Van Buren/ Fallout 3: What made the cut?

I'm just going to interject here and say that anyone who uses "i could care less" is a fucking untermensch.

Please continue, good sirs.

 

I assure you Darksign I did not see your previous posts or I wouldn't have bothered with this thread. It seems we're at least heading in the right direction by way of *some* analysis, despite the large amount of thoughtless posts in this thread. Some Codexers are hitting it right on the head when they note that everything was given to the Beth team in the original design docs.

Granted, a lot changes in the development cycle, but it's interesting to see that Beth's poor design choices stink especially when compared to what BIS was going to do with the material. In simple terms of world building they had a much better grasp of the 'why' of things. Beth (as noted in a lot of Codex reviews) made a lot of decisions based on "Wouldn't it be cool if..." Whilst I believe they have a solid understanding of creating big worlds (mind you not big breathing worlds) Beth always delivers worlds that are very stale and cold.

A good visually alive world (and this is a poor example) would be the Fable series. Whilst terribly buggy and poorly implemented, they felt they had some spark at least. And even FO1 and FO2, which were limited by technology, have well crafted worlds where characters were always mumbling interesting things and going about their business. Beth continues to make huge worlds without any kind of soul, and if they'd bothered to implement more of what they had in the original design documents, Fallout 3 would of been an excellent game.

 

It can be done with 30 minutes with ICBMs, complete exchange. Doolittle's raid on Tokyo in World War 2 took around two hours from launching from the Hornet to the deployment of bombs on Tokyo.

In all the slides for Fallout, they show bombers and bombs when they mention the nuclear war.

That's the part I thought was silly about it. His argument for dividing up Speech in to multiple skills was because he didn't think one skill should be all it takes to win the game. Meanwhile, on the combat side, he was taking five skills and combining them in to two skills. Most people beat Fallout with a combat skill, so if your big objection to Speech is it being one powerful skill, why take the more used skills and condense them down to even more powerful and more widely used skills?

There was also some wackiness with perks I remember disliking, but I can't remember what they were.

I always tried to rationalize the temple as where the Vault Dweller's T-51b went. Let's build a big temple since we have this power armor to life these big rocks, and they burned it out in the process.

You have to admit that's odd. Given all the stuff the Vault Dweller had after defeating the Master, and all they had at the start of Fallout 2 was the jumpsuit. The burning out the power armor thing work okay for an explanation if you don't think too much about it beyond that.

 

Well, as I said, Fallout 1 had several mentions of warheads, Fallout original docs explictly mentioned missiles and all following games used missiles, including FO2, FO3 and VB, so it's not much of an argument for proving that FO3 is superior to FO2 or VB.

 

As pointed out, bomb and warhead have often been used as synonyms. When it comes time to depict the nuclear weapons, they always used bombs in Fallout. Also, prop driven planes are depicted as well. Even in the museum of technology in Fallout 3, the fighter has a propeller. While there is some rocket technology, it was in it's infancy still.

I've always liked Tim Cain's explanation of Fallout's technology. Instead of the Space Race, they had a Nuclear Race. That's why the only technology that's smallish is nuclear tech.

 

Infancy? They had regular visits to the moon for 80 years or so.

In FO1 yes, but it's unfair to criticize Van Buren for its rockets when comparing it to FO3, which also has them, as does FO2 and FOT.

 

I am not letting you get away with that.

The Doolittle raid was conducted by B-25B Mitchell bombers that launched from the USS Hornet at about 650 miles (1,050 km) from Japan.

So no, you have NO POINT, unless you are going to state the entire nuclear exchange was done from NAVAL AVIATION and that is COMPLETELY STUPID!!!

Rivet City is full of naval airplanes that are clearly jets ... and on the subject the Museum of Technology have a SPACE ROCKET on display, perhaps you missed the MUSEUM part?

Its funny because the 2 hours COULD be achieved with supersonic bombers, the SR-71 holds the record for flying from New York to London in 1 hour 54 minutes and 56.4 seconds so supersonic bombers could "end the world" in about 2 hours but that would mean supersonic bombers flying at speeds of at least Mach 4.

 

I did say it was launched from the Hornet, you illiterate dipshit.

Or launched from carriers, kind of like how they did all the bombing raids on Japan in World War 2.

 

Leaving out the fact said carrier was close to Japanese Islands, a important FACT.

WRONG.

The Doolittle Raid was a exception and outside moral (raising for the US and lowering for Japan) it was a "do little" raid, considering all aircrafts in the operation were lost it was not something to be tried again, considering its cost/effect.

The bombing of Japan was done by B-29 Superfortress that started in 15 June 1944 from Chengdu, China and before that there was NO ATTACKS ON THE JAPANESE ISLANDS besides the Doolittle Raid.

And just for complementation sake, after the capture of the Mariana Islands the B-29 were moved to constructed airfields on the Mariana Islands, at the end of January 1945 the move was complete, B-29 also operated from India but the ones stationed there did not operated in the Japanese Islands.

 

My great something-or-other was Jimmy Doolittle's co-pilot. True story.

 

Richard E. Cole?

 

Most people wouldn't consider 650 miles "close", and that had more to do with the range of the B29s than it did with anything else. Many of the B29s didn't have the fuel to reach mainland China.

I stand corrected. However, we still have a base in Tinian, we have bases in Japan, and Alaska. All of which would be fine for launching bombing raids on China a la Fallout's Great War. Range wouldn't be an issue for fusion powered bombers, and they'd most likely be faster than the fuel powered bombers of World War 2. Two hours is still much too slow for ICBMs.

 

None did, they would have crashed into the sea if not for favored wind that prolonged their flight until the crews either bailed out or they crash landed.

None made it to landing, all aircraft were lost.

Also it does not matter of most dont consider 650 miles "close", continental USA is 3000 miles long.

And China?

I mean you DO realize it does not matter AT ALL what current bases the USA have in the world since the in Fallout universe its not the same USA of today, also the USA in Fallout had successful invaded mainland China.

What is relevant is China nuclear abilities and so you are arguing China retained their Naval Carriers (unlikely considering Alaska and then the defense of the Chinese Mainland would meant they would be lost, at least would suffer significant losses) and said carriers would be able to cross the Pacific without being detected and then using naval propeller aircraft would be able to strike across of the entire USA.

Now, the B-29 had a operational range of 3,250 miles and I am talking about a four-engine propeller powered heavy bomber.

And since you are switching to "fusion powered aircraft" but I am going to point out fission conversion come late, it was not prevalent and even if there was nuclear powered bombers they would still had to fly at high supersonic speeds but that is irrelevant since I already point out the possibility of then existing and being used, just that I consider looking at Fallout technology and timeline as a fact that ICBMs also existed.

And drop the propeller notion, its stupid ... even turboprops,that are the peak of propeller technology lag behind, the Tu-95 that is the fastest propeller-driven aircraft to go into operational use only goes as fast as 920 km/h as the SR-71 that uses turbojets goes at over 3,530 km/h.

 

Since most people drive everywhere they go, their definition of long is based on how long of a drive they would have to cover that distance. Now, if you're a frequent flyer who just takes cabs to airports and flies mostly, it wouldn't be. But yeah, I'd say most people would consider 650 miles a "long distance". Still, it's about a two hour flight.

Right, the bases I refered to were bases after World War 2 and they still exist today. A designer of a game based on the 1950s would most likely look back and also what exists today for inspiration on many things. If it existed then, and still exists now, it probably would have existed in Fallout's 2077.

Depends on how many carriers you consider China to have at the beginning. Remember that carrier warfare a la World War 2 involved scouting planes finding carrier groups. We lucked out at Midway because we knew they were going there and their scout planes thought a freighter convoy was our task force. They launched all their planes, the planes came back, and were refueling on the deck when our carriers' planes showed up.

Now, had we not broken the Japanese code and had their pilots not screwed up by mistaking the frieghter convoy for a carrier task force, the Japanese could have still had many of their carriers near the end of the war even if we had invaded their country.

If they had fusion powered consumer cars, I'd be willing to bet that they had fusion powered bombers long beforehand. They had fusion power small enough for power armor as well, so the technology had to be fairly refined.

Prop planes fit the retro-future setting. Kind of like how all those nifty blimps and clockwork robots in Steampunk is stupid, but they still fit the setting.