Tesla's 'Death Ray'

[chadious maximus]

im not saying they should, just explaining that *if* they did (add missiles), it *could* be explained without contradicting FO1 & FO2 rules.

again, as it isnt mentioned, it'd probably be best to leave be, just saying it *could* make sence in the FO universe if they were so inclined to add large rockets into FO3, they would just have to explain it correctly.

 

[Vox]

Someone please explains me all the robots in Fallout without contradicting Sander's theory about BULKY HARDWARE ONLY.

The robots need:

Data storage, data processing, a device for 3D coordination aka balance, servos or hydraulics, energy storage, weapon systems (not in all cases).

A Mr. Handy can perform certain tasks better than a woman.

A sentry bot is tiny and antigravitational.

A brainbot uses a human brain. BUT what about the cybernetic brains? How do you explain them?

The bulky droids with rockets and minigun. Targeting system, friend-foe-discrimination, etc. etc....

As far as I know there are NO ROBOTS LIKE THIS today. So by our standards, with out "high tech computer technology" (compared to 50s standards) we're still unable to build SUCH robots. So what about 50s tech?
It could be explained, that the robots are exchanging data with a mainframe over radio, but that's a sorry excuse, since there are many robots in Fallout which are far far away from any (working) mainframe computer. And the other thing is that radiowaves suck for data transfer. Especially in shielded underground vaults/bases with several levels.

So there is NO WAY to explain such technology without contradicting Sander.

Leading to one conclusion:

A society able to constrct portable fusion reactors, anti gravitational drones, walking robots, artificial cyber brains etc. MUST BE ABLE TO CREATE MISSILES...

...theoreticaly.

 

[chadious maximus]

wasnt this topic originally supposed to be about a Death Ray?

 

[Brother None]

Someone please explains me all the robots in Fallout without contradicting Sander's theory about BULKY HARDWARE ONLY.

As far as I know there are NO ROBOTS LIKE THIS today. So by our standards, with out "high tech computer technology" (compared to 50s standards) we're still unable to build SUCH robots. So what about 50s tech?

What about 50s tech? Fallout isn't set in the 50s, it's set in the 21st century as imagined by the 50s, so that makes for these guys:

A society able to constrct portable fusion reactors, anti gravitational drones, walking robots, artificial cyber brains etc. MUST BE ABLE TO CREATE MISSILES...

"A society", sure, "future society as imagined in the 50s"? Nope.

 

[Sander]

It could be explained, that the robots are exchanging data with a mainframe over radio, but that's a sorry excuse, since there are many robots in Fallout which are far far away from any (working) mainframe computer. And the other thing is that radiowaves suck for data transfer. Especially in shielded underground vaults/bases with several levels.

No, you're wrong. Again.
And I've explained this as well. You're also nicely twisting my words, since I never spoke about 'bulky hardware only'.

In any case, all of those robots in Fallout were within huge bunkers, with large, very large rooms filled with computers and being controlled by computers.
Those robots were being controlled by the large, central computer system in the bases. There are only two exceptions to this (not many, as you claim, just two), one being the dogs, who wouldn't need great intelligence, and the other being the robot companion you can pick up in the (canon-breaking) Sierra Army Depot. And that one was powered by....that's right, an organic or at most a semi-organic brain.

As for radio-waves being inefficient for this sort of thing in bunkers, you're wrong. Again. It isn't that hard to just put a transmitter in each room.

Lastly, you are also now ignoring the entire 'scientific' concept that Fallout was built around: SCIENCE!
SCIENCE! is, essentially, the creation of things that are almost magical in nature, but claiming them to be scientific. Think plasma rifles, or Mr. Handy robots. Now, the point of SCIENCE! is that there is no explanation needed. It works, because you see it work. That's also an essential part of 50s pulp sci-fi.

Now you'll ask 'BUT WHY NOT MISSILES!!!?' Simple: because they don't fit the setting and fiction.

 

[Vox]

SCIENCE is also ROCKET SCIENCE. And developing ROBOTS (even the robo dogs in Van Buren were intelligent enough to discriminate friend or foe) able to perform superior tasks to todays robots also leads to the conclusion that long range missiles are absolutly possible, indenieable and plausible for a potential, canon and totaly explainable appearance in a following Fallout game. Tho not necessarilyy. But strictly theoreticaly nothing can deny that they'd be AT LEAST possible (even if cheese and toaly unnecessary).

Good night.


Edit:

There's a Space Shuttle with obviously fuel driven thrusters at the Hubologist base. A lots of graphical effort was put in this shuttle so I reckon it must be considered as canon (argue it if you want).

Space travel was developed after unmanned missiles (obviously).
There IS activity in space (satelites etc.) in the Fallout universe (forgot there it was mentioned, so can't give any refference).

SO, once again, "far developed" rocket sciense is totaly plausible according to the Fallout science.

 

[Sander]

SCIENCE is also ROCKET SCIENCE.

No, it isn't. Not within Fallout's narrow fictional setting.
It really, really, really isn't.

And developing ROBOTS (even the robo dogs in Van Buren were intelligent enough to discriminate friend or foe) able to perform superior tasks to todays robots also leads to the conclusion that long range missiles are absolutly possible, indenieable and plausible for a potential, canon and totaly explainable appearance in a following Fallout game. Tho not necessarilyy. But strictly theoreticaly nothing can deny that they'd be AT LEAST possible (even if cheese and toaly unnecessary).

Again: you are not taking into account the setting. The comparison to how our world developed is *completely* irrelevant, since that's not how Fallout's world developed.
Start talking in terms of the setting limitations, or shut up.

Good night.


Edit:

There's a Space Shuttle with obviously fuel driven thrusters at the Hubologist base. A lots of graphical effort was put in this shuttle so I reckon it must be considered as canon (argue it if you want).

A space shuttle, canon? Hello, San Fran is almost entirely canon-breaking, the space shuttle is easily non-canon.
Do you even know anything about the setting?

Space travel was developed after unmanned missiles (obviously).
There IS activity in space (satelites etc.) in the Fallout universe (forgot there it was mentioned, so can't give any refference).

Actually, even that's extremely doubtful. Only the hubologists (who are non-canon) and Van Buren (which is at most a dubious part of canon) ever mention space at all. The only time something actually enters space is with Van Buren, and even that was subject to some real controversy.

SO, once again, "far developed" rocket sciense is totaly plausible according to the Fallout science.

No, it isn't. Not as long as it doesn't fit the setting.

Also, calm down a bit.

 

[Vox]

Again: you are not taking into account the setting. The comparison to how our world developed is *completely* irrelevant, since that's not how Fallout's world developed.
Start talking in terms of the setting limitations, or shut up.

So the KEY between OUR and the FALLOUT universe is in the development of a certain computerized chip thingie (I'm too drunk to remember the name) and thus leading to a different development of culture an technology.

Despite cultural and aestetic aspecs the technology maybe developed in a different way but still leading to certain PLAUSIBLE technological inventions, in a different way. Rocket science existed before the 50'ish sci fi standards were set. Of course maybe they imagined 'rockets' even different by their futuristic aspects in the 50s, small ringish things coming out as exhaust, or WEEAOU WEEAOU WEEAOU noises, still they were present in most common sci fi stories.

And I am calm, maybe you just read it when you were not calm and thus interpreted my previous answer as NOT CALM. I just write certain words bigger to point them out, but not because I'm not calm.
I don't take it personal if someone refuses to use his brain. I got used to it. So I just try to explain you that it's (-> -> ->) THEORETICALY (<- <- <-) possible that rockets or missiles or however you want to call it are NO BIG DEAL bt Fallout's technological standard.

 

[Sander]

So the KEY between OUR and the FALLOUT universe is in the development of a certain computerized chip thingie (I'm too drunk to remember the name) and thus leading to a different development of culture an technology.

Transistors, and that's only part of it. The level of technology is mainly dictated by pulp sci-fi.

Also, don't get into debates when you're drunk.

Despite cultural and aestetic aspecs the technology maybe developed in a different way but still leading to certain PLAUSIBLE technological inventions, in a different way. Rocket science existed before the 50'ish sci fi standards were set. Of course maybe they imagined 'rockets' even different by their futuristic aspects in the 50s, small ringish things coming out as exhaust, or WEEAOU WEEAOU WEEAOU noises, still they were present in most common sci fi stories.

And I am calm, maybe you just read it when you were not calm and thus interpreted my previous answer as NOT CALM. I just write certain words bigger to point them out, but not because I'm not calm.
I don't take it personal if someone refuses to use his brain. I got used to it. So I just try to explain you that it's (-> -> ->) THEORETICALY (<- <- <-) possible that rockets or missiles or however you want to call it are NO BIG DEAL bt Fallout's technological standard.

No, theoretically they don't fit the setting and hence are not okay. That's really all there is to it.

Of course it's theoretically possible that Fallout's world developed rockets in that way, because it's a wholly fictional world. In a fictional world you can make anything 'theoretically possible'.
But that's hardly the point, the point is that even *if* it were possible it wouldn't fit the setting.

 

[Vox]

Of course it's theoretically possible... bullshit bullshit bullshit.

That's what I mean. Too bad you didn't quote the word "UNNECESSARY" from the other post. Something that's not fitting, even if possible, is unecesary. (In this case rockets)
Like women having sex with horses. Or steak with mint sauce. Or remixing Elvis Presley.

So let's both aggree that IT IS POSSIBLE even if this moronic, not fitting and thus unecessary. :

 

[Ratty Sr.]

I'm inclined to agree with Vox here, at least partially. Rockets and space travel were one of the most prominent elements of 1950s sci-fi and to deny the possibility of such things existing in Fallout simply because they don't appear in the first game is ludicrous. Same goes for missiles - the technology, though young, was hardly unknown to the populace, and potential of missiles carrying nuclear payload caused great concern in the '50s.

In light of that, rocket-propelled space ships and ballistic projectiles evolved from V2 or Nike Ajax are perfectly plausible within the setting, and there is no reason whatsoever why they shouldn't be featured in Fallout 3.

As for ICBMs - you said yourself that Fallout was Science!. So, If Fallout is Science!, then it doesn't take much of a stretch of imagination to explain ICBMs in Fallout universe. Just take a normal Nike missile, touch it up a bit and say it's a newly-developed über-advanced prototype projectile capable of reaching any point on Earth and carrying a thermonuclear warhead so sophisticated that it can destroy entire continents. Then dump a few of them in a top-secret military base somewhere in Mid-West, where they survive the War forgotten and intact, only to be found by a lunatic madman who now wants to use them to bring about a second nuclear holocaust. Voilá, you have a gripping plot that introduces new elements into the setting without violating the canon.

 

[Brother None]

The only time something actually enters space is with Van Buren, and even that was subject to some real controversy..

The original Fallout design did not have the Master in a vault. The Master was in a hard to reach high place (can't remember if it was inhospitable mountains or a sattelite) and the player would have to get a Flash Gordon-esque rocketship working to get to him. Tim Cain's idea, if I recall correctly.

Not canon, but it could've been.

 

[Vox]

So easy:

+

=

Also I like the final idea of Fallout better than the idea with the master in space.

In the mountains would be allright. But space? Please... Super Mutants from Space. Rofl. How 50ish... TOO 50ish...

 

[Sander]

I'm inclined to agree with Vox here, at least partially. Rockets and space travel were one of the most prominent elements of 1950s sci-fi and to deny the possibility of such things existing in Fallout simply because they don't appear in the first game is ludicrous. Same goes for missiles - the technology, though young, was hardly unknown to the populace, and potential of missiles carrying nuclear payload caused great concern in the '50s.

In light of that, rocket-propelled space ships and ballistic projectiles evolved from V2 or Nike Ajax are perfectly plausible within the setting, and there is no reason whatsoever why they shouldn't be featured in Fallout 3.

...
Eh, what? You go from 'theoretically possible' to 'no reason not to include them'. That's a ridiculous jump of logic.

In any case, the technology was, at the very least, very much underdeveloped and it certainly isn't a big part of Fallout's setting, nor was it widespread at all.

Yet again, as I've noted so many times, go watch Dr. Strangelove. I think it perfectly shows why bombers carrying a nuclear payload are so much more fitting.

As for ICBMs - you said yourself that Fallout was Science!. So, If Fallout is Science!, then it doesn't take much of a stretch of imagination to explain ICBMs in Fallout universe. Just take a normal Nike missile, touch it up a bit and say it's a newly-developed über-advanced prototype projectile capable of reaching any point on Earth and carrying a thermonuclear warhead so sophisticated that it can destroy entire continents. Then dump a few of them in a top-secret military base somewhere in Mid-West, where they survive the War forgotten and intact, only to be found by a lunatic madman who now wants to use them to bring about a second nuclear holocaust. Voilá, you have a gripping plot that introduces new elements into the setting without violating the canon.

No, now you go over-the-top and develop a ludicrous story. An ICBM with the power to destroy entire contents? Have you gone nuts?
Also, yet again, Science! is a setting device, not an excuse to put anything you like into the game.

 

[Brother None]

Yet again, as I've noted so many times, go watch Dr. Strangelove. I think it perfectly shows why bombers carrying a nuclear payload are so much more fitting.

You keep referring to this film, which is completely foolish. The bombs dropped by the Americans were dropped from planes, by people. The Russian "doomsday device" can not be stopped once started, which automatically precludes the use of bombers/people. The "doomsday device" is almost automatically implied to be a nuclear missile holocaust.

Or did you forget that are zero bomber planes in the ending montage?

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Eh, what? You go from 'theoretically possible' to 'no reason not to include them'. That's a ridiculous jump of logic.

Well, yes, if they are possible in the Fallout setting, then there is no reason not to include them. What's so ridiculous about that?

In any case, the technology was, at the very least, very much underdeveloped and it certainly isn't a big part of Fallout's setting, nor was it widespread at all.

As evidenced by... what? Absence of the technology from the first Fallout isn't evidence. By that principle you could also declare that toothpicks weren't widespread either.

Yet again, as I've noted so many times, go watch Dr. Strangelove. I think it perfectly shows why bombers carrying a nuclear payload are so much more fitting.

Since when is Dr. Strangelove the ultimate resource on the Fallout setting? It isn't even a sci-fi movie, so it's pretty obvious that it can't be used as the only reference for military technology in the Fallout universe.

And besides, if I recall correctly, there *were* ICBMs in Dr. Strangelove, it's just that none were launched (or at least not until the very end of the movie, if Kharn's conjecture is correct).

No, now you go over-the-top and develop a ludicrous story. An ICBM with the power to destroy entire contents? Have you gone nuts? Also, yet again, Science! is a setting device, not an excuse to put anything you like into the game.

An engineered virus capable of turning a human being into a big, hulking supermutant? Have you gone nuts?

An army of supermutants overrunning America? Have you gone nuts?

A mutant cyborg that has telepathic powers, talks in multiple voices and absorbs living organisms into a gigantic blob of tentacles and protoplasma? Have you gone nuts?

A rifle that emits a ray of energy so powerful it can turn any organic lifeform into a pile of ashes and goo? Have you gone nuts?

In case it isn't obvious from these examples, Science! is just that - an excuse to put scientifically implausible technology into a comic, movie or, in this case, game. Ray guns, doomsday weapons, mutants, aliens, spaceships, orbital stations, telepathy, telekinesis, time travel, A.I. computers... Science! is all that and much more. So if I want a continent-shattering ICBM in Fallout, I damn well am going to have a continent-shattering ICBM in Fallout, because continent-shattering ICBMs are totally Science!.

 

[Sander]

You keep referring to this film, which is completely foolish. The bombs dropped by the Americans were dropped from planes, by people. The Russian "doomsday device" can not be stopped once started, which automatically precludes the use of bombers/people. The "doomsday device" is almost automatically implied to be a nuclear missile holocaust.

Or did you forget that are zero bomber planes in the ending montage?

I know, Kharn. But the atmosphere granted by the use of the plane (ZEE PLAAAAAAAANE) is excellent, which is why I keep referring to it.
I never noticed there weren't any planes in the ending montage, though. Heh.

Well, yes, if they are possible in the Fallout setting, then there is no reason not to include them. What's so ridiculous about that?

Go re-read that. You are jumping from a statement of possibility to a statement of near-necessity of inclusion.

As evidenced by... what? Absence of the technology from the first Fallout isn't evidence. By that principle you could also declare that toothpicks weren't widespread either.

Ugh, don't be ridiculous, Ratty.
As evidenced mainly by the size of the bombs that do exist in Fallout (the Cathedral), and the necessary size of a proper inter-continental guidance system.

Since when is Dr. Strangelove the ultimate resource on the Fallout setting? It isn't even a sci-fi movie, so it's pretty obvious that it can't be used as the only reference for military technology in the Fallout universe.

And besides, if I recall correctly, there *were* ICBMs in Dr. Strangelove, it's just that none were launched (or at least not until the very end of the movie, if Kharn's conjecture is correct).

Nice twisting of my words, Ratty. It's really annoying, though.
I never claimed Dr. Strangelove was the ultimate resource, I noted that it illustrates how bombers are much more fitting.

An engineered virus capable of turning a human being into a big, hulking supermutant? Have you gone nuts?

An army of supermutants overrunning America? Have you gone nuts?

A mutant cyborg that has telepathic powers, talks in multiple voices and absorbs living organisms into a gigantic blob of tentacles and protoplasma? Have you gone nuts?

A rifle that emits a ray of energy so powerful it can turn any organic lifeform into a pile of ashes and goo? Have you gone nuts?

In case it isn't obvious from these examples, Science! is just that - an excuse to put scientifically implausible technology into a comic, movie or, in this case, game. Ray guns, doomsday weapons, mutants, aliens, spaceships, orbital stations, telepathy, telekinesis, time travel, A.I. computers... Science! is all that and much more. So if I want a continent-shattering ICBM in Fallout, I damn well am going to have a continent-shattering ICBM in Fallout, because continent-shattering ICBMs are totally Science!.

Nicely done, Ratty. You ignored every bit of my point. I thought that you were well beyond Straw Men, but hey, I was wrong.

Again: Science! is how you explain fitting things that aren't technologically valid. Science! is not how you explain something as ludicrous as a single ICBM destroying an entire continent after a war in which, at most, a single city was destroyed with a bomb. Leaps of faith are fine, Science! is fine, but it has to remain somewhat believable and most importantly, fitting to the setting.

Other than that, of course, a prospective hero would hardly care if some madman blew up Africa.

Plus the argument, 'Hey I can, so I shall' is, of course, fucking dumb. Mainly because that's how you can explain Super Mutants reproducing, or Reavers, or Beastmen. It doesn't make them fitting, though.


Now, kindly offer an explanation why a 'BOOM! Continent gone!' weapon would fit, since you haven't done that at all.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

You are jumping from a statement of possibility to a statement of near-necessity of inclusion.

Near-necessity? I don't argue that missile technology is necessary or "near-necessary" in Fallout. I argue that it fits the setting, so it would be perfectly acceptable if it was featured in Fallout 3.

As evidenced mainly by the size of the bombs that do exist in Fallout (the Cathedral), and the necessary size of a proper inter-continental guidance system.

You are thinking in terms of what is scientifically plausible, when you should be thinking in terms of what is Scientifically! plausible. Why not also point out that an A.I. computer that uses vacuum tubes, if even possible, would be the size of a city?

I never claimed Dr. Strangelove was the ultimate resource, I noted that it illustrates how bombers are much more fitting.

So, essentially, it's your personal preference. That's not much of an argument.

Nicely done, Ratty. You ignored every bit of my point. I thought that you were well beyond Straw Men, but hey, I was wrong.

Again: Science! is how you explain fitting things that aren't technologically valid. Science! is not how you explain something as ludicrous as a single ICBM destroying an entire continent after a war in which, at most, a single city was destroyed with a bomb. Leaps of faith are fine, Science! is fine, but it has to remain somewhat believable and most importantly, fitting to the setting.

My arguments are far from Straw Men. Looking at Fallout world map, I see pretty humongous craters. Whatever weapons caused these craters probably created shockwaves powerful enough to flatten an entire state. With that in mind, it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to explain the existence of a few prototype warheads that are ten or twenty times as powerful. Much like the FEV virus, they were constructed in the final days of the war, so USA never had a chance to deploy them. See? It's no less plausible than Master and super mutants, and it can even be explained in the same way.

Other than that, of course, a prospective hero would hardly care if some madman blew up Africa.

Errr, I haven't worked out all the details yet.

Plus the argument, 'Hey I can, so I shall' is, of course, fucking dumb. Mainly because that's how you can explain Super Mutants reproducing, or Reavers, or Beastmen. It doesn't make them fitting, though.

Super mutants reproducing is different, because it directly contradicts the first game. Thankfully I haven't played Tactics (or at least not enough of Tactics), so I don't know much about these Reavers and Beastmen (Aren't they called Beastlords, by the way?) you speak of. The basic idea of Reavers doesn't sound bad, though. The premise of a people descending into primitive tribalism and revering technology as a religious miracle is almost as old as sci-fi (that's not to say that tribals in Fallout 2 don't suck).

 

[Sander]

Near-necessity? I don't argue that missile technology is necessary or "near-necessary" in Fallout. I argue that it fits the setting, so it would be perfectly acceptable if it was featured in Fallout 3.

Ah yes, make it appear as if you didn't say something.
Here's your words, again, Ratty:
"and there is no reason whatsoever why they shouldn't be featured in Fallout 3."

That's hardly the same as 'well, they could work'.

You are thinking in terms of what is scientifically plausible, when you should be thinking in terms of what is Scientifically! plausible. Why not also point out that an A.I. computer that uses vacuum tubes, if even possible, would be the size of a city?

True, but only in part.
Science! isn't a catch-all phrase because, again, it needs to fit fiction. Drastically changing the size of established technology for the setting is not fitting for Science!, since you're changing something that's already been established and not introducing an entirely new concept.

So, essentially, it's your personal preference. That's not much of an argument.

Oh, and 'I like ICBMS!!!' is? What the fuck, man?
Other than that, no, it isn't just 'personal preference'. As I said, I think that Strangelove does have quite a bit of Fallout atmosphere around it.

My arguments are far from Straw Men. Looking at Fallout world map, I see pretty humongous craters. Whatever weapons caused these craters probably created shockwaves powerful enough to flatten an entire state.

...
Dumbass logic. If the force that created those could level an entire state, how come it didn't level California?
Also, those craters would be a few kilometers in diameter at most. Which is entirely plausible with weapons in the 50s.

Lastly, yes, they were straw men. You presented elements that were undisputably canon and fitting but largely incomporable to controversial ICBMs that can level entire continents. Hence, straw men.

With that in mind, it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to explain the existence of a few prototype warheads that are ten or twenty times as powerful. Much like the FEV virus, they were constructed in the final days of the war, so USA never had a chance to deploy them. See? It's no less plausible than Master and super mutants, and it can even be explained in the same way.

Holy shit, are you even trying?
You go from large craters kilometers in width to saying that what caused those craters leveled entire states (which is a ridiculous assumption), and then you expand being able to level a state to being able to level a *continent*. What?
As a point of reference, North America's surface is 24,490,000 square kilometers, while California's surface comprises a mere 410,000 square kilometers. That's 60 times as small a number, but due to the fact that no continent is square and the fact that a nuclear bomb's power/distance ratio is not a linear function at all, this wouldn't just require a bomb 60 times as powerful but thousands if not hundreds of thousands times more powerful.

Super mutants reproducing is different, because it directly contradicts the first game. Thankfully I haven't played Tactics (or at least not enough of Tactics), so I don't know much about these Reavers and Beastmen (Aren't they called Beastlords, by the way?) you speak of. The basic idea of Reavers doesn't sound bad, though. The premise of a people descending into primitive tribalism and revering technology as a religious miracle is almost as old as sci-fi (that's not to say that tribals in Fallout 2 don't suck).

Tribals suck in Fallout 2.
Anyway, the Beastlords could communicate and command animals. Through the power of their mind. They were fucking ridiculous. But hey, Science! could explain them, theoretically.

But thanks again for ignoring my point, Ratty.

 

[Hotel California]

Sorry to side track but the comments made before by Sander about all the robots being controlled by central mainframes brings to light the fact that if above statement = true every house with a Mr. Handy has some kind of radiowhatsamajig that contacted some uber central Computer. It is like that movie all over again where the robots take over.