Duck and Cover

VasikkA wrote:I don't see a problem with a one-shot miniature nuke launcher as a quest/plot item.

1. They've already dumped 75,000 nuclear explosions per battle into the game from the exploding cars, so don't expect anything less than at least one fatman per boss encounter.

2. They've already made great press out of blatantly stealing the "to nuke or not to nuke" gecko plotline, added a motherfucking dark brotherhood magical teleporting npc to give you the quest to do it (as opposed to an acceptable quest line) That's enough nuking, especially in light of the first two fallout games having ended with nuke quests as well.

3. The worlds smallest nuke in MDK (used to unlock doors, mainly) was a kind of a tone setter. You start throwing in mini mushroom clouds all over, and things get more cartoony than starcraft really, really quick. There's just something about seeing the massive icon of nuclear destruction made cute and tiny that's really laughable.

Now that being said, those fucking mongrels stating that they want to lessen the humor in the game and that groin shots are too slapstick (read: Oblivion did not have the capacity to use eye and groin hitboxes.) then adding the chibi nuke and the motherfucking dark brotherhood is an absolute affront to gaming itself, let alone all the other ludicrous bullshit they've already stated is in the game.

Inb4 tl;dr, your defense of handheld nuclear weapons in fallout outs you as missing the point, at the very least.

VasikkA wrote:

Koki wrote:{
if(IQ<80)

VasikkA wrote:Realism != fun

();
else
Realism = fun();
}

Fuck you. Next.

popscythe wrote:more blabber

All true what you said, except you didn't give an argument as to why small-scale nuclear weapons wouldn't fit the Fallout setting, if implemented properly.

So how do you imagine to implement them properly?

In a hat. An inflammable hat, made of milk.



edit: Say, you're walking in a Sierra Army Depot-like pre-war military installation and come across this old, dusty miniature nuke launcher. You could waste it on a pack of centaurs you encounter in the desert instead of running away, or it could be used to open a collapsed, otherwise inaccessible Vault entrance in another part of the gameworld. Boom, there you have it.

VasikkA wrote:In a hat. An inflammable hat, made of milk.



edit: Say, you're walking in a Sierra Army Depot-like pre-war military installation and come across this old, dusty miniature nuke launcher. You could waste it on a pack of centaurs you encounter in the desert instead of running away, or it could be used to open a collapsed, otherwise inaccessible Vault entrance in another part of the gameworld. Boom, there you have it.

Sigh, I felt like saying that "you are missing the point" explained what I meant, but this obviously proves that you are still missing the point.

First of all, it's real shaky to assume that the amount of radioactive material that would be used to power a "mini-nuke" wouldn't decay past usability in 200 years.

Second, the idea just sucks man. I can't say that it sucks less than the mining cart + pole + tnt really, but at least that setup gave a little "scavenge" feel to opening the military base. Having an explosive key that not only kills random enemies (which anything designed to dig through a NUCLEAR BLAST PROOF vault door would not be very effective at, unless you hit them directly, or possibly from above) and then assuming that the concussive force used to fire a really really fucking heavy nuclear rocket would be generatable in a form which you could carry around by yourself, and fire without flipping over 1000 times then dying is just laughable.

Third, if you were to completely disregard atomic physics, (like you continue to do), and insist that a hand held nuclear rocket launcher would even work the way you are talking about it working, without irradiating you to death (say assuming it's made of magical plutonium that hasn't decayed in 200 years, but it's still magically not killing you from holding it in your backpack, plutonium has a pretty low rad output, opposed to uranium) and the standard small arms physics I described above would allow for firing the projectile (What is your objection to a non-rocket launcher weapon, like a placed charge, and then why, oh why, does it have to be atomic just because the theme of the game is that atomic weapons destroyed the world?) we're still left with an idea that was never implemented into fallout before because it's bad.

Just a bad idea, backed up with bad physics, bad realism, and bad setting killer presentation.

Of course, it's just as bad as the giant boss supermutant and the other fucking shitty stuff in fallout three, but the fact that you insist that it even MAY fit into the fallout cannon world is just bad. Real bad. 12.0 on a ten point scale of badness.

popscythe wrote:First of all, it's real shaky to assume that the amount of radioactive material that would be used to power a "mini-nuke" wouldn't decay past usability in 200 years.

The half-life of weapon-grade U-235 is 7.038×10^8 years and of Pu-239 is 2.41×10^4 years. Not that it matters though, we're talking about a fictional video game.

Second, the idea just sucks man. I can't say that it sucks less than the mining cart + pole + tnt really, but at least that setup gave a little "scavenge" feel to opening the military base.

I'm not a quest designer, and thank the gods I'm not, but the suckiness of my quest idea is not at discussion here -- the plausibility of nuclear weapons in the Fallout series is, however. I give you that my quest setup was hastily thought-out. Not that it matters though, we're talking about a fictional video game.

NUCLEAR BLAST PROOF vault door

Which is an incorrect term in regard to a nuclear blast. Nuclear shockwave proof vault door would be a more appropriate term; a nuclear blast would melt the fucking vault door. Not that it matters though, we're talking about a fictional video game.

in a form which you could carry around by yourself, and fire without flipping over 1000 times then dying is just laughable.

Carrying around miniguns and bozars and whatnot in your pockets is not laughable? Not that it matters though, we're talking about a fictional video game.

atomic physics

Ah yes, I guess Tim Cain and the other designers had that as top priority when they came up with the setting and the story of Fallout. The rest of the setting is as believable as Fox News. Not that it matters though, we're talking about a fictional video game.

a hand held nuclear rocket launcher would even work the way you are talking about it working, without irradiating you to death

With the appropriate casing, those things are perfectly safe. Not that it matters though, we're talking about a fictional video game.

why, oh why, does it have to be atomic just because the theme of the game is that atomic weapons destroyed the world?) we're still left with an idea that was never implemented into fallout before because it's bad.

If I recall correctly, you could set off a nuclear bomb in both Fallout and Fallout 2. OH WHY INDEED

Just a bad idea, backed up with bad physics, bad realism, and bad setting killer presentation.

Not that it matters though, we'r... ah, forget it.

There are nukes that are capable of producing very little or no radiation at all, they were developed, in part, for the Orion project.

VasikkA wrote:[It's (apparently) easy to confuse fictional with shitty.

If you want to write some Fallout fanfic, and include the hand held nukes from Fallout 3, be my guest.

My point remains, that the idea fucking sucks, fictional or not. The nukes in fallout 1 and 2 were treated with a certain respect, a kind of big messy plot ender that didn't go anywhere. It sits there, reeking of death and hatred and the olden days until you decide to make the inevitable happen.

I'm sure that in your fictional video games, you absolutely love the slapstick monty-python robots, giant bosses, and scripted events that call for a pocket rocket like the fatman, but even you, in your fictional ability to even discuss what would be a good fit into the fallout cannon must admit that the reason they weren't included in the first place is completely congruent with the fact I outlined above.

fictional doesn't give you licence to take a specifically set theme that involves something as a major hazard, of life-changing proportions, and then chibi it down so you can fictionally carry it around and produce fictionally laughable, even in the realm of science fiction improbable if not factually impossible mini-mushroom clouds and shit up a darkly toned game by hurling them around. Not even once. Especially not 200 years later, but more specifically not ever.

I'm assuming that at this point you have to either 1. factually work for bethesda, and have some giant hard on to play devil's advocate about shitty ideas in hopes you can bring people around, or 2. fictionally assume that just because the idea interests you it is a good one, and refuse to see how it fucking sucks, no matter how much MDK and Fallout 3 have already used the carry-round nuke to produce shitty, three radioactive stooges grade fictional video games.

popscythe wrote:The nukes in fallout 1 and 2 were treated with a certain respect, a kind of big messy plot ender that didn't go anywhere. It sits there, reeking of death and hatred and the olden days until you decide to make the inevitable happen.

Both predecessors ended in a big nuclear explosion. You call that respectful? That's as cheesy as it gets and is exactly what you'd expect from a game inspired by the nuclear hysteria of the 50/60's. This lack of finesse, along with other absurd science fiction elements are an essential part of Fallout. As for crossing the line, Fallout 2 provides you with several examples(Hubologists, katanas, talking rats).

I'm not talking about hurling nukes at every enemy you encounter or whatever you're foaming about. I never claimed such things, so you must be delusional. And I don't know the nature of the 'nuclear catapult' appearing in Fallout 3, nor do I care. But as a story or a plot device, a nuclear weapon is perfectly appropriate. That might even feel more significant to the story and to the player than a big, end-it-all explosion with no in-game significance.

The rest of your post was off-topic bullshit.

I like how your post indicates pretty easily that you only read up to the word "respect" that you quoted me on.

How about the

a kind of big messy plot ender that didn't go anywhere. It sits there, reeking of death and hatred and the olden days until you decide to make the inevitable happen.

See, if I didn't mean

a kind of big messy plot ender that didn't go anywhere. It sits there, reeking of death and hatred and the olden days until you decide to make the inevitable happen.

I wouldn't have written

a kind of big messy plot ender that didn't go anywhere. It sits there, reeking of death and hatred and the olden days until you decide to make the inevitable happen.

So if you choose to reply to

a kind of big messy plot ender that didn't go anywhere. It sits there, reeking of death and hatred and the olden days until you decide to make the inevitable happen.

Then I advise you read what you are quoting before you talk. Your (bethesda's) idea fucking sucks. That's on-topic, and factual. I can't break it down any further for you.

popscythe wrote:a kind of big messy plot ender that didn't go anywhere. It sits there, reeking of death and hatred and the olden days until you decide to make the inevitable happen.

VasikkA wrote:But as a story or a plot device, a nuclear weapon is perfectly appropriate. That might even feel more significant to the story and to the player than a big, end-it-all explosion with no in-game significance.

Should I wipe your ass for you, as well?

what about the chineese assault rifle? an AK47 in fallout? what the fuck?

VasikkA wrote:Should I wipe your ass for you, as well?

Only if one of your ideas gets stuck to it.

Kahgan wrote:what about the chineese assault rifle? an AK47 in fallout? what the fuck?

Well technically tactics had i - wait they're disregarding tactics.

Also - in before Flame Sword.

Wolfman Walt wrote:
Also - in before Flame Sword.

That's 'Gas-powered" flame sword.

Why couldn't they have a rock drill? I haven't been able to kill shit with a rock drill in video games since Silent Hill.

Flame powered rock drill.

Add in an optional nuclear grenade launcher underattachment and I'm sold.