The MIRV - spoiler

[Tejlgaard]

Quote from Garlic:
"
ICBMs don't have to have nuclear payloads and the first ones didn't (Germany invented them [V1 and V2])
"
What DSJ said ^^

As I recall, the launch of Sputnik ushered in the era of ICBM's - there were probably at least prototypes that could be classified as ICBMs a good deal earlier - but I'm not too certain on that.

My point is, there's a reason you don't see ICBM's used for non nuclear payloads in todays world - expense is one of them.
Of course, I hadn't considered the other, more obvious reason: When an ICBM goes up, it gets detected by everybody and their grandmother, and you're the only one who knows that the payload isn't nuclear.

You risk your enemy misinterpreting it as a first-strike nuclear attack. Particularly since ICBM's can be MIRV'ed with an insane number of warheads, so a single missile can destroy 20 targets with bombs. Since they only have 20 minutes or so to get their own rockets off from the point where they detect an ICBM launch till it impacts, they'll probably haul ass to launch a counterattack.

In other words, an ICBM is like a declaration of nuclear war; so of course you wouldn't launch one without a nuclear warhead in todays world =]

 

[Marx]

I don't understand why people demand nuclear realism in a fictitional universe where nuclear power/energy is taken for granted in a really hokey 50's kind of way.

Except that nuclear power/energy wasn't taken for granted in the Fallout setting, it was treated with extreme respect.

I don't think we played the same Fallout and Fallout 2 then.

 

[Sander]

I don't understand why people demand nuclear realism in a fictitional universe where nuclear power/energy is taken for granted in a really hokey 50's kind of way.

Except that nuclear power/energy wasn't taken for granted in the Fallout setting, it was treated with extreme respect.

I don't think we played the same Fallout and Fallout 2 then.

Nuclear weapons were.

 

[Marx]

I don't understand why people demand nuclear realism in a fictitional universe where nuclear power/energy is taken for granted in a really hokey 50's kind of way.

Except that nuclear power/energy wasn't taken for granted in the Fallout setting, it was treated with extreme respect.

I don't think we played the same Fallout and Fallout 2 then.

Nuclear weapons were.

Not really.

Hell, the player runs away on foot from a nuclear bomb in the cathedral in how long exactly?

 

[ShatteredJon]

What does outrunning a nuclear blast have anything to do with the way BIS treated nuclear energy? You are just looking for storm clouds on a sunny day my friend.

 

[Sander]

Not really.

Hell, the player runs away on foot from a nuclear bomb in the cathedral in how long exactly?

There were only 2 nuclear weapons in the entire 2 games, and they were both used to deal with the largest threat in the game in an act of dark irony.

Nuclear weapons weren't just strewn around the world carelessly, they were treated as something dangerous and rare.

 

[Marx]

Not really.

Hell, the player runs away on foot from a nuclear bomb in the cathedral in how long exactly?

Nuclear weapons weren't just strewn around the world carelessly, they were treated as something dangerous and rare.

Weren't strewn around? Very true, but how much of that was determined by the limitations of the build? None of the explosives in FO were particularly impressive.

Treated as dangerous and rare? Rare - see above. Dangerous? Not really, you outrun a nuclear blast and radiation goes away with magic drugs.

Nuclear energy is not treated seriously - At all - In the Fallout universe.

 

[Sorrow]

Fallout had Plasma Grenades and EMP Grenades, which were much more advanced than nuclear weapons.
A plasma or thermobaric rocket would be much more fitting that mini-nuke.

 

[Sander]

Nuclear weapons weren't just strewn around the world carelessly, they were treated as something dangerous and rare.

Weren't strewn around? Very true, but how much of that was determined by the limitations of the build? None of the explosives in FO were particularly impressive.

Treated as dangerous and rare? Rare - see above. Dangerous? Not really, you outrun a nuclear blast and radiation goes away with magic drugs.

Nuclear energy is not treated seriously - At all - In the Fallout universe.[/quote]
Nuclear energy is treated relatively seriously (see, for instance, the Glow being lethal), but it is also treated with a 50s outlook.

Nuclear weapons on the other hand are treated as very rare, and very dangerous. The fact that you outrun one can actually easily be explained by the fact that it's an underground explosion and not an airburst. But, aside from that, nuclear weapons were *only* used to destroy the biggest threats in the entire games on a darkly ironic note, as you are saving people with the weapon that destroyed the world before.

In other words, they were treated as something that shouldn't be used lightly. They were certainly treated with respect and as dangerous weapons. After all, they destroyed the world.

 

[Sorrow]

In other words, they were treated as something that shouldn't be used lightly. They were certainly treated with respect and as dangerous weapons. After all, they destroyed the world.

And they were used to destroy whole locations, not to "kill the boss". Also, returning to the destroyed Cathedral results in getting radiated.

They had nuclear cars.

Which were based on cold fusion.

 

[oihrebwe]

my problem with the fatman is that it's so weak it doesn't even make sense for it to be nuclear. based on the blast radius it doesn't really seem like it's any more powerful than something like the CarlG or RPG

 

[Sorrow]

Does it destroy buildings?

 

[oihrebwe]

the fatman? of course not, the only destructible thing in FO3 are the cars and some power generators

 

[Sorrow]

I thought that Fallout 3 is next-gen ?

Now look what a man-portable thermobaric rocket does to a building:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K3Cd69tqJ4[/youtube]

 

[Barrett]

I think if they had made several different ammo types for each weapon, then this fatman lunacity could have been replaced by an ammo type for a missile launcher. (preferably thermobaric or HE).

But. There are several problems thinking the bethesda-way.

1. It would have been too much for the casual console gamer. "Wha iiz this thermobriac thingy lol?"

2. Less marketing items. It just sounds better if you have a seperate weapon for mass destruction.


I hope a mod replaces the fatman with a more appropriate weapon/ammo type for missile launcher etc

 

[Nodder]

the fatman? of course not, the only destructible thing in FO3 are the cars and some power generators

laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame

hell I bet Diablo 3 with its geomod will be more immersive than FO3.

 

[ShatteredJon]

Ahh, the wonders of Geo-mod. Red faction had me engrossed for days when I was a kid because of that engine component. I believe all war games should include it.

 

[Sorrow]

Syndicate Wars had destroyable buildings and it was in released in 1997.

 

[ShatteredJon]

Don't recall ever playing that game. Is it worth it to go get it? I absolutely adore destructable environments in games.

 

[Firgof]

Syndicate Wars was an isometric released before the original Fallout.

So why didn't Fallout, the original, contain geometric displacement? Fallout was next-gen in its time. =p

In all seriousness: Destructible environments are not Bethesda's bag, first, and second, take a lot of time to work for due to potential memory drag.

A 2d fully destructible sandbox with pixel-perfect deconstruction brings my system to a screeching halt after more than thirty minutes of play due to having to keep track of all the destroyed terrain; so there's the issue of RAM/caching.

Even Voxels are used sparingly these days, despite being amazing in my experience with them.

Destructible environments is tough to do, yo.

Especially if you start doing building destruction with the way Bethesda does areas. The moment you break anything outside, the inside area also has to have that applied, and as the exterior and interior world are separate, you will find the hole you made in the wall, on the outside, shows nothing behind it and the hole you made in the wall, on the inside, shows nothing of the outside. At best, you get to see the inside of the building with nobody in it which magically spawns people the moment you step inside.

If they were to truly do that sort of destruction they FIRST would have to remove all areas from the game and just make Fallout 3 one, gigantic, area (similar to Crysis, but without ever having a level transition). At least, the first reasonable step they could take from my knowledge of destroyable environs (which isn't horrible).

Are there procedural methods or new means of creating such displacements and fractures in objects that I am unaware of? (Still not sure what Fracture uses; I assumed it uses voxels or terrain displacement)

In any case, the cost to make that work in the world of Fallout 3, as currently constructed, would've pushed the game's release date back significantly due to their (relatively) inferior physics engine having to be revamped and their level designers having to re-learn making areas, and other stuff needing retooling and AI upgrades.

Basically, a package upgrade for a feature which, though insane, may cost more than it would be worth to put it in. =(