Plot Holes of Fallout 4 - Spoilers

[Someguy37]

Cabot house is a plot hole in the sense that the whole quest is 1 giant plot hole.

As for the Railroad...if the Institute is full of the best and brightest minds of CIT and has TELEPORTATION TECHNOLOGY AND TALKING ROBOTS I'm pretty sure it makes no sense that they are unable to destroy a group that uses "RAILROAD" as the secret password for their base which also has a big red line drawn straight to its location

Again, explain. Is this plot hole actually a "hole in the plot without explanation" or just "something I don't like, thus plothole"


You should look up the history of many famous resistance movements that got nearly destroyed several times by factions far more powerful then them, only to persist later. Its difficult to destroy the Railroad when it goes as Far as D.C., and possibly farther. Manya Vargas, Tulip, Father Clifford, Herbert Dashwood, and Victoria Watts are all Railroad members, and all possibly still alive.

The whole point of the Railroad is that there is no central command that coordinates the actions of everyone. You can destroy the HQ, kill all the current leadership, but no one at HQ knows the location of even half the safe houses in just Boston, let alone all the way down to D.C. and beyond. There will always be surviving members, and they just reform the organization elsewhere, making it impossible to ever truly kill, no matter what dumb things they do.

It's like you didn't play Fallout & Fallout 2.

Alternate history Bakersfield seemingly does have sky scrappers
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_endings#Necropolis
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net..._Ending.png/revision/latest?cb=20110115211033

Same with Chicago
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Chicago
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net...hicago2.png/revision/latest?cb=20111002150418

And according to the Vault dweller memoirs tons of skyscrapers, and their shells, still stood in LA
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Vault_Dweller's_memoirs
"The city of Los Angeles must have been the largest in the world before the War. The LA Boneyard stretched forever, the skeletons of buildings lying under the hot sun. Not even the wind entered this dead city."

Its like you didn't play Fallout 1, 2, or Tactics.

 

[whirlingdervish]

"The city of Los Angeles must have been the largest in the world before the War. The LA Boneyard stretched forever, the skeletons of buildings lying under the hot sun. Not even the wind entered this dead city."

LYING. AS IN, NOT STANDING.

Reading comprehension. Get some.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Cabot house is a plot hole in the sense that the whole quest is 1 giant plot hole.

As for the Railroad...if the Institute is full of the best and brightest minds of CIT and has TELEPORTATION TECHNOLOGY AND TALKING ROBOTS I'm pretty sure it makes no sense that they are unable to destroy a group that uses "RAILROAD" as the secret password for their base which also has a big red line drawn straight to its location

Again, explain. Is this plot hole actually a "hole in the plot without explanation" or just "something I don't like, thus plothole"


You should look up the history of many famous resistance movements that got nearly destroyed several times by factions far more powerful then them, only to persist later. Its difficult to destroy the Railroad when it goes as Far as D.C., and possibly farther. Manya Vargas, Tulip, Father Clifford, Herbert Dashwood, and Victoria Watts are all Railroad members, and all possibly still alive.

The whole point of the Railroad is that there is no central command that coordinates the actions of everyone. You can destroy the HQ, kill all the current leadership, but no one at HQ knows the location of even half the safe houses in just Boston, let alone all the way down to D.C. and beyond. There will always be surviving members, and they just reform the organization elsewhere, making it impossible to ever truly kill, no matter what dumb things they do.

Perhaps I just find the whole fleshing out of the Railroad preposterous and poorly written.

Cabot House...literally the entire thing is a giant black hole, but I really don't have energy to write about it. Maybe I'm wrong anyway.

I will say this though: I decided to give Mass Effect 3 a go recently after ignoring it (I was a fan of Mass Effect 1 and 2 and ignored 3 because it apparently "ruined everything"). The writers in that game have taken far greater effort at keeping the universe coherent by making an effort to explain why things are the way they are. In contrast, most of Fallout 4 is "not interested in discussing realism in a world with talking zombies" and things are just there for no reason. The difference in the amount of explanation and consistency in the two fictional universes is so much that I don't think I can even go back to Fallout 4 after Mass Effect.

And so it is that we have seen the day that Mass Effect is a better RPG than a Fallout game.

 

[Someguy37]

LYING. AS IN, NOT STANDING.

Reading comprehension. Get some.

You are aware it is possible for thing to lie in ruins and still be standing if, you know, all the outside shells and stuff of the buildings had fallen apart. Thus meaning the thing its destroyed.

I don't understand why you people are so adamant to try to revise history when the lack of tall buildings was simply because the isometric engine couldn't support anything more then 3 floors above the surface.

Perhaps I just find the whole fleshing out of the Railroad preposterous and poorly written.

Cabot House...literally the entire thing is a giant black hole, but I really don't have energy to write about it. Maybe I'm wrong anyway.

I will say this though: I decided to give Mass Effect 3 a go recently after ignoring it (I was a fan of Mass Effect 1 and 2 and ignored 3 because it apparently "ruined everything"). The writers in that game have taken far greater effort at keeping the universe coherent by making an effort to explain why things are the way they are. In contrast, most of Fallout 4 is "not interested in discussing realism in a world with talking zombies" and things are just there for no reason. The difference in the amount of explanation and consistency in the two fictional universes is so much that I don't think I can even go back to Fallout 4 after Mass Effect.

And so it is that we have seen the day that Mass Effect is a better RPG than a Fallout game.

I found everything in Fallout 4 either directly explained, or at least explained with past lore.

So far, most of these questions have seemingly resulted from "I didn't read all the journals and computer terminals lying around that explain all this."

 

[whirlingdervish]

It's also possible you are grasping at any possible meaning for the word "lying" that supports your completely 180 degree interpretation of a known english word into something that it doesn't mean like "standing".

If they were a bunch of building skeletons STANDING AROUND what would prevent the wind from blowing into the city? Their skeletal steel frames (magically unaffected by the corrosive forces of the pacific ocean ofc) are somehow impervious to wind?

 

[Big No]

If they were a bunch of building skeletons STANDING AROUND what would prevent the wind from blowing into the city? Their skeletal steel frames (magically unaffected by the corrosive forces of the pacific ocean ofc) are somehow impervious to wind?

It said though that "not even the wind entered this dead city" though, so there wouldn't be wind to knock them over. And wouldn't the wind just go through the buildings anyway since they're so hollow?

 

[Someguy37]

It's also possible you are grasping at any possible meaning for the word "lying" that supports your completely 180 degree interpretation of a known english word into something that it doesn't mean like "standing".

If they were a bunch of building skeletons STANDING AROUND what would prevent the wind from blowing into the city?

Their skeletal steel frames (magically unaffected by the corrosive forces of the pacific ocean ofc) are somehow impervious to wind?

That's not a 180 degree interpretation of a known English word. Many times have the word lying been used to refer to things such as "an ancient city lying under the sands of the deserts" and the city itself is still intact, with all its building's standing, its just buried under sand. Lying means both like "you are laying down while asleep", and means "to be under something". You could describe modern day Vegas to be "lying under the heat of the Mojave sun". That doesn't mean Vegas is destroyed or anything, it just means its under the heat of the desert.


What prevents the winds from blowing into the city if the buildings are blown down? Nothing, it just doesn't, because reasons.


One could make that same argument for House's casino. Even if it didn't get hit by the bombs, its been 200 years with zero maintenance, thing should have fallen years ago. The Golden Gate bridge was standing, at least to some degree, even as far back as Fallout 2. That thing should have corroded, and fallen into the sea, years before Fallout 2 begins, but it didn't, because its a game, and its more interesting when famous landmarks still stand then when they don't, regardless of it that makes sense or not.

That is sort of the reason why, even as far back as Fallout 1's manual, they made up bullshit excuses to nerf the Fallout universe's nuclear bombs into small explosions but more radiation, so they could have reasons why all this stuff still stands, when, realistically, not even the still standing pre-war buildings we see in Fallout 1-2 should be standing if those cities got nuked even remotely as hard as they are said to.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

LYING. AS IN, NOT STANDING.

Reading comprehension. Get some.

You are aware it is possible for thing to lie in ruins and still be standing if, you know, all the outside shells and stuff of the buildings had fallen apart. Thus meaning the thing its destroyed.

I don't understand why you people are so adamant to try to revise history when the lack of tall buildings was simply because the isometric engine couldn't support anything more then 3 floors above the surface.

Perhaps I just find the whole fleshing out of the Railroad preposterous and poorly written.

Cabot House...literally the entire thing is a giant black hole, but I really don't have energy to write about it. Maybe I'm wrong anyway.

I will say this though: I decided to give Mass Effect 3 a go recently after ignoring it (I was a fan of Mass Effect 1 and 2 and ignored 3 because it apparently "ruined everything"). The writers in that game have taken far greater effort at keeping the universe coherent by making an effort to explain why things are the way they are. In contrast, most of Fallout 4 is "not interested in discussing realism in a world with talking zombies" and things are just there for no reason. The difference in the amount of explanation and consistency in the two fictional universes is so much that I don't think I can even go back to Fallout 4 after Mass Effect.

And so it is that we have seen the day that Mass Effect is a better RPG than a Fallout game.

I found everything in Fallout 4 either directly explained, or at least explained with past lore.

So far, most of these questions have seemingly resulted from "I didn't read all the journals and computer terminals lying around that explain all this."

1) If your primary storytelling is journals and computer terminals then...well yea do I really need to explain why that's a problem?

2) I read all of them. If you compare the effort Mass Effect has put into making a coherent story with comparably interesting characters, no reasonable person would say Fallout 4 was in any way its equal. Fact is 5 Hours of Mass Effect 3 felt better than 80 hours of Fallout 4. Mass Effect has journals and data pads to read like Fallout 4's computer terminals, only they don't rely on it to explain MAJOR parts of the story and leave everything else blank.

In conclusion, no one is ever going to convince me that Fallout 4 belongs in even the same room as Mass Effect's well put together universe, and that is sad because there are deeper RPGs than Mass Effect itself. The dialogues are better, the writing is better, the voice acting is better, the character interaction is more organic, and even the least interesting Mass Effect character and quest is more interesting and has more story than Fallout 4's most interesting character or quest.

 

[MercenarySnake]

3) The fact that downtown Boston still has skyscrapers relatively intact (it looks nice though so whatever)

3. See Bakersfield, Chicago, and literally every other major city in a Fallout game.

What like Los Angeles? Oh yeah.. it's wrecked down to ground level.
San Fran? Wrecked.
Vegas? Wrecked even though most of the missiles were stopped.

Bakersfield has no skyscrapers. It's a shithole of a city in the middle of a valley, most of which is single story buildings.
Gaze upon it's many skyscrapers! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Bakersfield#/media/File:DowntownBakersfield.jpg


It's like you didn't play Fallout & Fallout 2.

I don't this this guy has played Fallout 1 & 2 either. Where is he getting "every major city has skyscrapers" at? I was in San Francisco in china town in Fallout 2 and I didn't see any skyscrapers.

 

[omegaspruz]

Cabot house is a plot hole in the sense that the whole quest is 1 giant plot hole.

As for the Railroad...if the Institute is full of the best and brightest minds of CIT and has TELEPORTATION TECHNOLOGY AND TALKING ROBOTS I'm pretty sure it makes no sense that they are unable to destroy a group that uses "RAILROAD" as the secret password for their base which also has a big red line drawn straight to its location

Again, explain. Is this plot hole actually a "hole in the plot without explanation" or just "something I don't like, thus plothole"


You should look up the history of many famous resistance movements that got nearly destroyed several times by factions far more powerful then them, only to persist later. Its difficult to destroy the Railroad when it goes as Far as D.C., and possibly farther. Manya Vargas, Tulip, Father Clifford, Herbert Dashwood, and Victoria Watts are all Railroad members, and all possibly still alive.

The whole point of the Railroad is that there is no central command that coordinates the actions of everyone. You can destroy the HQ, kill all the current leadership, but no one at HQ knows the location of even half the safe houses in just Boston, let alone all the way down to D.C. and beyond. There will always be surviving members, and they just reform the organization elsewhere, making it impossible to ever truly kill, no matter what dumb things they do.

Perhaps I just find the whole fleshing out of the Railroad preposterous and poorly written.

Cabot House...literally the entire thing is a giant black hole, but I really don't have energy to write about it. Maybe I'm wrong anyway.

I will say this though: I decided to give Mass Effect 3 a go recently after ignoring it (I was a fan of Mass Effect 1 and 2 and ignored 3 because it apparently "ruined everything"). The writers in that game have taken far greater effort at keeping the universe coherent by making an effort to explain why things are the way they are. In contrast, most of Fallout 4 is "not interested in discussing realism in a world with talking zombies" and things are just there for no reason. The difference in the amount of explanation and consistency in the two fictional universes is so much that I don't think I can even go back to Fallout 4 after Mass Effect.

And so it is that we have seen the day that Mass Effect is a better RPG than a Fallout game.

No wrong.

Mass Effect always been a better RPG than Bethesda Fallout games. However dont you dare, say that Mass Effect 3 keeps the universe coherent. It destroyed it with more retcons than Fallout 4 ever did or will be able to. I could probably write you an essay about how horrible the plot and lore in this game is. And no, its not only the ending...

PS Also you have to absolutely love that opening "We fight or we die" line, truly poetic...

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Cabot house is a plot hole in the sense that the whole quest is 1 giant plot hole.

As for the Railroad...if the Institute is full of the best and brightest minds of CIT and has TELEPORTATION TECHNOLOGY AND TALKING ROBOTS I'm pretty sure it makes no sense that they are unable to destroy a group that uses "RAILROAD" as the secret password for their base which also has a big red line drawn straight to its location

Again, explain. Is this plot hole actually a "hole in the plot without explanation" or just "something I don't like, thus plothole"


You should look up the history of many famous resistance movements that got nearly destroyed several times by factions far more powerful then them, only to persist later. Its difficult to destroy the Railroad when it goes as Far as D.C., and possibly farther. Manya Vargas, Tulip, Father Clifford, Herbert Dashwood, and Victoria Watts are all Railroad members, and all possibly still alive.

The whole point of the Railroad is that there is no central command that coordinates the actions of everyone. You can destroy the HQ, kill all the current leadership, but no one at HQ knows the location of even half the safe houses in just Boston, let alone all the way down to D.C. and beyond. There will always be surviving members, and they just reform the organization elsewhere, making it impossible to ever truly kill, no matter what dumb things they do.

Perhaps I just find the whole fleshing out of the Railroad preposterous and poorly written.

Cabot House...literally the entire thing is a giant black hole, but I really don't have energy to write about it. Maybe I'm wrong anyway.

I will say this though: I decided to give Mass Effect 3 a go recently after ignoring it (I was a fan of Mass Effect 1 and 2 and ignored 3 because it apparently "ruined everything"). The writers in that game have taken far greater effort at keeping the universe coherent by making an effort to explain why things are the way they are. In contrast, most of Fallout 4 is "not interested in discussing realism in a world with talking zombies" and things are just there for no reason. The difference in the amount of explanation and consistency in the two fictional universes is so much that I don't think I can even go back to Fallout 4 after Mass Effect.

And so it is that we have seen the day that Mass Effect is a better RPG than a Fallout game.

No wrong.

Mass Effect always been a better RPG than Bethesda Fallout games. However dont you dare, say that Mass Effect 3 keeps the universe coherent. It destroyed it with more retcons than Fallout 4 ever did or will be able to. I could probably write you an essay about how horrible the plot and lore in this game is. And no, its not only the ending...

I am not far enough into the game to judge internal consistency but so far I don't see anything happening in ME3 that will make me facepalm harder than Fallout 4. In essence, I'm going to end up adoring Mass Effect 3 because my point of reference is Fallout 4, the previous game I played. It's the reverse-Witcher effect (where playing Witcher before Fallout 4 created even more disappointment, in this case playing Fallout 4 before ME3 will make ME3 look even better).

I'm even going to bet that the original ME3 ending without the extended cut would still be great for me because of what I just played.

My point with bringing up Mass Effect is that even in that first few hours, the dialogues are so much more in depth compared to Fallout 4. Everything is detailed. The quests are explained organically. It is jarring to see that after playing F4.

 

[whirlingdervish]

If they were a bunch of building skeletons STANDING AROUND what would prevent the wind from blowing into the city? Their skeletal steel frames (magically unaffected by the corrosive forces of the pacific ocean ofc) are somehow impervious to wind?

It said though that "not even the wind entered this dead city" though, so there wouldn't be wind to knock them over. And wouldn't the wind just go through the buildings anyway since they're so hollow?

Wind doesn't need to knock them down. There are two forces to which they have been subjected that would manage that quite well, the first being gravity. The second, being the lateral forcewave of multiple high yield nuclear weapon explosions that did not go off simultaneously.

The first shock wave might blast the walls and stuff off the building, but once the materials that tie the walls (shear walls) together are gone, the whole thing doesn't stay together well when faced with a second hit. In skyscraper construction they have a lot of beams sitting on top of little brackets that support the whole shebang. Once the walls lose their strength, the beams shift off of their brackets onto nothing and the building comes straight down, ala the WTC buildings.

If they fall to the ground, they are still a bunch of material so they would end up in rubble piles similar to what we see in New Vegas, with large girders sticking out of broken piles of smaller bits of other materials. Pile up enough material and you have what is effectively a wall at the street level.

 

[Someguy37]

1) If your primary storytelling is journals and computer terminals then...well yea do I really need to explain why that's a problem?

2) I read all of them. If you compare the effort Mass Effect has put into making a coherent story with comparably interesting characters, no reasonable person would say Fallout 4 was in any way its equal. Fact is 5 Hours of Mass Effect 3 felt better than 80 hours of Fallout 4. Mass Effect has journals and data pads to read like Fallout 4's computer terminals, only they don't rely on it to explain MAJOR parts of the story and leave everything else blank.

In conclusion, no one is ever going to convince me that Fallout 4 belongs in even the same room as Mass Effect's well put together universe, and that is sad because there are deeper RPGs than Mass Effect itself. The dialogues are better, the writing is better, the voice acting is better, the character interaction is more organic, and even the least interesting Mass Effect character is more interesting and has more story than Fallout 4's most interesting character.

Actually yes, because
A. I don't see it as a problem.
B. It wasn't their primary means of storytelling, even in Fallout 4.
Journals and terminals exist to tell you things that you have no reasonable reason to know to ask about, nor do the people talking to you have any reason to just spew out.

Mass Effect, as a whole, is terribly written, and suffers a lot from the classic RPG problem of "people telling you things your character should already know form living in this world, or things they have no reason to explain in that detail". I recall a particularly dumb moment in Mass Effect 1, when you can ask what a mass effect field is, despite Shepard being a highly space soldier, who works on starships, all of which use mass effect fields. No one talks like anyone from the Mass Effect unvierse, its completely unrealistic. The fact that Mass Effect does info dump all this shit on you is only because their whole codex system blows ass, so they need to force feed the player all these little details, that wouldn't normally be brought up, because otherwise people wouldn't understand whats going on. That just bad world design, and writing, defined. It's not at bad, but its pretty close to Morrowind levels of bad writing, were everyone was just walking encyclopedias, and spewed out help desk descriptions of regions and towns.

Jack Cabot doesn't explain all the technical shit behind how the artifact does what it does, or how the force field he uses to keep Lorenzo in works, because he has no reason too, and Lorenzo has no reason to give the long drawn out story of how he got the artifact, since you were already told the basics. All you need to know is
A. He found it in a city in the desert.
B. It drive him insane.
C. His son built a force field thing to keep him contained.
D. They use his blood to keep themselves alive for long periods of time.

You want to know how all that works? Read the damn science notes on the guys computer, and read Lorenzo's journal, where all that technical information would logically be.

Wind doesn't need to knock them down. There are two forces to which they have been subjected that would manage that quite well, the first being gravity. The second, being the lateral forcewave of multiple high yield nuclear weapon explosions that did not go off simultaneously.

The first shock wave might blast the walls and stuff off the building, but once the materials that tie the walls (shear walls) together are gone, the whole thing doesn't stay together well when faced with a second hit. In skyscraper construction they have a lot of beams sitting on top of little brackets that support the whole shebang. Once the walls lose their strength, the beams shift off of their brackets onto nothing and the building comes straight down, ala the WTC buildings.

If they fall to the ground, they are still a bunch of material so they would end up in rubble piles similar to what we see in New Vegas, with large girders sticking out of broken piles of smaller bits of other materials. Pile up enough material and you have what is effectively a wall at the street level.

I never said the wind needed to knock them down... I don't even know where you got that from.

Also, what we see in New Vegas is that House's super casino, as well as the other casinos, and the tool factory, as well as large parts of freeside, and west side, all survived not only the war, but nearly 200 years of disuse, and nomadic raiders/tribal groups squatting in them and generally wrecking them.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

1) If your primary storytelling is journals and computer terminals then...well yea do I really need to explain why that's a problem?

2) I read all of them. If you compare the effort Mass Effect has put into making a coherent story with comparably interesting characters, no reasonable person would say Fallout 4 was in any way its equal. Fact is 5 Hours of Mass Effect 3 felt better than 80 hours of Fallout 4. Mass Effect has journals and data pads to read like Fallout 4's computer terminals, only they don't rely on it to explain MAJOR parts of the story and leave everything else blank.

In conclusion, no one is ever going to convince me that Fallout 4 belongs in even the same room as Mass Effect's well put together universe, and that is sad because there are deeper RPGs than Mass Effect itself. The dialogues are better, the writing is better, the voice acting is better, the character interaction is more organic, and even the least interesting Mass Effect character is more interesting and has more story than Fallout 4's most interesting character.

Actually yes, because
A. I don't see it as a problem.
B. It wasn't their primary means of storytelling, even in Fallout 4.
Journals and terminals exist to tell you things that you have no reasonable reason to know to ask about, nor do the people talking to you have any reason to just spew out.

Mass Effect, as a whole, is terribly written, and suffers a lot from the classic RPG problem of "people telling you things your character should already know form living in this world". I recall a particularly dumb moment in Mass Effect 1,when you can ask what a mass effect field is, despite Shepard being a highly space soldier, who works on starships, all of which use mass effect fields. People just info dumb all this technical information that Shepard should already know from living in the world, or they have no reason to explain that deeply because its irrelevant to the actual mission. No one talks like anyone from the Mass Effect unvierse, its completely unrealistic. The fact that Mass Effect does info dump all this shit on you is only because their whole codex system blows ass, so they need to force feed the player all these little details that wouldn't be brought up because otherwise people wouldn't understand whats going on. That just bad world design, and writing, defined. It's not at bad, but its pretty close to Morrowind levels of bad writing were everyone was just walking encyclopedias, and spewed out help desk descriptions of regions and towns.

Jack Cabot doesn't explain all the technical shit behind how the artifact does what it does, or how the force field he uses to keep Lorenzo in works, because he has no reason too, and Lorenzo has no reason to give the long drawn out story of how he got the artifact, since you were already told the basics. All you need to know is
A. He found it in a city in the desert.
B. It drive him insane.
C. His son built a force field thing to keep him contained.
D. They use his blood to keep themselves alive for long periods of time.

You want to know how all that works? Read the damn science notes on the guys computer, where all that technical information would logically be.

I personally prefer the "classic RPG problem" you refer to over half-assed explanations and developers writing it off as "not interested in discussing realism in a talking mutant game LULZ!" as Bethesda did.

ME may in fact not be well-written as you believe, but I wouldn't know because my frame of reference is Fallout 4. In comparison to THAT, it's a work of art, a masterpiece.

 

[whirlingdervish]

Many times have the word lying been used to refer to things such as "an ancient city lying under the sands of the deserts" and the city itself is still intact, with all its building's standing, its just buried under sand. Lying means both like "you are laying down while asleep", and means "to be under something". You could describe modern day Vegas to be "lying under the heat of the Mojave sun". That doesn't mean Vegas is destroyed or anything, it just means its under the heat of the desert.

The reason the term "Lying in ruin" exists, is that ruins tend to LAY ON THE GROUND. It's why they are called ruins, because their position on the ground means they are RUINED as compared to their previous state of existence.

Before that, when they were standing, they weren't ruins. They were these things we call walls.

Same with "lying under the sands" They are beneath the level of the ground, THE GROUND. NOT STANDING UP IN THE AIR.

IN. THE. GROUND.

Wind doesn't need to knock them down. There are two forces to which they have been subjected that would manage that quite well, the first being gravity. The second, being the lateral forcewave of multiple high yield nuclear weapon explosions that did not go off simultaneously.

The first shock wave might blast the walls and stuff off the building, but once the materials that tie the walls (shear walls) together are gone, the whole thing doesn't stay together well when faced with a second hit. In skyscraper construction they have a lot of beams sitting on top of little brackets that support the whole shebang. Once the walls lose their strength, the beams shift off of their brackets onto nothing and the building comes straight down, ala the WTC buildings.

If they fall to the ground, they are still a bunch of material so they would end up in rubble piles similar to what we see in New Vegas, with large girders sticking out of broken piles of smaller bits of other materials. Pile up enough material and you have what is effectively a wall at the street level.

I never said the wind needed to knock them down... I don't even know where you got that from.

Also, what we see in New Vegas is that House's super casino, as well as the other casinos, and the tool factory, as well as large parts of freeside, and west side, all survived not only the war, but nearly 200 years of disuse, and nomadic raiders/tribal groups squatting in them and generally wrecking them.

If you look closely you'll see I was talking to someone else about what they said. Because not everything is about you..

Also, the reason those buildings in Vegas are standing? They didn't get nuked, due to House.

It's official: you either didn't play any of the good Fallout games, or your need to redefine known english words into something that they are not has made you incapable of understanding them.

 

[omegaspruz]

Cabot house is a plot hole in the sense that the whole quest is 1 giant plot hole.

As for the Railroad...if the Institute is full of the best and brightest minds of CIT and has TELEPORTATION TECHNOLOGY AND TALKING ROBOTS I'm pretty sure it makes no sense that they are unable to destroy a group that uses "RAILROAD" as the secret password for their base which also has a big red line drawn straight to its location

Again, explain. Is this plot hole actually a "hole in the plot without explanation" or just "something I don't like, thus plothole"


You should look up the history of many famous resistance movements that got nearly destroyed several times by factions far more powerful then them, only to persist later. Its difficult to destroy the Railroad when it goes as Far as D.C., and possibly farther. Manya Vargas, Tulip, Father Clifford, Herbert Dashwood, and Victoria Watts are all Railroad members, and all possibly still alive.

The whole point of the Railroad is that there is no central command that coordinates the actions of everyone. You can destroy the HQ, kill all the current leadership, but no one at HQ knows the location of even half the safe houses in just Boston, let alone all the way down to D.C. and beyond. There will always be surviving members, and they just reform the organization elsewhere, making it impossible to ever truly kill, no matter what dumb things they do.

Perhaps I just find the whole fleshing out of the Railroad preposterous and poorly written.

Cabot House...literally the entire thing is a giant black hole, but I really don't have energy to write about it. Maybe I'm wrong anyway.

I will say this though: I decided to give Mass Effect 3 a go recently after ignoring it (I was a fan of Mass Effect 1 and 2 and ignored 3 because it apparently "ruined everything"). The writers in that game have taken far greater effort at keeping the universe coherent by making an effort to explain why things are the way they are. In contrast, most of Fallout 4 is "not interested in discussing realism in a world with talking zombies" and things are just there for no reason. The difference in the amount of explanation and consistency in the two fictional universes is so much that I don't think I can even go back to Fallout 4 after Mass Effect.

And so it is that we have seen the day that Mass Effect is a better RPG than a Fallout game.

No wrong.

Mass Effect always been a better RPG than Bethesda Fallout games. However dont you dare, say that Mass Effect 3 keeps the universe coherent. It destroyed it with more retcons than Fallout 4 ever did or will be able to. I could probably write you an essay about how horrible the plot and lore in this game is. And no, its not only the ending...

I am not far enough into the game to judge internal consistency but so far I don't see anything happening in ME3 that will make me facepalm harder than Fallout 4. In essence, I'm going to end up adoring Mass Effect 3 because my point of reference is Fallout 4, the previous game I played. It's the reverse-Witcher effect (where playing Witcher before Fallout 4 created even more disappointment, in this case playing Fallout 4 before ME3 will make ME3 look even better).

I'm even going to bet that the original ME3 ending without the extended cut would still be great for me because of what I just played.

My point with bringing up Mass Effect is that even in that first few hours, the dialogues are so much more in depth compared to Fallout 4. Everything is detailed. The quests are explained organically. It is jarring to see that after playing F4.

Perhaps. I will also give Mass Effect 3 that it does what Bioware does best - character moments. But just be weary not to be blind to its flaws because of the good moments. The original ending is horrible and worse than Fallout 4, sorry thats the truth. Its also non sensical. Beginning can be decosntructed. While I dont agree with Someguy37 that Mass Effect overall is poorly written, Mass Effect 3 is definately worse written, overall, than Fallout 4 in which the main plot at least flows organically once you kill Kellog. While Mass Effect 3 is just a collection of stories which are not that well tied together, a lot of Deus Ex, cheating from NPC characters and stupid machismo dialogue. Also yeah Harbinger and the Reapers are a real threat. ME3 was a real step down from ME2. Its garbage. Its not worth 10 bucks. It doesnt deserve to be called a Mass Effect Game as much as some people call Fallout 4 Fallout Brotherhood of Steel 2.

Rant Over... for now.

BTW if its a topic about plot holes, please why do asari husks, called banshees exist in such vast numbers?

Mass Effect, as a whole, is terribly written, and suffers a lot from the classic RPG problem of "people telling you things your character should already know form living in this world, or things they have no reason to explain in that detail". I recall a particularly dumb moment in Mass Effect 1, when you can ask what a mass effect field is, despite Shepard being a highly space soldier, who works on starships, all of which use mass effect fields. No one talks like anyone from the Mass Effect unvierse, its completely unrealistic. The fact that Mass Effect does info dump all this shit on you is only because their whole codex system blows ass, so they need to force feed the player all these little details, that wouldn't normally be brought up, because otherwise people wouldn't understand whats going on. That just bad world design, and writing, defined. It's not at bad, but its pretty close to Morrowind levels of bad writing, were everyone was just walking encyclopedias, and spewed out help desk descriptions of regions and towns.

While not perfect, they kinda had to do it. Fallout is grounded in real world so we as players have a point of reference. On the other hand, Knights of Old Republic, Biowares previous RPG has star wars as its point of reference. If they would have done it, they would have ended up with another Destiny case, where up untill the most recent expansion, there was little to no lore. Also the dialogue did improve in Mass Effect 2, where the universe was established and Shepard was free to explore the sides of the galaxy he has not before.

Shepard had a background, and as someone replaying the game it takes almost no suspension of disbelief in order to overcome that expositional dialogue, which is not as bad as you give it credit for.

 

[Someguy37]

It's official: you either didn't play any of the good Fallout games, or your need to redefine known english words into something that they are not has made you incapable of understanding them.

I played Fallout 1, 2, and Tactics, and all of them describe, or show, tall buildings as still standing. They just don't appear in any of the old games because the isometric view isn't suited for them.

Hell
-The box art for Fallout 1: http://i.imgur.com/QphE1Zy.jpg
-The intro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkBNKa2KXZE
-As well as the ending slides: http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net..._Ending.png/revision/latest?cb=20110115211033
All show the same thing, tall buildings intact.

I bet my bottom dollar that if Obsidian ever got to make the Fallout: LA game they said they wanted to make, it would show the EXACT same thing as Fallout 4 does. Tall skyscraper buildings still standing.

And then when one of you inevitably went and whined to Tim Cain, or Feargus Urquhart, or even Chris A(assuming he got back on the team), they would all say the same thing "uhh... it was always that way!"

And then you would probably start up some dumb new conspiracy about how Bethesda payed them off to say that, or they "have lost their way!", because its just inconceivable that it really was always that way as art showed it being the whole time.

 

[whirlingdervish]

It's official: you either didn't play any of the good Fallout games, or your need to redefine known english words into something that they are not has made you incapable of understanding them.

I played Fallout 1, 2, and Tactics, and all of them describe, or show, tall buildings as still standing. They just don't appear in any of the old games because the isometric view isn't suited for them.

Hell
-The box art for Fallout 1: http://i.imgur.com/QphE1Zy.jpg
-The intro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkBNKa2KXZE
-As well as the ending slides: http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net..._Ending.png/revision/latest?cb=20110115211033
All show the same thing, tall buildings intact.

I bet my bottom dollar that if Obsidian ever got to make the Fallout: LA game they said they wanted to make, it would show the EXACT same thing as Fallout 4 does. Tall skyscraper buildings still standing.

And then when one of you inevitably went and whined to Tim Cain, or Feargus Urquhart, or even Chris A(assuming he got back on the team), they would all say the same thing "uhh... it was always that way!"

And then you would probably start up some dumb new conspiracy about how Bethesda payed them off to say that, or they "have lost their way!", because its just inconceivable that it really was always that way as art showed it being the whole time.

You sure like talking about things that nobody said other than you, and talking about hypothetical situations instead of reality.

You just went 3 steps deep into some made up crap that you're "betting on" instead of talking about the topic at hand.

That must make argument really tough.

 

[Someguy37]

You sure like talking about things that nobody said other than you, and talking about hypothetical situations instead of reality.

>Ignoring the entire first half of the post which showed things from the actual Fallout 1 that disprove your argument that tall buildings dont still stand.
Nice straw man

You're not even trying now are you?

 

[whirlingdervish]

I don't think you know the definition of the term strawman buddy.

Is that one of the other words you've decided to mean the exact opposite of it's actual meaning? If so, I understand your confusion.


PS: What was I supposedly trying to do before, that I am not doing now? Since you really think you're on to something here, enlighten us.