|
Wolfsheim posted:But there's plenty of reasons that are listed in this very thread You can't even shoot James. More games need to let you kill everyone you come across like New Vegas does.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
Sam. posted:You can't even shoot James. More games need to let you kill everyone you come across like New Vegas does. Try to kill Yes Man, House, Caesar, and as many NCR as you can find. Let me know how many of them actually stay dead (Yes Man won't). You wouldn't be able to end the game if you were able to kill James, because you can't learn the code for the purifier (even though it is ridiculously glaringly obvious, the game won't let you) if he gets killed. While some people like the "well I screwed myself out of an ending gotta learn to live with my choices etc. etc.", most people are going to be upset once they do everything else that the game hasn't ended yet and never will because either they killed James or he got himself killed. Wolfsheim posted:But there's plenty of reasons that are listed in this very thread I think the problem with Fallout 3's main quest is that, like you said, you can stumble upon it at any time up until you free your dad from Tranquility Lane, and once you're in it, there's nothing you can do about it. I think it's the fact that in NV, you can do any part of X main quest at any point, because if you've played before and you know where Benny is, you can just tell Novac to gently caress off and head right to Vegas. In FO3, the main quest is stuck halfway until you free your Dad, and because he's a necessary character to the plot, you can't proceed with it on your own without him; then once you do eventually get around to freeing him, you're stuck escorting him across the Wasteland, something you literally never have to do in NV. That's definitely an improvement in NV, I'll agree. CJacobs fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Jan 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
The plot in Fallout 3 is incredibly stupid because of the amount of contrived premises required to kick off the entire story (apparently nobody's heard of charcoal filtering, radiation somehow instantly kills, if the water is that polluted why are there so many non-ghouls in settlements, etc etc) The only thing I miss in Fallout 3 was the sick amount of dungeons and caverns I could explore and the very random chance that there's a story somewhere in it, and the fact that I could be a complete sociopath and every NPC would still love me and I have no reason to care (while playing through the Legion path in New Vegas is as emotionally draining as it should be). It was great as an Elder Scrolls kill-and-loot dungeon slasher game, but not as the kind of game you play Fallout for. Other than that, though, NV improves on everything in virtually every way, especially outside of story/worldbuilding (gasp!!!). Engine bugs that Bethesda outright refused to fix, like the VATS hanging bug, are gone in New Vegas. The auto-aim/miss system is toned down to be only effective if you have weapons skill as low as 20. Shooting isn't anywhere near as clunky and unwieldy as in FO3. The amount of care taken to fix quest scripting and fundamental engine problems eclipses that of Fallout 3 to the point that it's actually empirically less *buggy* than Fallout 3. How anyone could think Fallout 3 is an improvement over NV on anything but the "dungeon crawling" aspect is beyond me. Anime Schoolgirl fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jan 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:Try to kill Yes Man, House, Caesar, and as many NCR as you can find. Let me know how many of them actually stay dead (Yes Man won't). quote:Fine, then. I think Fallout 3 is a better game because it feels like a wasteland. New Vegas, being set in a desert, feels like a desert with radiation. Though the map is a bit cramped in FO3, you can actually tell there's been an apocalypse. What was once a huge urban area is now a whole lot of rubble, and the player is told this from the very start. Its weird to me that the Capitol Wasteland is still such a shithole, that late after the bombs fell. FO3 would have been a lot better if it was set, say, 50 years after the way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:Try to kill Yes Man, House, Caesar, and as many NCR as you can find. Let me know how many of them actually stay dead (Yes Man won't). Yes Man and Vendortron are the only unkillable NPCs in New Vegas. E: VVV Yes I forgot the kids. Anyhow, allowing that is an instant adult-only rating in many corners of the world, so it's easy to see why they're unkillable. Smol fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jan 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
Smol posted:Yes Man and Vendortron are the only unkillable NPCs in New Vegas. Aren't the scant few kids that are in the game unkillable? I never tried it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
And Yes Man can't be killed because he's a robot with a single consciousness that isn't tied to a particular body. Like Victor. You can kill him but he will still show up where he's supposed to because his personality has assumed control of whatever generic securitron happens to be nearby.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Every single one of them besides Yes Man will stay dead. Everyone in the game besides Yes Man and Vendortron will stay dead. Smol posted:Yes Man and Vendortron are the only unkillable NPCs in New Vegas. Thank you for saying exactly what I said in the post you quoted I guess??? quote:(Yes Man won't)
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
Yes Man is unkillable so that you will always have an ending available. The children are unkillable (can't even be hurt) due to rating issues or something. Vendortron is unkillable because you just can't keep Vendortron down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:Thank you for saying exactly what I said in the post you quoted I guess???
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
chelsea clinton posted:You do have a point with the feel of the wasteland and the whole deal with leaving the vault being a better intro. I liked the quest where you go back if it wasn't so hamfistedly made to reference the ending of Fallout 1. CJacobs posted:Try to kill Yes Man, House, Caesar, and as many NCR as you can find. Let me know how many of them actually stay dead (Yes Man won't). No offense because I liked Fallout 3 and all but you can kill the rest of them though. That's why the Yes Man path exists, as an "other" ending in the event that the first 3 endings aren't completed (in addition to being its own valid complete "faction"). Fallout 3 could have benefited from a bit more story variety because the last choice is a bit of a crock (well last 2, not counting the dlc retconning one of those dumb choices). Fallout 1 and 2 were designed in such a way that you could never "lose" if you killed random npcs. You could make the game almost impossible to figure out short of a strategy guide telling you where the cathedral and military base were, and have every town hate you, but in theory you could get to the end without help. Course Fallout 1 had it so you couldn't kill the Overseer but otherwise it allowed a lot more variety in how to reach the ending. Fallout 3 was better than people gave it credit for, it's just a pretty weak entry. It's still not the worst thing Fallout had it's name attached to (That award going to Brotherhood of Steel and depending on what you're looking for in a game, Tactics), but Bethesda isn't the best writers in the world, their design philosophy this generation has been "build an open world so other people can fit stuff into it" and not writing a compelling standalone narrative. I feel even Morrowind suffered from this. It had some really nifty architecture and ruins but the main story was pretty blah and not conveyed in a particularly powerful way. Edit: Ravenfood posted:
To be fair I felt New Vegas suffered from this problem too. Things are a bit more evolved, but everything is so dirty and looks like crap after 200 years. New Vegas the city especially shouldn't because Mr. House himself said Las Vegas wasn't even hit that hard. Things should look better by now. But people play the Fallout games for the post apocalyptic "dirty" setting so they continue to keep that aesthetic. Maybe the next game should scale back the timeline again. But maybe that'd be too confusing? RagnarokAngel fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Jan 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:20
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:Thank you for saying exactly what I said in the post you quoted I guess??? No problem. What the hell was your point then?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:I think the point was that what you are describing as a con isn't a con at all. But I wasn't describing it as a con? I was stating the fact that people would be pissed off if there was no way to achieve an ending in a game regardless of how much they claim they would love that much immersion (in response to a guy that said he'd love if FO3'd allowed you to kill off the only real main quest character), but not if they're going into the game for the first time. Being able to gently caress yourself out of an ending, even a "cop-out" ending in which everything is messed up and it's all your fault is just not a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:Fine, then. I was more interested in you doing a character and thematic analysis of James than defending Fallout 3. I'm happy enough with Fallout 3 (well, except the DLCs which are mostly shockingly poor) on its own merits. CJacobs posted:I think Fallout 3 is a better game because it feels like a wasteland. New Vegas, being set in a desert, feels like a desert with radiation. Though the map is a bit cramped in FO3, you can actually tell there's been an apocalypse. What was once a huge urban area is now a whole lot of rubble, and the player is told this from the very start. In New Vegas, you've lived your entire life outside in the wasteland, and the game only begins when something noteworthy happens to you (that being getting shot right in the face) I think you're conflating the motivations of the player with the history of the player character. The motivation of the main plot in FO3, for example, is "Find your father", compared to "Find the man who tried to kill you" in NV. Stepping out of the Vault for the first time in FO3 into the sunlight was an excellent moment, but I also think that wouldn't have been an appropriate beginning for a game that follows on closely from Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 - whereas Fallout 3 was more of a reboot (which is understandable given the gap since FO2). CJacobs posted:FO3 has you leaving a vault (a theme in past Fallout games as well) for the very first time, having no idea what lies beyond. Well, it happens in Fallout 1. In Fallout 2 you've never been in a Vault before you do in-game. So 1/2 (1/4 including the spinoffs).
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:But I wasn't describing it as a con? I was stating the fact that people would be pissed off if there was no way to achieve an ending in a game regardless of how much they claim they would love that much immersion, but not if they're going into the game for the first time. Being able to gently caress yourself out of an ending, even a "cop-out" ending in which everything is messed up and it's all your fault is just not a good idea. In Fallout 3, there's only one story arc and only effectively one path through the story, which is why it's so necessary to have principal characters not die. It's fine and all for "must finish the game" purposes, but it's why it shouldn't be compared to New Vegas' structure at all, as "missing" things because you did X in one way instead of another is the entire *point* of the Fallout narrative. By keeping paths open through to the end of the game, you would get the silly Deus Ex "only the endgame matters" ending forks if you did otherwise, which reflects extremely poorly on the players' decisions and effectively renders what they have done throughout the game meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:Thank you for saying exactly what I said in the post you quoted I guess??? Go Yes Man, and you have to do a lot of the legwork yourself if you want good endings for anyone. Messing around in the Mojave is actually part of your ending and part of the story. There's a reason to be there that just isn't around in FO3. Nothing in FO3 really matters besides plot-specific locations that are divorced from everything else. Plus, as mentioned, James being one of the strongest characters is just...weak. "I did everything to protect you! Oh, by the way, go attack things for me. I'm going to go do other things."
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:Try to kill Yes Man, House, Caesar, and as many NCR as you can find. Let me know how many of them actually stay dead (Yes Man won't). You wouldn't be able to end the game if you were able to kill James, because you can't learn the code for the purifier (even though it is ridiculously glaringly obvious, the game won't let you) if he gets killed. While some people like the "well I screwed myself out of an ending gotta learn to live with my choices etc. etc.", most people are going to be upset once they do everything else that the game hasn't ended yet and never will because either they killed James or he got himself killed. But you can kill everyone but Yes Man permanently, and it does make significant changes. A huge number of Fallout 3 characters are essential for the entirety of the game (or at least until they get killed off in a dramatic scripted sequence). Just off the top of my head, there was James, Sarah Lyons, Head Paladin Lyons, the other Head Paladins involved in the main quest, and inexplicably, Knight Gallows (the guy who hangs out with Sarah Lyons and is involved in no quests in anyway at any point). Not only can you not kill them, you can't even really upset them; you can go on a murder spree in their headquarters killing everyone they know, and at most they'll be mildly annoyed and still work with you. There's literally no consequences and no alternatives (even though it should have been a no-brainer to at least let you ally yourself with the Enclave, since the game does let you decide to help them for no benefit because "haha gently caress the world"). And re: people getting mad that the game never ends, you do realize this was not only the first Bethesda game to have and ending, but people got so mad they got rid of it in DLC?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
Dush posted:He's also an rear end in a top hat - remember when he orders you to clear out the Jefferson memorial by yourself? Dad of the year. Wait, I cleared out Jefferson Memorial by myself on the way to that big ship city. He actually sends you there to do the same thing later? I mean, I guess I'd be irritated but it's not like I couldn't handle it the first time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:But I wasn't describing it as a con? I was stating the fact that people would be pissed off if there was no way to achieve an ending in a game regardless of how much they claim they would love that much immersion (in response to a guy that said he'd love if FO3'd allowed you to kill off the only real main quest character), but not if they're going into the game for the first time. Counterpoint: Morrowind is Bethesda's best game. Nothing annoys me more in a freeform RPG than running across unkillable people, and there are a fair few in Fallout 3. Not as many as Skyrim (jesus christ that's ludicrous) but a lot more than New Vegas's "zero"*. *Well, zero you can reach. CJacobs posted:Being able to gently caress yourself out of an ending, even a "cop-out" ending in which everything is messed up and it's all your fault is just not a good idea. Perhaps the alternative is to have alternative endings!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
I think from this discussion I've figured out why people hold FO3 as a low point in the series. It's because the game doesn't hold the player's input as high as it does in NV. FO3 is essentially a one-ending game with multiple variations of that ending. NV's ending actually changes based on who you decide to go with. FO3, to me, is more of a straight path than anything. You aren't forced nor told by James or anyone else that you should go exploring and discover whatever else the game has for you to do. If you start on the main quest, you're going to be too busy doing all the stuff it asks you to (escorting your dad all the way across the Wasteland, getting stuck in X vault until you do Y thing) to do anything else, and before you know it, it's over without you having made any real game-changing decisions. It's more story based than choice based. I still love it, and I'm willing to admit the game has its flaws, but to be honest I don't think I see the point in denying NV is better towards the player anymore. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:36
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Counterpoint: Morrowind is Bethesda's best game. I love how Morrowind doesn't end if you killed story-critical people there; you just have to grind enough levels or do enough exponential alchemy to get the HP needed to wear the macguffin needed to win the game without any quests.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:And re: people getting mad that the game never ends, you do realize this was not only the first Bethesda game to have and ending, but people got so mad they got rid of it in DLC? One last thing: I meant an ending in a literal sense, not "oh the game's over I can stop playing now", and not "oh the game's over but i can continue playing after so it's totally ok!" I meant a point in the game where you have done literally everything else you can think to do, but you've screwed yourself out of all of the ways you can bring the game to a conclusion one way or another, and now you have nothing left to do but wander around killing stuff because the game doesn't even come out and give you a way for you to know that. I'm not even remotely interested in game design and I know that's a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:I think from this discussion I've figured out why people hold FO3 as a low point in the series. It's because the game doesn't hold the player's input as high as it does in NV. There's also that the game mechanics have been refined in new Vegas as well as improving the engine
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:That's pretty much the ur-example of Bethesda design actually working, even if the game mechanics are woefully dated. I don't know if this was what you meant but there's actually a whole in-game branch of the main story where if you murder Vivec you can get the last dwemer to jury-rig the gauntlet to work without killing you outright (albeit it was coded somewhat incorrectly and fixed with the unofficial code patch). edit: I mention this because related to "knowing whether or not you've locked yourself out of the ending", Morrowind does pop up a message saying you've rendered the game unwinnable when you do so. However, the jury-rigging quest is unique in that it occurs AFTER you get this message. Cowcaster fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Jan 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
Both games really don`t try to engage you in the same way.I think that is the issue when trying to compare them. I played both just to have fun exploring around and seeing the "Cool Stuff". New Vegas has much more open dialogue but saying the wrong thing can cut things short and you miss out on "Cool Stuff" you would not have realized existed yet. Also quite a lot of choices are just illusions which have no effect beyond their own locations. I enjoy the freedom of choice New Vegas offers but its a bit hollow.I can reroute the Helios One power to anywhere I like but nothing ever becomes of it.It makes no difference what I chose if anything at all.You can freely kill anyone you feel like but it has no actual effect on the world with the exception on some passing dialogue about Caesar or House. Bethesda is very good at telling a story through level design. Obsidian treats it more as a stage for their own more advanced characters and the many story threads that connect them. The full main quest story arc for Fallout 3 on into Broken Steel was quite the adventure.It had very few choices for you to make,But quite a lot of interesting places to explore and some neat events to take part of.It was very scripted but it was also totally optional and each step was different then the last.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
VocalizePlayerDeath posted:Also quite a lot of choices are just illusions which have no effect beyond their own locations. quote:Bethesda is very good at telling a story through level design. quote:It was very scripted but it was also totally optional and each step was different then the last.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 21:04
|
|
|
It's optional in the sense that there's a lot to do in the game without touching the main story. Plenty of people play games just to enjoy it, not to finish it; 20 hours plus is a good old whack of content.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
Is there a way to reset a DLC area after you complete it without starting a new game? Thinking about Honest Hearts...
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
Francois Kofko posted:There's also that the game mechanics have been refined in new Vegas as well as improving the engine I think that the simple thing of getting rid of Damage Resistance as the sole damage mitigation mechanism did wonders for the gameplay. Damage Resistance scales really badly and makes buffing the enemy hitpoints — either via DR or base hitpoints — the only way to increase difficulty. Damage Threshold, on the other hand, allows the game designer to create enemies that have a thick armor, but what can be bypassed with high-damage weapons and/or things like armor-piercing bullets. Or they can make enemies that have a lot of hit points but no armor, which allows high DPS weapons that have no armor piercing capabilities (i.e. low damage per bullet) to shine. In Fallout 3, the only thing that matters is DPS. A weapon that fires one 100-damage bullet per second is always as good as a weapon that fires ten 10-damage bullets per second. That is why there are enemies with ridiculous amounts of hit points (like Albino Radscorpions) in Fallout 3: the only way of making the game more challenging as it progresses was to increase enemy hit points, so they did exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
FO:NV does a much better job of making you feel like what you're doing is important without shoehorning you much. If you sympathise most with the NCR, you can go on a bloody one-man rampage against the Legion, kick them out of Nelson, cap Caesar, etc. and NCR soldiers will comment on it and you'll get little gifts and stuff from the NCR (the radio, the ranger supply place). If you think everybody in the Mojave has a right to their own freedom and self determination you can work with Yes Man and you can wipe out groups you dislike, leave them alone, or in most cases (Khans, Boomers, BoS) convince them to help you personally. It's that kind of thing. In FO3 it's just... you will work with the BoS. You will fight the Enclave. Oh, you don't like the BoS and want to kill them? Tough poo poo half of them are invincible. The only actual choice the main plot offers you is the modified FEV thing to stick in the purifier, which... eh. What's the point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
I played lots of Skyrim since it was out, one thing amazing about the game is that the map and dungeon design is amazing and makes me hope for some really cool locations in Fallout 4. The writing was nothing short of groanworthy though, in between horrid voice acting and really boring plot you usually had the choice between "Will you go on this quest?" "Yes." and "Will you go on this quest?" "No, because I'm a dick for whatever reason." "But thou must!" "..okay I will." There were some obviously evil choices but they just didn't matter. Fallout 3 was the same, as that there was the option to blow megaton up which was incredibly evil and also made no sense whatsoever. In New Vegas I could agree with Bennys plan, then wait till he starts walking out of the hotel room and carve his skull in with a pool cue as he turned his back to me, and the game would understand and handle it. Now that's choice. With Bethesda he would've stumbled to the ground, ignored my obvious murder attempt and then I'd have to play thourgh whatever bullshit quest he'd send me through. Every sense of immersion would fly out of the window then and there. I think in Skyrim they approached this problem of linearity in earlier games by just putting lots and lots of optional quests in, so that you can forge your character after the quests he's willing to do and the experiences he makes. It kinda works and it doesn't at the same time, and even though it's fun for a little while to play the dragonslayer, (and even though I think the game mechanics in Skyrim are very unusually well executed and balanced for a game like this) ultimatively NV stays more attractive to me, even if the graphics are worse. World just doesn't feel that static. Also essential NPCs are bullshit Bethesda, get rid of them. Police Automaton fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Jan 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:It's optional in the sense that there's a lot to do in the game without touching the main story. Plenty of people play games just to enjoy it, not to finish it; 20 hours plus is a good old whack of content. But New Vegas has even more optional content than Fallout 3 as well as a larger, more diverse main quest  I dunno, I remember a lot of Broken Steel being like the end of Fallout 3; the player walking down a linear path watching Liberty Prime and/or a bunch of BoS paladins fighting battles against the Enclave. Which is fun in that I always wondered what a Michael Bay movie would look like rendered on Gamebryo, but not exactly compelling gameplay (or even really gameplay for a lot of it).
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
cat with hands posted:Is there a way to reset a DLC area after you complete it without starting a new game? Learn to keep a save right before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 21:38
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:The plot in Fallout 3 is incredibly stupid because of the amount of contrived premises required to kick off the entire story (apparently nobody's heard of charcoal filtering, radiation somehow instantly kills, if the water is that polluted why are there so many non-ghouls in settlements, etc etc) This is like the 3rd time Ive seen you bitch about radiation. Have you never played Fallout 1/2? Everything, including the laws of physics, evolved from the 50s. The Fallout universe is how we perceived things to work in the 1950s, which means radiation mutates you and turns you into a ghoul (only with the help of FEV exposure), particle energy is reversed (longer half-lives = worse radiation), etc etc etc. Fallout 3s premise is extremely solid in-universe. If youre gonna bitch about Fallout 3 at least stick to stuff that isnt canon in the first two games  RagnarokAngel posted:Course Fallout 1 had it so you couldn't kill the Overseer but otherwise it allowed a lot more variety in how to reach the ending. I remember it being very possible to kill the overseer, but the game would end after that. I never tried it though, so all Ive got to go on is hearsay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
Evoq posted: are you talking about the same guy because this is the first time i've ever talked about radiation in fallout as a story device
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
Evoq posted:I remember it being very possible to kill the overseer, but the game would end after that. I never tried it though, so all Ive got to go on is hearsay. Yeah you could if you like, clicked really really fast between the moment your conversation stopped and the game ended. I remember this because I played the german version of Fallout which had all the splatter animations taken out (characters would just fall over, no matter how you killed them) except of the overseer which would splatter like in the US version. Was certainly a  for young me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:
Im pretty sure. I specifically remember you bringing it up a few times before, it might have been in the mod thread or the old thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
You could only kill the Overseer as part of the end game resolution. If you tried to attack him in Vault 13, he would annihilate you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
If Obsidian wrote the next Elder Scrolls I'd preorder. If Bethesda wrote the next Fallout I might pick it up at five bucks. Might.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
Also, in the period of history in which people purport Fallout 3 to be aping radiation wasn't really a boogeyman any more than anything else. It was always a risk, because of the cold war, but there wasn't a lot of scaremongering about mutants etc because it's ridiculous I mean check out this video about nuclear fallout http://www.archive.org/details/AboutFal1955 From six minutes or so on it even talks about food preperation and how adequate filtration would make water perfectly safe to drink. Fallout 3 isn't even a very accurate representation of Cold War nuclear terror.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 21:59
|
|