grasp of logic is so retarded we should use it on my faculty to teach first-year students logical flaws. Like moronic assumptions. There is no global warming, hence global warming cannot be used to justify anything.
But besides that, islands got split off from the main land (wait, islands aren't already split off from the main land by definition) because of currents and *silt deposits*?

As I've said before: MY BRAIN IS ON FIRE! ARGH!

I never mentioned Hawaii...

Tropical islands. Tropical. You know, like Hawaii.

 

[Richoid]

There is no evidence of global warming. All your blathering about silt deposits is so moronic I can't even believe you came up with it, and when you started on using erosion of mountains as a cause of *silt* deposits.....egad.

Ok, so lets pretend there is no global warming and address the issue from this perspective:

Now, island hopping isn't a viable solution since it doesn't fit the setting of the game in any way. A single island could be interesting, but island hopping in the Caribbean, which is what you want, is moronic.

No the Pacific would be better and in a strange way it is the perfect setting, it is desolate just like the setting needs to be but diffrent and more new than the wastes of previous Fallut games.

Tropical islands. Tropical. You know, like Hawaii.

Yes but Hawaii is to large as it would be just a single community and after the Enclave going up in a mushroom cloud i doubt you could get to Hawaii with the tanker.

WOAH there Tiger! Just about everyone has disagreed with you and said that islands soley as where fallout takes place are a BAD idea!

No everyones disagreed that it can be used as the basis of the game, many have said tehy like the idea of an island hence there is intrest tehy just havnt realise taht you cannot have the best of both worlds, if you want islands then you must have only islands.

Ignoring totally whether or not they can exist - Complex comunities on modern islands aren't self sufficient. Therefore you can only have basic tribals. This doesn't seem to make much of a FO game to me. AND seeing as you've said they'd be "devestated" i fail to see how they could support anything. (however, consider that FO3 will probably be set a good 200+ years after the bombs so stuff regrows)

Thats the point, on large islands it would demonstrate how badly hit they have been, they have to adapt and be self sufficant before they die, your main game quest could be to help them.

To be honest, buildilng on volcanos is a really stupid idea: firstly
the land is far from flat, secondly whilst you have fertile land it won't exactly be tillable, and finally, what are you gonna do when it blows up? And don't just argue that there will be some that aren't volcanic. Its moronic and volcanos aren't even the main threat - (over population, typhoon/hurricanes, etc)
You may not have noticed but most of the pacific islands are right in the middle of the damn ocean. No way you're gonna get there without a *sic* tanker (which we damn well hope won't happen) or a *sic* Vertibird and seeing as that istn't really pheasable what do you plan to do? Sail to it? Didn't t

Well if there is no global warming then you wouldnt need to build on a volcaneo would you.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

This is indubitably the best thread on this forum.

you cannot have islands as a seperate setting because of global warming splitting them off from the main land with new currents and silt deposits, so if you want islands, which everyone seems to then the entire game must be based on islands.

Hold on... that was your point? That currents created by global warming (which never happened in Fallout - '50s SF moron, no one knew about global warming back then) make islands inaccessible (which is utter bullshit, any body of water can be traversed with a good, pre-war, nuclear-powered vessel like the tanker from FO2), so if Fallout was set on an island, the player would never have access to the mainland? Isn't that all the more reason to *not* have Fallout take place on islands, dumbass?

 

[Roshambo]

No the Pacific would be better and in a strange way it is the perfect setting, it is desolate just like the setting needs to be but diffrent and more new than the wastes of previous Fallut games.

Tropical != desolate. We've only been trying to beat this through your skull about as many times as we had to for your lies about global warming.

Tropical islands. Tropical. You know, like Hawaii.

Yes but Hawaii is to large as it would be just a single community and after the Enclave going up in a mushroom cloud i doubt you could get to Hawaii with the tanker.

So then what would islands have to do with the mainland, the main of the story, or anything else other than "wouldn't it be kewwl if you could go between islands" that you can't seem to do much thinking about?

Hawaii is perhaps the best example of any island beingg of use to the storyline, and still doesn't quite fit.

No everyones disagreed that it can be used as the basis of the game, many have said tehy like the idea of an island hence there is intrest tehy just havnt realise taht you cannot have the best of both worlds, if you want islands then you must have only islands.

So what purpose would there be to have the islands, if supposedly to you they are isolated from the mainland, will undoubtedly be just filled with tribals and natives, and otherwise have no relevance to the Fallout story?

And then you say you can island-hop with sailing?

Are you too stupid to ignore what you yourself write?

Thats the point, on large islands it would demonstrate how badly hit they have been, they have to adapt and be self sufficant before they die, your main game quest could be to help them.

And then, you can hop to other islands, but never the mainland because the silt will make it impossible to touch land.

Well if there is no global warming then you wouldnt need to build on a volcaneo would you.

Well, you're the dumbshit who brought it up and used it as a defense a number of times. Don't blame those correcting your idiocy if you can't be bothered to think for yourself.

 

[Sina]

This is indubitably the best thread on this forum.

(which is utter bullshit, any body of water can be traversed with a good, pre-war, nuclear-powered vessel like the tanker from FO2)

You could actually sail around the planet with it.

I don't believe you are still arguing about this, Fallout on the islands NO!

Islands as location, maybe, only if its done in an interesting way, on burned and blackened beaches of some atoll ...on which you find, maybe, some worn out blocks of concrete or pieces of steel with washed out inscription bikini island or some other, where people died because early atom-bomb testing...and never got squat because of it.

It would be nice to have few of those easter eggs in fallout, not just comical ones.

 

[Richoid]

Whats happened to my avatar? Why is it some random person in black and white and why does it say Gilligan? And why can i not chnage it?

You could actually sail around the planet with it.

No you couldn't hence the reason it needed fuel...

Tropical != desolate. We've only been trying to beat this through your skull about as many times as we had to for your lies about global warming.

Yes, thats my point tropical does=desolate.

So then what would islands have to do with the mainland, the main of the story, or anything else other than "wouldn't it be kewwl if you could go between islands" that you can't seem to do much thinking about?

Hawaii is perhaps the best example of any island beingg of use to the storyline, and still doesn't quite fit.

Fiji or Vanuatu would both make far better locations than Hawaii

PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 22:43 Post subject:
Richoid wrote:

No the Pacific would be better and in a strange way it is the perfect setting, it is desolate just like the setting needs to be but diffrent and more new than the wastes of previous Fallut games.


Tropical != desolate. We've only been trying to beat this through your skull about as many times as we had to for your lies about global warming.

Quote:

Quote:
Tropical islands. Tropical. You know, like Hawaii.


Yes but Hawaii is to large as it would be just a single community and after the Enclave going up in a mushroom cloud i doubt you could get to Hawaii with the tanker.


So then what would islands have to do with the mainland, the main of the story, or anything else other than "wouldn't it be kewwl if you could go between islands" that you can't seem to do much thinking about?

Hawaii is perhaps the best example of any island beingg of use to the storyline, and still doesn't quite fit.

Quote:
So what purpose would there be to have the islands, if supposedly to you they are isolated from the mainland, will undoubtedly be just filled with tribals and natives, and otherwise have no relevance to the Fallout story?

Yes but as Fallout 2 proved, tribals fit the scene very well.

 

[Snowguy]

Whats happened to my avatar? Why is it some random person in black and white and why does it say Gilligan? And why can i not chnage it?

Mr. Vormov, she doesn't know yet.

 

[Ghoullove]

The avatar is from the t.v. show Gilligans Island.It appears you are not from North America. Gilligan, is a not so intelligent first mate of a boat with 7 people who get marooned on a deserted island in the South Pacific.

These were the following characters in it:

Mary-Anne: A hot girl from Kansas that I had certain thoughts for and about.

Skipper: Captain of the tour boat that got marooned. Big fat man

Ginger: Hot red head movie actress who I had sinful thoughts of with Mary-Anne and myself.

Professor: Brain of the island.

Mr. Howell and his wife Mrs. Howell: Billionaire rich pricks.

This has nothing to do with Fallout.

 

[Morpoggel]

after the Enclave going up in a mushroom cloud i doubt you could get to Hawaii with the tanker.

You got back to San Fran with the tanker after the Oil Rig going boom... which means the tanker was still intact. And I doubt those dudes in San Fran we're the only ones with fuel. So why could you not get to Hawaii...

Just stuff lots of Small Batteries in it and voila.

Oh, and ever thought of starting a career as a stand-up comedian? I find you very amusing...

 

[Punck_D]

Tropical != desolate. We've only been trying to beat this through your skull about as many times as we had to for your lies about global warming.

Yes, thats my point tropical does=desolate.

You can't be serious. Say that you are not.

Fiji or Vanuatu would both make far better locations than Hawaii

Whoa, let me guess. You just looked for other islands in the pacific besides Hawaii via Wiki. You should look more at the FO setting and not the setting on your worldmap.

Yes but as Fallout 2 proved, tribals fit the scene very well.

No they didn't. But that's totally another point than you quoted by Roshambo. Look, when your game is set on an island only inhabitet by tribals, what will be to do there? Will you sacrifice virgins on your volcano?

Altogether your post is so hilarious and grotesque... Come on, it's Gilligan. He lives on a desolated island.

 

[Ghoullove]

Some interesting episodes of Gilligan's Island:

Attack of the Headhunters

Japanese soldiers attack

Ginger gets the hots for the professor

Mr. Howell makes more money

The author (me) once again relives fantasy with Ginger and Mary-Anne

Nuke gets dropped causing Fallout to rain down on the islanders thus beginning Gilligan's Fallout. Thus tying in the Fallout theme.

Sorry I am spamming but I cannot pass up a Giiigan's Island moment so I thought I would share.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

wouldn't you like to cross the sea in a boat instead of spent time walking past generic wasteland?

Going back to this, how would crossing featureless water be more interesting than generic wasteland? Beyond the novelty factor that would wear off probably in less than two minutes?

however the travelling aspect could be partly or mostly based on water to enable more enjoyment.

How would it be more enjoyable? Unless you're secretly advocating real time travel rather than a world map, you'd still just be watching a marker cross a map. Even if travel was real time it'd still be as boring as hell crossing generic water. Navigation of the seas was always problematic, why because there are no land marks, so they'd have to fast time sea crossings, even making them instant to combat the sheer boredom of water travel across featureless generic water!

Even random encounters would get boring fast, what will it be today pirates or sea monsters? Special encounters would be even worse. You find an island, there's a great big melted pair of bronze feet admist the ruins of a large white building. You avatar drops to their knees and says 'Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!'

You could even conceive of buying a boat

How would you get around without one anyway?