Time for another fallout 3 discussion

[Funposter]

From a burnlootmurderer point of view, that is the exact thing that should happen. You either help them genocide people or they cancel you. Whoever that wrote that was probably a burnlootmurderer, but since it is shitestic, that is a given.

Nah. Black racism is 100% taboo in the West. Here, the guy tells you from the start that he wants nothing but a wholesale slaughter. But if you kill this little Nelson Mandela the tower keeps going as before.

Yes, but you get bad karma and the media hates your guts if you don't side with him. You just got cancelled, FO3 style.

(((three-dog)))

 

[Ol' Willy]

Yes, but you get bad karma and the media hates your guts if you don't side with him. You just got cancelled, FO3 style.

Ahh, this makes perfect sense. Media will deride you for killing "innocent ghouls, who wanted nothing, but equality" but will remain silent of them wiping out the entire tower full of people - because black racism is 100% taboo.

But I'm sad again. Shittesda used ghouls as stand-in for oppressed niggers, once more with the slave ghoul in Megaton and little Wakanda in metro tunnels. Raping franchise as usual.

 

[Jackpot]

Writing bad.
Exploration good.

Game not good Fallout game.
But there worse games than Oblivion with guns.

 

[Butter]

But there worse games than Oblivion with guns.

This is false. There are only equally bad games that take longer to complete.

 

[typical user]

Well gotta admit nuking entire city is true C&C although I would like it more if the bomb itself was in some sort of bunker and if it could vaporize at least half the map.

Of course your dad scolds you for it like it was forgetting to mow the lawn.

 

[Ol' Willy]

Well gotta admit nuking entire city is true C&C although I would like it more if the bomb itself was in some sort of bunker and if it could vaporize at least half the map.

You need to pass 25 explosive skillcheck to activate the atom bomb.

25 POINT SKILLCHECK, KARL! FOR AN ATOM FUCKING BOMB! YOU CAN'T PROPERLY RIG A DYNAMITE IN FALLOUT 1 WITH THAT SKILL!

 

[Alphons]

What always amazed me about Fallout 3 is that it's both first Fallout game with invincible children and Fallout game with the biggest amount of quests in which you harm kids.

Fallout 1 and Nevada have no such quests, Fallout 2 has one (if Modoc attack Slags, they kill everyone including children).
Edgy Resurrection has 2 quests (organ harvesting and cleaning pedophile's basement).

And then you have Fallout 3 where:
-nuking Megaton kills 2 kids
-evil route of Tranquility Lane requires you to make a kid cry
-unmarked quest in Rivet City to convince a kid his mother doesn't love him. He runs away with his friend and they presumably die in Wasteland.
-one of the final choices in fire ant quest is to sell 11 year old boy into slavery
-unmarked quest to kidnap and sell into slavery 8 year old girl

You can do all this shit but can't blow Macready's retarded head off.

25 POINT SKILLCHECK, KARL! FOR AN ATOM FUCKING BOMB! YOU CAN'T PROPERLY RIG A DYNAMITE IN FALLOUT 1 WITH THAT SKILL!

 

[typical user]

Well gotta admit nuking entire city is true C&C although I would like it more if the bomb itself was in some sort of bunker and if it could vaporize at least half the map.

You need to pass 25 explosive skillcheck to activate the atom bomb.

25 POINT SKILLCHECK, KARL! FOR AN ATOM FUCKING BOMB! YOU CAN'T PROPERLY RIG A DYNAMITE IN FALLOUT 1 WITH THAT SKILL!

Oh right forgot about that one. I think Mr. Fantastic would fit in Megaton perfectly then.

 

[ValeVelKal]

Well gotta admit nuking entire city is true C&C although I would like it more if the bomb itself was in some sort of bunker and if it could vaporize at least half the map.

You need to pass 25 explosive skillcheck to activate the atom bomb.

25 POINT SKILLCHECK, KARL! FOR AN ATOM FUCKING BOMB! YOU CAN'T PROPERLY RIG A DYNAMITE IN FALLOUT 1 WITH THAT SKILL!

To be honest I believe I (ValeVelKal) could arm a gun-type trigger atom bomb, but I could certainly not rig a dynamite.
The principle of a gun-type atom bomb is that you get two masses of fissile material close enough so that they reach critical mass. You could do it literally with your bare-hands (and disappear from this world the milisecond that follows).

 

[ValeVelKal]

Reposting here my defense of Fallout 3. TL;DR - FNV proposed you a coherent story but a less interesting (visually) world, F3 is a bunch of short stories put in roughly the same place but not creating a cohesive world.

---
Well, I enjoyed both, I did not love either. For reference and so you can put me in a little boxes I loved Morrowind, disliked Oblivion and enjoyed Skyrim.

Fallout NV is way better written and its story is way more interesting (+makes sense, feels "Fallout-y"). More than that - Fallout NV is probably one of the RPG with the best "world-design" : it feels like a comprehensive world with its economy, its "cultures", its encompassing political and ideological struggle that go through the whole Mojave. The war between the various factions has its recent history, which you can connect to locations you can visit or people you can talk to (eg the defeated Khans), it has its strategic targets (not only the dam but also eg the power plant). Exploration is not so much finding pretty places, it is adding pieces to the puzzle of the world you know, until later in the game you are the one creating the puzzle.

Obviously, the fact that FNV have factions and that the world evolve depending on your action / faction choice way more than in FO3 is the cherry-on top... but then this part feels rushed as NCR is way more fleshed out than Caesar and you can reset your faction standing at some point - so the faction choice is not critical in making the world comprehensive - it is everything else.

Similarly, I don't feel the individual quests taken in isolation are that much better than FO3 - I actually find them in general LESS interesting - but they connect better in the global world, whereas they kind of float in a bubble in FO3. This gives the quests an extra purpose they don't have in FO3.


FO3 has terrible "World-design", but it has way better city architecture and "level-design" in terms of pure short-term exploration. The problem is that lacking world-design, each city, and really each location is a bubble with little or even zero connection to the rest of the world. In this regard, it is really Oblivion with Guns : not only because of the general "pick a direction, find adventure, don't think too much" but also because Oblivion never bothered having a world that made sense in terms of how the places and people and whatnot articulate with one another. Thanks to this, FO3 feels less directive because the game designers did not have to care whether player encountered "self-contained place #7" before or after "self-contained place #3.

Consequently, I played FO3 8 years ago and FNV 3 years ago - I have NO recollection of the story in FO3 except that I am looking for my father and there is some poisoned lake and a giant robot at some point, but I remember fondly the "dungeons" and other locations (that Mirelurk place near the river, the virtual reality '50 America, the ant tunnels, Megaton and really all the cities, that early game supermarket near Megaton, that tunnel with all the kids, Oasis, Washington DC, the Enclave base, ...). I don't think I really remember any place in non-DLC FNV except NV itself and the Hover Dam, plus the two military bases (NCR and Boomer). On the other hand, I remember very well the storyline and some of the characters of FNV, and the look of the general map.

Side note : I don't find the FO3 tutorial that bad, it is fun the first time for sure. I assume it has no replay value, but then FO3 has IMO no replay value either, so...

Last items :

Fallout 3 DLC are terrible, with The Pitt reaching at best "OK-ishness", whereas FNV has one solid-though-often-frustrating-and-YMMV DLC [Dead Money] and one outstanding DLC [Old World Blues]

BUT

The Fallout 3 radio is way better than the Fallout New Vegas radio


All in all, I believe that FNV is a superior game but I can see why people would prefer FO3, especially if they don't care much about the Fallout lore and prefer "short stories" of sorts rather than a full campaign . FO3 is about being a mercenary, FNV about being a stakeholder.

About "world-design" vs "level-design"/ originality, you can have both - Morrowind obviously comes to mind, or to take a less popular / well-known game that will give me RPGcodex cred, the Dark Sun games (or the Dark Sun P&P universe). Even Skyrim, for all its flaws, was adequate in this regard.
---------

 

[Ol' Willy]

To be honest I believe I (ValeVelKal) could arm a gun-type trigger atom bomb, but I could certainly not rig a dynamite.
The principle of a gun-type atom bomb is that you get two mass of fissile material close enough so that they reach critical mass. You could do it literally with your bare-hands (and disappear from this world the milisecond that follows).

It doesn't matter because you don't operate the fissile material directly, you interact with the bomb controls. Fagout 3 presumes that you attach a third-part remote trigger if you want to blow it up, or somehow render the detonator inoperable if you want to defuse it. Somehow, in all the years of the Megaton existing there was not a single person with decent Explosives skill (of 25) to do that and it was you, the complete stranger, who was tasked with such important work.

 

[Bester]

Please, don't get me started on this shit.

Simplest nuclear bombs work through a very complicated and controlled series of near-simultaneous explosions. These stepped explosions propel a piece of uranium towards another piece of uranium. They need super precise timing and placement, to propel uranium to the speed of 2,5 km/s.

If a nuclear bomb didn't go off, this means it was faulty in the first place and most likely it self destructed with the bad timing of its propelling explosives. That's it. Whatever malfunctioned, it won't blow up just cause you attach a C4 to it.
Also, nuclear bombs rely on explosions that don't last a fucking century. They need constant maintenance, with parts being replaced every 2 to 3 months.

This whole plot was fucking bullshit, written by a dumb chick from arts and humanities. Fuck this plot. The less I remember it existed, the better I'll sleep.

 

[ValeVelKal]

To be honest I believe I (ValeVelKal) could arm a gun-type trigger atom bomb, but I could certainly not rig a dynamite.
The principle of a gun-type atom bomb is that you get two mass of fissile material close enough so that they reach critical mass. You could do it literally with your bare-hands (and disappear from this world the milisecond that follows).

It doesn't matter because you don't operate the fissile material directly, you interact with the bomb controls. Fagout 3 presumes that you attach a third-part remote trigger if you want to blow it up, or somehow render the detonator inoperable if you want to defuse it. Somehow, in all the years of the Megaton existing there was not a single person with decent Explosives skill (of 25) to do that and it was you, the complete stranger, who was tasked with such important work.

Ah I forget they specifically show you interracting with bomb control (I played the game only once, some 8-10 years ago). Good point. In that case, I guess the skill should be "electronics" or whatever the equivalent is, not explosive :p

Please, don't get me started on this shit.

Simplest nuclear bombs work through a very complicated and controlled series of near-simultaneous explosions. These stepped explosions propel a piece of uranium towards another piece of uranium. They need super precise timing and placement, to propel uranium to the speed of 2,5 km/s.

If a nuclear bomb didn't go off, this means it was faulty in the first place and most likely it self destructed with the bad timing of its propelling explosives. That's it. Whatever malfunctioned, it won't blow up just cause you attach a C4 to it.
Also, nuclear bombs rely on explosions that don't last a fucking century. They need constant maintenance, with parts being replaced every 2 to 3 months.

This whole plot was fucking bullshit, written by a dumb chick from arts and humanities. Fuck this plot. The less I remember it existed, the better I'll sleep.

You seem to mix two types of nuclear bomb triggers :
- The implosion type, which requires "a very complicated and controlled series of near-simultaneous explosions", but it does not propel a piece of uranium (or anything) toward another, it uses the increase pressure caused by the explosion on the fissile material to make it reach critical mass (which depends on density, which depends on pressure).
While technically more complex, this method is preferred as it requires WAY less fissile material (both because you reach critical mass with less material and because the explosion is more "efficient"), less available space and is also way less dangerous to handle (the "near-simultaneous explosions" are unlikely to happen by accident),
As you say, if these fails, there is little you can do.

- The gun-trigger type, which indeed propels "a piece of uranium towards another piece of uranium" but does only require one explosion, or zero for mechanical systems. This is way simpler than the implosion type, but requires more of everything, is highly inefficient in yield vs fissile material and if something fails in the trigger it goes boom way more easily while you are loading your bomber - so rarer for this reasons. On the other hand, for Fallout 3 purpose, if it fails, you can easily "repair" it, and it can last quite a while (at a reduced power) if both parts are on their own close to critical mass.

There is no indication at which design is in Fallout 3, and which design the Sovieto-Canado-Chinese or whoever sent that bomb in Megaton used (or maybe it is an US bomb ? can't remember).

 

[CaffeineConquistador]

Please, don't get me started on this shit.

Simplest nuclear bombs work through a very complicated and controlled series of near-simultaneous explosions. These stepped explosions propel a piece of uranium towards another piece of uranium. They need super precise timing and placement, to propel uranium to the speed of 2,5 km/s.

If a nuclear bomb didn't go off, this means it was faulty in the first place and most likely it self destructed with the bad timing of its propelling explosives. That's it. Whatever malfunctioned, it won't blow up just cause you attach a C4 to it.
Also, nuclear bombs rely on explosions that don't last a fucking century. They need constant maintenance, with parts being replaced every 2 to 3 months.

This whole plot was fucking bullshit, written by a dumb chick from arts and humanities. Fuck this plot. The less I remember it existed, the better I'll sleep.

The game writers eschewing NNSA nuke warhead maintenance standards hung you up. Really.

 

[Cael]

Well gotta admit nuking entire city is true C&C although I would like it more if the bomb itself was in some sort of bunker and if it could vaporize at least half the map.

You need to pass 25 explosive skillcheck to activate the atom bomb.

25 POINT SKILLCHECK, KARL! FOR AN ATOM FUCKING BOMB! YOU CAN'T PROPERLY RIG A DYNAMITE IN FALLOUT 1 WITH THAT SKILL!

To be honest I believe I (ValeVelKal) could arm a gun-type trigger atom bomb, but I could certainly not rig a dynamite.
The principle of a gun-type atom bomb is that you get two masses of fissile material close enough so that they reach critical mass. You could do it literally with your bare-hands (and disappear from this world the milisecond that follows).

Even the original bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't do that. That is why they were on timers that were set before they were dropped. I find it hard to believe that Fallout nukes would be of a kind even more primitive than Fat Man and Little Boy.

 

[ValeVelKal]

Even the original bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't do that. That is why they were on timers that were set before they were dropped. I find it hard to believe that Fallout nukes would be of a kind even more primitive than Fat Man and Little Boy.

Hiroshima // Little Boy was gun-type, this I know for sure. Timer or not does not change the way the bomb reaches critical mass.
A quick double-check on wikipedia shows that some bombs in the 50ies were using gun-types, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_8_nuclear_bomb

I know the French only use implosion-type (except their first test bombs), and the British and Soviet never used gun-type either, but I have no idea for the Chinese nor for the Canadians in Fallout's lore .

 

[Verylittlefishes]

loved Morrowind, disliked Oblivion

and enjoyed Skyrim.

 

[Bester]

- The gun-trigger type, which indeed propels "a piece of uranium towards another piece of uranium" but does only require one explosion, or zero for mechanical systems.

It's called "gun" because the two uranium pieces are "shot" towards each other, but this is where the similarities end. The critical mass of Uranium-235 is 52 kilos, so it's not just a matter of shooting a small U-235 bullet, we're talking about shells. But gunpowder-based artillery shells only reach the speed of 1,6 km/s in perfect conditions, i.e. provided with a long acceleration time and distance, which the bomb's inner space doesn't provide. U-235 pieces need to collide at the speed of 2,5 km/s or they'll melt before contact. So it's a combination of fast and slow explosives. The brisance from the fast explosion would shatter pieces of uranium with its high-pressure shock wave, so a slow one is used to give it initial acceleration. And before the slow explosion destroys the entire bomb, the fast one is activated to seal the deal. And the pieces must meet before the thermal emission from their fast approach destroys the structure of the bomb.
If it was just a matter of shooting artillery shells "like in a gun", nuclear weapon wouldn't be so technologically difficult. When countries start developing them, takes them ages.

 

[Butter]

Should we be worried that Bester knows so much about nuclear bombs?

 

[Cael]

Should we be worried that Bester knows so much about nuclear bombs?

He is right, regardless of what he is. He also demonstrates why we should never argue with idiots who read wikipedia and think they know everything on the topic.

 

[ValeVelKal]

- The gun-trigger type, which indeed propels "a piece of uranium towards another piece of uranium" but does only require one explosion, or zero for mechanical systems.

It's called "gun" because the two uranium pieces are "shot" towards each other, but this is where the similarities end. The critical mass of Uranium-235 is 52 kilos, so it's not just a matter of shooting a small U-235 bullet, we're talking about shells. But gunpowder-based artillery shells only reach the speed of 1,6 km/s in perfect conditions, i.e. provided with a long acceleration time and distance, which the bomb's inner space doesn't provide. U-235 pieces need to collide at the speed of 2,5 km/s or they'll melt before contact. So it's a combination of fast and slow explosives. The brisance from the fast explosion would shatter pieces of uranium with its high-pressure shock wave, so a slow one is used to give it initial acceleration. And before the slow explosion destroys the entire bomb, the fast one is activated to seal the deal. And the pieces must meet before the thermal emission from their fast approach destroys the structure of the bomb.
If it was just a matter of shooting artillery shells "like in a gun", nuclear weapon wouldn't be so technologically difficult. When countries start developing them, takes them ages.

Confidently incorrect.

The problem with the speed of the charge not being enough to avoid pre-detonation below 2.5 km/s was indeed of the key problems that the scientists at Alamo encountered, except that rather than solving it the way you described, they solved it by (among other) working on the shape of the "target" in the device. And that's why Little Boy's target is hollow and rather flattish.
I could find the time to check later designs and mark 8 and mark 11 used similar design.

 

[Bester]

I'm Russian, I'm talking about how the Soviets solved it. It's obviously much more relevant, given the context.

Also, I don't see how the shape changes anything, need more information. The shape would become red hot, then white, then melt, then evaporate.

 

[Cael]

- The gun-trigger type, which indeed propels "a piece of uranium towards another piece of uranium" but does only require one explosion, or zero for mechanical systems.

It's called "gun" because the two uranium pieces are "shot" towards each other, but this is where the similarities end. The critical mass of Uranium-235 is 52 kilos, so it's not just a matter of shooting a small U-235 bullet, we're talking about shells. But gunpowder-based artillery shells only reach the speed of 1,6 km/s in perfect conditions, i.e. provided with a long acceleration time and distance, which the bomb's inner space doesn't provide. U-235 pieces need to collide at the speed of 2,5 km/s or they'll melt before contact. So it's a combination of fast and slow explosives. The brisance from the fast explosion would shatter pieces of uranium with its high-pressure shock wave, so a slow one is used to give it initial acceleration. And before the slow explosion destroys the entire bomb, the fast one is activated to seal the deal. And the pieces must meet before the thermal emission from their fast approach destroys the structure of the bomb.
If it was just a matter of shooting artillery shells "like in a gun", nuclear weapon wouldn't be so technologically difficult. When countries start developing them, takes them ages.

Confidently incorrect.

The problem with the speed of the charge not being enough to avoid pre-detonation below 2.5 km/s was indeed of the key problems that the scientists at Alamo encountered, except that rather than solving it the way you described, they solved it by (among other) working on the shape of the "target" in the device. And that's why Little Boy's target is hollow and rather flattish.
I could find the time to check later designs and mark 8 and mark 11 used similar design.

Or you can just fire them at each other at half the velocity...

 

[ValeVelKal]

I'm Russian, I'm talking about how the Soviets solved it. It's obviously much more relevant, given the context.

Also, I don't see how the shape changes anything, need more information. The shape would become red hot, then white, then melt, then evaporate.

The Soviets solved it by skipping the tutorial and moving directly to implosion trigger .
Can't you just admit that you were wrong and talked about a topic you did not know ?

]
Or you can just fire them at each other at half the velocity...

I believe you could, I don't know anyone who bothered :
- The shape of the charge and selecting "blocking" materials around the target is an easier solution
- With plutonium, you don't have the velocity problem
If you want to coordinate explosions, you can just as well go for implosion-trigger.

 

[ValeVelKal]

Should we be worried that Bester knows so much about nuclear bombs?

He is right, regardless of what he is. He also demonstrates why we should never argue with idiots who read wikipedia and think they know everything on the topic.

Looks like Bester was wrong and explained how the Soviet solved a problem for a bomb-design they never had.
Looks like you were wrong as well.

Maybe you should reassess your qualification to comment on that kind of topic.