Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:40 pm
I bet he didn't even think of that.
The second oldest Fallout gaming community, online since 1998, keeping warm in the nuclear glow.
http://duckandcover.cx./forums/
Nuclear Winter, smartass...Ernesto wrote: Now I may go by Celcius but... that sounds fairly warm. I'm also not Oppenheimer but I would assume that total nuclear anhililation would also warm up the world by a fair bit. Like, melting of the ice caps fair bit. Wouldn't all snow covered mountains be turned into bleached radiated hills?
Is this another place where Tactics dropped the ball again? Are my points valid? Am I a sorry excuse for a Fallout fan?
Err... the first two games (as well as Wasteland, Fallout's the spiritual predecessor) take place mostly in Cali and Nevada... its not a big leap to go from blasted desert to blasted nuclear wasteland.atoga wrote:Maybe so, but the point is that Fallout, wacky '50s comic it is, is simply plunged into a wasteland with hellish hot weather. Just like with many other things, such as the giant radioactive beasties, there's no scientific explanation; that's just the way the devs felt things would be right.ColJack wrote:he's right, the yield of the weapons back then wasn't enough to throw up the huge dust clouds into the jet-stream to block the sun...
Some of my friends got him to come and speak at our University, guy was a total asshole.Ernesto wrote:Good job, Bill Nye the Science Guy.
Is a global climate, it doesn't just affect Chicago and not California.PsyckoSama wrote:Nuclear Winter, smartass...
I know that.Wolfman Walt wrote:Is a global climate, it doesn't just affect Chicago and not California.PsyckoSama wrote:Nuclear Winter, smartass...
Yeah. If you really delve deep, think hard about it-- of course, remembering that it's just a game series and nothing real serious, it doesn't really seem natural to make a highly educated research project out of it, or a debate for that matter, but yeah. Whatever you prefer to do with your free time.Dreadnought wrote:Also, a gauss gatling, hairy deathclaws, a sudden robot hostility etc. make perfect sense!
(there's absolutly no need for gatling technology in relation to gauss rifles)
Naw, man...Dreadnought wrote:Got it.
Fallout Tactics is crap. (I already knew it)
Didn't check the last posting date and used to forums that have better than a glacial posting ratejetbaby wrote:What in the fuck is up with the new people posting in year or more dead threads?
I think its decent. Not great, but playable. Problem is that they fucked up and made it a poor mix of tactical game and RPG without the best qualities of either. It good for when you want to blast the shit out of something jsut don't expect it to live up to the other two or a truly great tactical game like JA2.Wolfman Walt wrote:Guess that goes to show that no one here really likes FOT...besides Danny boy.
I think its okay if you take it with a grain of salt... and like Manoil said, most of it can be explained away with some creativity.Wolfman Walt wrote:Well I think most people here don't ACTUALLY think it's horrible interms of what it was ment for (As a tac squad game), it was just this really big let down that basically abused the license. I have no problem playing it, but as you said, it really messes with the license for it to be TOO enjoyable for me.
Amen.Wolfman Walt wrote:Also - I still think JA2 was a better Tac squad game.