Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fallout 3 Discussion' started by Anarchosyn, Dec 29, 2010.
We don't need to see your previous posts in a quote. We can see them just fine, thank you. If we need to see what -you- said previously, we can just scroll up.
Point being, your quotes are bigger than your responses.
Yes, actually it does. It shows an in-story example of how an outside influence can prevent a further degradation in a more primitive community's technological decay.
Notably, check the Fallout 2 opening movie again. On the table of the Village Elder, you see a broken handgun on her table. Again, they used to have the technology, and still keep it around, when they can.
It strengthens my point in that it does not mean that they would never have had experience with computers or more modern technology. Once again, you don't start off with a high skill, just a little bit here and there.
What you insist upon is that Arroyo has obliterated knowledge from their collective, and they've decided to not pass on the knowledge of reading or some of the skills they once had.
Well, the Vault Dweller himself says that he taught the Village everything he could.
One of the early tasks in Arroyo is to fix a broken well with said skills passed down.
What else was passed down, hrm?
Fallout 2 takes place 160 years after the war. And even if the Pipboy 2000 was a product at the launch of Robco in 2042 (with Fallout 2 starting in 2241), that would be just less than 200 years old, not over 200. A pedantic detail, of course.
The Pipboy is a fairly low-tech, civilian piece of fairly common computer gear. It gives her and the Chosen One a place to start. The pipboy allows for a manual entry of simple text, the ability to read and play holodisks. It also has some simple sonar and satellite tracking (maps).
So, yes. It lets them start out with some basic knowledge to work with in regards to computers.
The big problem here is that you assume that the tribals, particularly the Chosen One, are illiterate. Where in all of Fallout 2 do you get that idea? It's NEVER suggested that they are illiterate.
The thing is that you are ignoring evidence that's right in front of you.
How do we know the Arroyo tribals aren't illiterate? At his childrens insistence, the Vault Dweller left memoirs in a journal, that serves as the "fluff" material for the manual for Fallout 2. And as a legacy, it doesn't seem like something they would simply forget how to do, given that they revere the Vault Dweller.
As for a computer. You are overlooking the fact that it gives that child a place to start.
Once again, the difference is between a child who can open a word document, and a child who'd otherwise have no idea what to do with the box with the light coming out of it.
If my points are so shoddy, why are you derailing the conversation with personal attacks? A logical person would simply squash "bad logic" with proper examples.
It looks more like you're grasping at straws here.
Of course the game has plot holes. The thing is, the one you're trying to point out isn't one of them.
However, trying to point out a plot hole in Fallout 2 is not a defense for Fallout 3's plot holes. That's called a logical fallacy. "Tu quoque" (You also) does not excuse Fallout 3 for having such major plotholes.
If you understand enough to be able to read from the computer, it helps a lot. I didn't learn to use computers by someone teaching, but by reading the output of "help" commands in DOS. Then, years after, I readed some books here and there. I'm not "Captain Techie" either, but manage to manually configure the network interfaces in Linux, more than most people thinks they can do. And the "think" word is the key here. Most people can do a lot more than what they think they can by just reading a little. I learned most of my rusty english from video games, too.
Once you get the basics, you can learn the heavy stuff, which is what DevilTakeMe tries to tell you.
Frankly Deviltakeme, my quotes are from your posts are only longer than the actual comment because you feel the need to space everything out in YOUR posts so that it's almost half a page. Please read the end of my post again, you will clearly see that I am acknowledging Fallout 3's plot holes, I'm not trying to defend them! My statement even says that I'm not defending it: "all the games have some one way or another".
Who is being childish now? What were you saying about you being open-minded and intelligent? When you're running around calling us childish?
Then what is your point? That you're trying to get us to acknowledge plot holes for Fallout 2, rather than Fallout 3?
Look, there are a few in Fallout 1 and 2. Like, in Fallout 1, the story hinges on the Overseer surviving to the ending, so he's rendered invincible/immortal when you do interact with him. Not one of the fanbase's favorite things about that, hence why this was mostly changed in Fallout 2 and everyone you can meet can be killed.
Fallout 2 has a ghost girl - not the fake ghosts at the ghost farm, but an actual ghost who you have to return her locket.
I'm sorry you don't know the material like you say you do. Don't be mad that you are not capable of keeping up.
If you liked Fallout 3, fine. Respect our opinion that most of it doesn't hold up logic and is far more plot hole ridden, or defend the plot holes that you don't think are.
Now that's over, let's continue on with actual logical inconsistencies of Fallout 3:
Here's a logical situation that's bugged me for awhile:
Why, in 200 years, did not one of these kids simply beat up the mayor (the traditional way of becoming mayor) and say "I'm mayor now and I'm changing the rules, I'm not leaving and neither is anyone else" - 200 years of anarchy and poor education is a long time for everyone to follow a rule like "You're 16 now, get out!" simply because the previous adults left to try and find help.
Child Cruelty in Video games be damned, at some point, these kids have probably taken shots at each other over dumb arguments. Why hasn't anyone over the age of 12 matured to the point where they think of something better? They have the resources to bring back more kids and more food, but they enforce the rule that they have to kick out adults with the only reasoning being "we don't have the room or resources" - food is required for adolescents far more than at any other time of life, except for pregnant or lactating mothers - yet they bring more children into Little Lamplight (either by bringing back orphans or making new ones), enough weapons to fight off super mutants (and sell to complete strangers in the Gift shop), produce enough food for the entire population with enough to spare the Lone Wanderer, and then there's plenty of room in their gigantic cavern, with some intact buildings outside which they could pull apart for more supplies or use as a shelter.
Some might argue that if they didn't bring in new kids now and then, well, then they'll all eventually have no one in the caverns at all. And as the mayor says, it does run smoothly with complete anarchy, the monsters and raiders are at bay, there are no serious violent take overs, and they ration supplies properly to survive, and everyone follows the rule to leave when they come of age, even if they don't want to.
Number one, the place is absolute chaos, the Mayor and everyone else says so. There's no strict moral code, except a player's misplaced belief that children always do the "right thing." The population is made up of abandoned or orphaned children found in the Wasteland or the result of teenage pregnancies already within - not necessarily a moral upbringing that instills the values of following a tradition or rules.
Number two, it's blatantly stretching the line of believability to think that none the 'adults' who came from Little Lamplight wouldn't give up a whole lot of children in exchange for their own freedom from slavers or raiders. Big Town didn't spring up overnight when the Lone Wanderer comes across it, afterall.
Number three, the entire population of Little Lamplight is made up of kids. They're uneducated, unguided, and no, they don't think the details out. There's always kids who think they know best, and many of them will think 'tradition' is stupid and try to change it. You have to stretch logic really far to make the concept work.
Little Lamplight makes kids leave when they turn 16 or 18 or whatever. As a tradition or a rule. What -teenager-, especially uneducated or unruly ones, would willfully follow such banal, idiotic rules? Wouldn't they think that the rule is stupid and not follow it?
The place is otherwise chaos, who in Little Lamplight would actually care? About their birthdays, about who is an adult and who isn't?
After 200 years, even children would get the idea that they need more food as teenagers than they did in the years before. So why cut down on your own food supply or the food supply for the people who are your 'family' - blood relations or not.
Again, it's a community based on a Fantasy concept, rather than on any sort of realistic expectation of children or a situation in a post-apocalyptic society.
Can children be selfish? Yes. Can they be cruel? Yes. Hell, it's possible for children to be even more cruel than adults, even to other children. We're expected to believe that Little Lamplight will shoot people to death if they try to come in (not that children can even fire guns in the game), but they wouldn't have killed each other over the title of Mayor?
It's only the programming of Fallout 3 that prevents child mortality.
It's been two hundred years since the founding of Little Lamplight and there has been zero change in how the 'system' operates. With all the issues plaguing the Capital Wasteland and Little Lamplight itself, some kind of change would have happened. But Little Lamplight remains exactly as it was just after the bombs fell. It's been said before that the situations and communities of Fallout 3 would have made more sense twenty years after the bombs as opposed to two hundred.
Yes you finally managed to work out that I acknowledge Fallout 3's plot holes and the fact that the others have some as well, it's only what I've been saying for the last 2 pages. Childish one? Is that all you can muster through the fact that you can't think of anything else to say since you're really the one who's been making 3 or so page long comments and then you criticise me for my long quotes? I think you were the childish one to be honest as you took too long to establish what I was trying to say. Frankly, I give up with trying to argue with you as you're being just too ignorant.
Yeaah I am going have to say the Little Lamplight is prolly the stupidest thing that has ever popped up in the Fallout Series.
Srsly, wtf were they thinking? And why are they such pussies when it comes to child mortality? The old games didn't shy away from it, why should they?
All this will ever say is that you don't have a leg to stand on, so you quit.
I just showed you evidence, which you willfully ignored without acknowledging.
The Fallout 2 manual alone contradicts your assertion that the tribals are illiterate.
Again, you are grasping at straws.
The running theme so far seems to be that you make some assertions and/or accusations, then when people start pointing out facts and making arguments, you begin to backpedal and fall back on "just my opinion!" or moving the goalposts. It doesn't exactly make it seem like you know where you're going with things.
Look at the way he uses quotes. He is responding to each of your statements and splitting the quotes to make this clear. When you quote someone's entire post in a huge block it serves no great purpose and you could just as well trim it down to just enough that one can identify which post you're responding to. Is this difference not fairly obvious?
Because the ESRB wasn't around when Fallout 1/2 were released. Now, killable children in a game today, that shows the child dying, would give the game an AO rating. That means little to no sales for the game. Common sense, man. Common sense.
On the subject of the Enclave and Little Lamplight, here's my theory. In reality, a suit of Power Armor with a built-in gas mask would block all radiation. Radiation would be negliable with a radiation suit or power armor in real life. Fallout would be no different.
So the Enclave could have blasted open the door to Vault 87 then walked right on in. The door in-game wouldn't change appearance because it's next to impossible to examine the Vault 87 door in the first place. Honestly, why does everything have to dis Fallout 3? I've never seen topics about the inconsistancies Fallout 2 had with Fallout 1. But they're there.
Unfortunately, the game itself shows that the power armor in Fallout 3 is incapable of fully resisting radiation.
The problem of course, is that the Lone Wanderer has access to power armor by this time. Even more, you are also likely to have Enclave Power Armor, the same sort of armor that the Enclave themselves are wearing. Yet, even equipped with this, you are rendered incapable of even getting to this door.
Analysis by sources in-game disprove the Enclave's power armor as well, as this note in Fort Independence indicates:
T-51b, the power armor of Fallout 1 and 2, *combined with Rad-X, is shown as being completely protected from the effects of radiation. It is possible to have this armor as well, thanks to both Operation Anchorage and a sidequest which leads to the green version of this armor, and the radiation will still get through.
Power armor can protect the player comfortably while within the Glow, which shares similar conditions to Vault 87s entrance as being hit by direct nukes and having high radiation.
"Additionally, like the T-51b power armor, Advanced Power Armor includes a recycling system that can convert human waste into drinkable water, enhancing survival and an air conditioning system for comfort."
Vault 87's entrance is similarly highly radioactive, although, even more so.
Note the dead body in radiation suit.
Mind you, this [INACCESSIBLE] door outside is just a simple metal door like those found on the front of shacks or the entrances leading to other Vaults, not the heavier doors found elsewhere, let alone a big massive Vault door, which is left open and leads to nothingness, as shown below. There's no real justification for the door to be closed or for the entrance exterior not to be connected to the interior, except that the Devs wanted to prevent sequence breaking.
If the Enclave went through this door, why isn't the door open - either blasted open or otherwise, upon returning to Vault 87? Of course, then the doors in the game would also have to be connected.
Here's a shot of the open Vault 87 door which you can find inside, but is not connected to the outside... or anywhere for that matter.
The main door, which was supposedly sealed shut by high levels of radiation. If this is no longer true because of how the super mutants access the Vault, then maybe the designers could have at least finished that.
The game itself shows that the door will not budge on one side, and isn't thought out well enough to be connected on the other. Even if they intended to make the doors inaccessible.
Actually, T-51b power armour in Fo1-2 has a radiation resistance bonus of 30%, no more.
You are right, they are indeed there.
My bad, That should read "T-51b power armor and Rad-X."
Though it still remains, even with these, surviving the entrance of Vault 87 is only possible with a lot of luck, no matter how much Rad-X and Rad-Away one has. It's not quite the walk in the park like the Brotherhood thought it would be in the Glow (though, they didn't immediately die of radiation).
Also the Enclave officers in full armor inside Project Giant Fish Tank die inmeditely from the radiation poisoning, and Vault 37 kills you faster than Project Fish Tank, so if those guys got in there they must have been badass enough to not need you at all.
You realize the radiation thing is for gameplay balance, right? Like I said, it's possible the Enclave could have blown it open.
But since you're not really supposed to see the entrance door to Vault 87 anyway, at least not without a lot of Rad-Away, Bethesda doesn't change the appearance of the door afterwards.
You realize you're not using any actual logic. You can blow up Megaton, and logically, Megaton is not there anymore. So why, if the Enclave blows up the door to Vault 87, why is the door still there when you go back?
"Gameplay and Story Segregation" does not answer why Vault 87's door is not brought up again in the game. And even then, "Gameplay balance" doesn't actually make sense, does it? The door is locked up tight, with no way to get inside, because of arbitrary level design. So what is the 'balance' part about that?
Not supposed to see it? When it's right over there as a map marker? It's more than visible, one can even look at it from a distance.
Again, there is no good reason why, if the Enclave blasted the door open, why the door wouldn't be open when you return? If they went inside, why can't you?
Are you saying Bethesda wouldn't bother with making a slight change to the game world once the chapter is over?
It doesn't even make sense in-story. Vault 87 is the spawning place of the Super Mutants, which the Brotherhood of Steel has a vested interest in finding. Why wouldn't they want to go in there, perhaps with the courageous Lone Wanderer there to guide them?
Even in Broken Steel, this isn't addressed.
Hence, this is a plot hole - literal hole as well.
I didn't remember the vault door was open. Soooo...the small wooden door on the outside completely blocks the radiation?
Also, regarding Vault 87 there's another problem (I don't remember if I wrote it already; meh, repetita iuvant). If the only access to the vault is the super deadly entrance...how are the prisoners brought in? Also the FEV doesn't work properly on genes damaged by radiation and I doubt the modified strain can be any different so...what the hell?
The answer is "Bethesda didn't think about it and neither are you supposed to."
I actually signed up with this board again just so I could comment here.
I have to say that this argument over a Fallout game being a disappointment is exactly the same argument that has been going on when EVERY new installment in the Fallout franchise has come out. I have been coming to this board on and off since the first Fallout came out and I have participated in these discussion as one of the proponents of the "Fallout Orthodoxy". I wanted to comment because I find it funny that so many of the Fallout fans talk about how Fallout 2 was so great when that game was hugely panned by everyone here when it came out.
For those that complain about how unstable Fallout 3 is, you really should recall just how buggy Fallout 2 was. I have read most of the preceding comment pages and I know that has been mentioned, but I really don't think enough has been said about it. Fallout 2 was one of the most unstable games released... ever. Well, maybe I am overstating, but all of the problems described pertaining to Fallout 3 can be directly attributed to the first release of Fallout 2. In fact, reading them I could imagine replacing 3 with 2 and you could pretty much transplant the conversations about 11 years back and be right on the money. The same goes with plot holes and how the latest Fallout has stupid locations. While everyone here talks about how good Fallout 2 locations were, we all discussed how stupid they were compared to the original Fallout:
- New Reno was viewed as the height of stupidity in a world ravaged by nuclear war. (as were most of the other towns conceived for Fallout 2, one way or another)
- Look up the comments abut how bad the Enclave armor was and how it "ruined" the true Fallout gritty retro feel.
- The complaints about the excessive amount of futuristic weaponry like Plasma rifles and laser guns.
- The complaints about the pistol that shot rifle rounds (I forget the actual name of the gun) being a common weapon when in Fallout 1 it was a unique quest item.
Exactly the same complains I see here pertaining to Fallout 3: plot holes, bugs and crashes and general bad programming, and doing things because they were cool and not thinking about the "true Fallout feel"... all were said about Fallout 2.
Fallout 2 has entire plot lines chopped and broken and it took years of effort by this very community to actually stabilize the game complete many side quests.
I am not defending Fallout 3 as being a spectacular game, but I am suggesting that it might not be as bad as some here portray it. I am also suggesting that we should insert a little more context with the real history of this franchise because I think there is a lot being said about Fallout 1 and especially 2 that seems to be a little "rose colored". To me, history suggests that when Fallout 4 comes out there will be flame wars here about how it destroys what was cool about Fallout 1,2, 3, and FNV, and a couple of years after that there will be the same complaints about Fallout 5 screwing up what was done in 4.
I LOVE Fallout, and I have waited for over a decade for someone to come out with a reasonable sequel. Tactics was a huge disappointment and BoS was a joke. (want to talk about stupid then try looking up the old discussions about hairy Deathclaws) I think Bethesda did a decent job and I am happy that someone was able to raise this ghoul from the nuclear ashes, even if it is flawed.