Hardboiled Android
Vault Fossil
Is the nuke plant for Diamond City actually accessible?
Why is Boston unhurt by the atomic bombs?
- Thread starter The_Proletarian
- Start date
Vault Fossil
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
So how could there be an "Atomic crater" with so many intact buildings around? That's even dumber than only one nuke hitting it. Specially since they have the Glowing sea on the same game...
Hardboiled Android
Vault Fossil
I was wondering if those were craters... Couldn't they just be radioactive sinkholes? And even if not, that's a grand total of three nukes... And nine of them in Boston Proper. And none of them have realistic energy
Go re-read the Fallout 1 manual.
http://pablotron.org/files/fallout-manual.pdf
Page 11
The Fallout universe had stopped using nukes with high explosive yields in favor of ones that generated far more radiation.
This was why places like the boneyard, and San Francisco, still existed in Fallout 1 and 2, when they would have realistically been completely leveled in a nuclear assault.
This has been a fundamental core of the series since the beginning. Fallout nukes do not destroy buildings, they cause lots of radiation.
Hardboiled Android
Vault Fossil
Hardboiled Android
Vault Fossil
If Cambridge is scaled down, destruction would be scaled proportionally- IE it shouldn't matter.
Uhh, yes it would.
If you scale down something that's over 12 miles long, into something that's less then one, then the destruction would be equally scaled down, making it around the size of a city block, which is about the size the Cambridge crater is in-game.
And this is based on the assumption the game uses proportional scaling, which very clearly doesn't like NV and Fo3 didn't.
Hardboiled Android
Vault Fossil
But if the bomb looks like it would destroy all of Cambridge, it would destroy all of Cambridge regardless of Cambridge's size...
Again
A. Not all the bombs were that size, as stated in the original quote
B. the game does not use proportional scaling just like every other large open world game.
Honestly it personally bugged me that in 200 years since the bombs dropped so little reconstruction was done. Simple stuff like knocking out the remaining broken glass from windows in your town to prevent injuries makes sense. You can do decent repairs to buildings, move some of the trash out. I get leaving old buildings nobody visits jacked up but how about a little dusting in houses that people actually live in? In 200 years did people completely forget how to build new buildings at all? Nobody can turn to the old amish stuff and put up a new barn? Has to be a barn with big ol' holes in the roof?
Listen, I'm all for keeping big parts of the wasteland jacked up, using some old supplies to remake stuff, areas where lighting is inconsistent and people have to use torches or whatever. Shanty towns or roaming camps. Old abandoned buildings. Keeping the roads all cracked and messed up since no large infrastructure plan is in place for repaving. Old cars people can't easily move due to lack of large machinery that still works or is easy to get. However have some basic stuff done.
It'd be nice to get a chance to check out some abandoned skyscrapers and such, don't get to see that much. It's also a shame that you can't really use your explosives skills to clear some rubble, there are bombs EVERYWHERE. Wouldn't it be cool if you could set up some dynamite to get into an old abandoned building with rocks blocking the entrances? Really makes it feel more like "wow I'm totally the first person who has visited this place" instead of finding a building with an unlocked door that nobody has looted despite raiders being all around the area.
Mix it up, add some new stuff to the old stuff and create some new ways to enter old buildings or new paths. Listen, it's been 200 years, the world was blown to shit but we had people travel across the planet to North America with limited supplies and they managed to build some new settlements. I ain't askin for a whole new society in 200 years, but it'd be nice to see some more places like Vault City pop up and some effort put into cleaning a house that people live inside of. Keep the wasteland feeling "wasteland" but still feel like there is a LITTLE work being done.
If you remember, even the Presidential Suite in new vegas has an nasty dust filter over everything and it's one of the nicest places in the game. Benny's suite has jacked up walls and ceiling and broken bookshelves. Camp Golf is one of the worst examples. No way would a military outpost allow some of the rooms to be as trashed as they are. Bottles and broken shelving everywhere. They'd clean that shit up right away. New Vegas though is WAY better about having places where people live actually seeming... livable compared to FO3
Listen, I'm all for keeping big parts of the wasteland jacked up, using some old supplies to remake stuff, areas where lighting is inconsistent and people have to use torches or whatever. Shanty towns or roaming camps. Old abandoned buildings. Keeping the roads all cracked and messed up since no large infrastructure plan is in place for repaving. Old cars people can't easily move due to lack of large machinery that still works or is easy to get. However have some basic stuff done.
It'd be nice to get a chance to check out some abandoned skyscrapers and such, don't get to see that much. It's also a shame that you can't really use your explosives skills to clear some rubble, there are bombs EVERYWHERE. Wouldn't it be cool if you could set up some dynamite to get into an old abandoned building with rocks blocking the entrances? Really makes it feel more like "wow I'm totally the first person who has visited this place" instead of finding a building with an unlocked door that nobody has looted despite raiders being all around the area.
Mix it up, add some new stuff to the old stuff and create some new ways to enter old buildings or new paths. Listen, it's been 200 years, the world was blown to shit but we had people travel across the planet to North America with limited supplies and they managed to build some new settlements. I ain't askin for a whole new society in 200 years, but it'd be nice to see some more places like Vault City pop up and some effort put into cleaning a house that people live inside of. Keep the wasteland feeling "wasteland" but still feel like there is a LITTLE work being done.
If you remember, even the Presidential Suite in new vegas has an nasty dust filter over everything and it's one of the nicest places in the game. Benny's suite has jacked up walls and ceiling and broken bookshelves. Camp Golf is one of the worst examples. No way would a military outpost allow some of the rooms to be as trashed as they are. Bottles and broken shelving everywhere. They'd clean that shit up right away. New Vegas though is WAY better about having places where people live actually seeming... livable compared to FO3
Last edited:
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Except neiter the Boneyard or San Francisco had such large intact buildings everywhere despite supposedly being hit directly. San Francisco only exists becausethe Shit rebuilt it, and it's not the whole city just the bay area. They even have the Glowing sea with a single crater on it and just complete destruction all around but then they put a crater in the middle of an intact city like whatvever. It's not only inconsistent with the previous games but also with it's own world, and they don't even give an explanation for it. You keep using the BONEYARD and San Francisco to justify the state of Boston but those two places where clearly mostly destroyed and the only sturctures there being post war, built by the new inhabitants. I suspect you aren't actually that familiar with the original games.
Last edited:
it cant be a detonation site there are army soldier skeletons there, id imagine theyd be vaporized
I think there is absolutely no rational way, neither with real world or ingame logic - even the ones in F3 and F4, to explain why the nuclear detonations are so weak and why most of Boston (and also CD in F3) was left untouched, considering the effects of real nuclear bombs.
We all know the real reason. Because the guy responsible for it at Bethesda thought it was cool. Cool to have the player walk trough their version of Boston. That simple. Anything else has to take a back seat to it, like verisimilitude, consistency or logic.
We all know the real reason. Because the guy responsible for it at Bethesda thought it was cool. Cool to have the player walk trough their version of Boston. That simple. Anything else has to take a back seat to it, like verisimilitude, consistency or logic.
Is it really recognizable, though? Never been to Boston, so I don't really know 
Personally, I liked how Fallout 1 and 2 showed cities completely in ruins. Made the War all the more... Awesome.
Personally, I liked how Fallout 1 and 2 showed cities completely in ruins. Made the War all the more... Awesome.
I accidentally deleted my post trying to edit it on the mobile site. If somebody would be so kind as to restore it, maybe.
And then I was going to add on to it that it's also something they probably did to counter balance what they did with DC which, if I'm remembering right, people did have a lot to say about how desolate it was, and not built up really, and stuff like that.
And as for it being recognizable, I don't actually know how recognizable or not it is, as I don't know Boston and I don't have Fallout 4. (Which is why I had recognizable in italics) But I figure it somewhat is. Maybe much in the same way that DC was.
And ultimately, how destroyed or not destroyed the place is is something most people won't think about. (If it's within a certain range)
And then I was going to add on to it that it's also something they probably did to counter balance what they did with DC which, if I'm remembering right, people did have a lot to say about how desolate it was, and not built up really, and stuff like that.
And as for it being recognizable, I don't actually know how recognizable or not it is, as I don't know Boston and I don't have Fallout 4. (Which is why I had recognizable in italics) But I figure it somewhat is. Maybe much in the same way that DC was.
And ultimately, how destroyed or not destroyed the place is is something most people won't think about. (If it's within a certain range)
Last edited:
Irwin John Finster
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Is it really recognizable, though? Never been to Boston, so I don't really know
Personally, I liked how Fallout 1 and 2 showed cities completely in ruins. Made the War all the more... Awesome.
I think it resembles Boston fairly well and the art design is one of the only positives for Fallout 4 - it looks very good.
Last edited:
KillerBee256
Still Mildly Glowing
The city in fallout 1's intro and bakersfield (they maybe the same place) are just as intact as Bethesda's cities.
Attachments
Last edited:
Except there are intact buildings everywhere in LA and San Fran, nor did the Shi rebuild the entire city. We even see Bakersfield in the into looking exactly like Boston. Hell, the Golden Gate bridge survived as well, and that's the first thing that would have logically fallen apart.
Whats more, its said in-game the bomb that created the glowing sea was a high yield bomb. Which is why it created the Glowing Sea, whereas the other low yield bombs only made craters.
For someone who claims to have played the games, you don't seem to understand even the most basic things about them.