Tesla's 'Death Ray'

Discussion in 'Fallout 3 Discussion' started by Jack the Anarch, Nov 21, 2006.

  1. Brother None

    Brother None This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Apr 3, 2003
    Uh, no they didn't. Again, Incredible Shrinking Man. Them. No scientific standard whatsoever.
     
  2. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Yes, I thought of all that. So, as I said, the only definite answer can come from one of the main devs, really.

    Vox: for fuck's sake, man, did you read anything here? Science! is applicable within the established boundaries of canon. Retinal scanners, for instance, don't exactly require vacuum tubing, nor do any of the other examples you mentioned. Just because everything is solved using computers *now* doesn't mean in any way that that's the case in the Fallout universe.

    Also, The Incredible Shrinking Man is awesome. They're supposedly making a remake of it.
     
  3. Vox

    Vox Vault Dweller

    760
    Jul 18, 2006
    I aggree.
    The car add in F1 even proudly announced the lack of computers (or was it electronics at all, can't remember correctly) in the used car.

    But I already said some post before that it's pretty much possible to build certain devices with alternative technology, but you said it's bullshit.

    But I'm happy to see that you understand what I mean.
     
  4. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    I did what-where now?
     
  5. Brother None

    Brother None This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Apr 3, 2003
    Really? Can't imagine that working.

    Remember, the reason a film like the Incredible Shrinking Man worked was because there was no necessary call for suspended disbelief, and you kind of get that spirit from it even now. There's no need to explain anything that's going on, despite the fact that even a basically educated modern-day viewer will soon realise the film is breaking some major laws of physics (and logic).

    I don't see the plot working in a modern-day film. Too much postmodern thinking unleashed on it would just make it an overly explained and thus stupid. I hate forced suspended disbelief, hapy-zany suspended disbelief is much better. For an example; the Hulk's backstory in the new Hulk movie really sucked.
     
  6. Vox

    Vox Vault Dweller

    760
    Jul 18, 2006
    On page 2 of this thread.

    You haven't dismissed the idea instantly in the direct answer but you dismissed it with not paying attention to certain stuff I said.

    Same with the missile. I said HYPOTHETICALY and shit like that all the time. You seem to only pick that where you can complain instead of picking stuff an acknowledging it, what would make a discussion much better. Simply ignoring correct things causes chaos and leads into misunderstandings in the further discussion.
     
  7. Talisien

    Talisien Still Mildly Glowing

    213
    Sep 15, 2006
    Summary of this thread:

    Vox: I'm hijacking this thread to say:Big-ass nukes COULD be in FO3, I haven't found a reason they can't.

    Sander: There's nothing in FO canon that says they should be there, so they shouldn't.

    Vox: Bullshit!

    Sander: Bullshit on your Bullshit!!


    Vox:
    Your point in this thread seems to be that anything that isn't already stated in FO canon and was plausible in the 50's is fair game for FO3. That's fine as far as it goes, but remember that the FO setting is more about the atmosphere than the tech.

    Sander:
    Your point in this thread seems to be that if something contradicts established canon, it is bad and should be kept as far from FO3 as possible. That's fine, but remember that just because something was not directly stated or obviously implied in an earlier game doesn't mean it CONTRADICT'S canon, it just isn't COVERED by canon.

    Vox and Sander both:
    You both have good points in your arguments, but you also are both too tied up in them at this point, too emotionally invested. Neither of you will ever get the other to come around to your own point of view. You have been trying for four pages worth, and it hasn't happened yet. If Rosh were handy (BTW: where has he been, anyway? I'm missing his ass chewings, they were a great read...) he'd probably have ranted both of you into submission by now. Either that, or this would be a three-way argument. Whatever.

    What I'm trying to say, in my own bumbling and incompetent way, is that you are both getting to the point where your original points are being completely lost. You're getting down to arguing about your argument about your argument about an idea for use of ICBM's in FO3. That's just a bit silly, IMO. Can't we all just go back to the good old days of bitching about Bethesda? Because let's face it: whatever they do will most likely be the thing least palatable to any true FO fan, and that's something truly worth getting mad about, not wether an ICBM could happen in the FO world.

    Oh, and about the nuke in the Cathedral: wasn't there something in the Bible about the Master bringing it with him from the military base?
     
  8. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    *sigh*
    Taking a quote out of context (the context being a discussion relative to Fallout *canon* and *setting*) doesn't work, Vox. The discussion was about whether it would fit in Fallout canon, saying 'hypothetically' about a *fictional* universe is completely useless, as I've also stated before, since Fallout's universe is a fictional universe. Hypothetically speaking I could fit in a giant Chewbacca who eats half the world.

    In other words, no, Vox, I didn't dismiss 'alternative technology', I dismissed alternative technology or explanations unfitting for the Fallout universe.
    Yep, I agree. I really doubt they'll make something decent out of it, rather, I think they'll try to go for comedic effect instead of the somewhat more serious approach of the original one. Supposedly, Eddy Murphy will be the Incredible Shrinking Man now. Psch.

    Talisien: Have you been paying attention at all? I've given rather numerous examples of why ICBMs wouldn't *fit* canon, and why I feel they don't carry the right atmosphere. In fact, the discussion didn't ever revolve around whether they were already present or not, since bombers or the like weren't present in Fallout either.
    So, no, your attempted summary of this thread doesn't hold any water, and is especially useless since the 'discussion' with Vox pretty much ended two pages ago.