brandonhart61 said:
Frankly Deviltakeme, my quotes are from your posts are only longer than the actual comment because you feel the need to space everything out in YOUR posts so that it's almost half a page. Please read the end of my post again, you will clearly see that I am acknowledging Fallout 3's plot holes, I'm not trying to defend them! My statement even says that I'm not defending it: "all the games have some one way or another".
Who is being childish now? What were you saying about you being open-minded and intelligent? When you're running around calling us childish?
Then what is your point? That you're trying to get us to acknowledge plot holes for Fallout 2, rather than Fallout 3?
Look, there are a few in Fallout 1 and 2. Like, in Fallout 1, the story hinges on the Overseer surviving to the ending, so he's rendered invincible/immortal when you do interact with him. Not one of the fanbase's favorite things about that, hence why this was mostly changed in Fallout 2 and everyone you can meet can be killed.
Fallout 2 has a ghost girl - not the fake ghosts at the ghost farm, but an actual ghost who you have to return her locket.
I'm sorry you don't know the material like you say you do. Don't be mad that you are not capable of keeping up.
If you liked Fallout 3, fine. Respect our opinion that most of it doesn't hold up logic and is far more plot hole ridden, or defend the plot holes that you don't think are.
Now that's over, let's continue on with actual logical inconsistencies of Fallout 3:
Here's a logical situation that's bugged me for awhile:
Why, in 200 years, did not one of these kids simply beat up the mayor (the traditional way of becoming mayor) and say "I'm mayor now and I'm changing the rules, I'm not leaving and neither is anyone else" - 200 years of anarchy and poor education is a long time for everyone to follow a rule like "You're 16 now, get out!" simply because the previous adults left to try and find help.
Child Cruelty in Video games be damned, at some point, these kids have probably taken shots at each other over dumb arguments. Why hasn't anyone over the age of 12 matured to the point where they think of something better? They have the resources to bring back more kids and more food, but they enforce the rule that they have to kick out adults with the only reasoning being "we don't have the room or resources" - food is required for adolescents far more than at any other time of life, except for pregnant or lactating mothers - yet they bring more children into Little Lamplight (either by bringing back orphans or making new ones), enough weapons to fight off super mutants (and sell to complete strangers in the Gift shop), produce enough food for the entire population with enough to spare the Lone Wanderer, and then there's plenty of room in their gigantic cavern, with some intact buildings outside which they could pull apart for more supplies or use as a shelter.
Some might argue that if they didn't bring in new kids now and then, well, then they'll all eventually have no one in the caverns at all. And as the mayor says, it does run smoothly with complete anarchy, the monsters and raiders are at bay, there are no serious violent take overs, and they ration supplies properly to survive, and everyone follows the rule to leave when they come of age, even if they don't want to.
Number one, the place is absolute chaos, the Mayor and everyone else says so. There's no strict moral code, except a player's misplaced belief that children always do the "right thing." The population is made up of abandoned or orphaned children found in the Wasteland or the result of teenage pregnancies already within - not necessarily a moral upbringing that instills the values of following a tradition or rules.
Number two, it's blatantly stretching the line of believability to think that none the 'adults' who came from Little Lamplight wouldn't give up a whole lot of children in exchange for their own freedom from slavers or raiders. Big Town didn't spring up overnight when the Lone Wanderer comes across it, afterall.
Number three, the entire population of Little Lamplight is made up of kids. They're uneducated, unguided, and no, they don't think the details out. There's always kids who think they know best, and many of them will think 'tradition' is stupid and try to change it. You have to stretch logic really far to make the concept work.
Little Lamplight makes kids leave when they turn 16 or 18 or whatever. As a tradition or a rule. What -teenager-, especially uneducated or unruly ones, would willfully follow such banal, idiotic rules? Wouldn't they think that the rule is stupid and not follow it?
The place is otherwise chaos, who in Little Lamplight would actually care? About their birthdays, about who is an adult and who isn't?
After 200 years, even children would get the idea that they need more food as teenagers than they did in the years before. So why cut down on your own food supply or the food supply for the people who are your 'family' - blood relations or not.
Again, it's a community based on a Fantasy concept, rather than on any sort of realistic expectation of children or a situation in a post-apocalyptic society.
Can children be selfish? Yes. Can they be cruel? Yes. Hell, it's possible for children to be even more cruel than adults, even to other children. We're expected to believe that Little Lamplight will shoot people to death if they try to come in (not that children can even fire guns in the game), but they wouldn't have killed each other over the title of Mayor?
It's only the programming of Fallout 3 that prevents child mortality.
It's been two hundred years since the founding of Little Lamplight and there has been zero change in how the 'system' operates. With all the issues plaguing the Capital Wasteland and Little Lamplight itself, some kind of change would have happened. But Little Lamplight remains exactly as it was just after the bombs fell. It's been said before that the situations and communities of Fallout 3 would have made more sense twenty years after the bombs as opposed to two hundred.
