The Fat Man

Discussion in 'Fallout 3 Discussion' started by Wumbology, Jul 20, 2013.

  1. Wumbology

    Wumbology Actually a sentient CRT

    299
    Mar 5, 2013
    Do you think this ludicrously overpowered and far-too common weapon has any place in the Fallout universe?

    While I think it is not handled well in Fo3, with itself and it's ammo too common (how have all of them not being looted...?), I do think the idea of a portable nuke launcher is very in-line with the military theology of 1950's America.
     
  2. Oppen

    Oppen FIXT n°1 fan

    Dec 26, 2011
    Considering how nuclear fuel is one of the scarce goods on the prewar (not as scarce as oil, though), I think that kind of weapon would have been seen as inefficient cost-wise. If you want to nuke something, you nuke it the hard way, else, you just use more efficient energy weapons or plain bullets. That's my IMO.
     
  3. Stealth Cop

    Stealth Cop First time out of the vault

    5
    May 27, 2013
    Nope, this thing is a bit out of place. When you think about it there are PLENTY of other weapons, especially in the Fallout universe, to kill just about anything.

    Like Oppen said, it would just be overly wasteful of your resources with things like laser technology fully functional. Not to mention the MIRV thing that fired off like eight mini nukes at a time. Obviously these were produced pre-war, so what on Earth would require you to fire 8 portable nukes at a time? It's not like they had giant mutants before the war. I feel like the whole point of the Fat Man was Bethesda saying "We need more cool explosions!"

    As for the ammo, is there really that much of it? I never really look at what I pick up so I dunno if it's really that common.
     
  4. Alesia

    Alesia It Wandered In From the Wastes

    197
    Mar 3, 2013
    I dunno if it's necessarily out of place because it seems like something the pre-war military would mess around with as an experiment. That being said, there should have only been ONE, safely secured in the bowels of a military base somewhere and only a couple of experimental mini nukes to go along with it.

    The way they handled it was completely absurd. Just laying there ready to kill the first behemoth? Blatant laziness designed to make it easy for people with no brains.
     
  5. The Dutch Ghost

    The Dutch Ghost Grouchy old man of NMA Moderator

    Jan 11, 2004
    We have had this thread before.

    The problem with the Fat Man is, other than that the original idea of Fallout was that nuclear weapons were something to be feared and only a madman goes around detonating them, is that the closest real world analogue; the Davy Crocket, a tactical nuclear recoilless gun was still as the name implies a tactical weapon that was to be used against enemy armored divisions for example.

    These things were not intended as a weapon for urban warfare or to be used in a conventional firefight.

    The Fat Man acts like a conventional grenade launcher, so why not have it be replaced by a conventional grenade launcher.

    I think the only reason Bethesda put this thing in Fallout 3 was because they wanted to play on the 'nuclear weapon' trope that was present in the rest of the game but making it ridiculously light hearted.

    The Fat Man should not have been included.
     
  6. Wumbology

    Wumbology Actually a sentient CRT

    299
    Mar 5, 2013
    The US did experiment on similar weapon systems in the Cold War. It is totally consistent with the retro-futuristic atmosphere. While it's actual execution in Fallout 3 is mediocre, I still think it fits in with the Fallout universe excellently.

    As for it being light-hearted, I agree. But I don't think that was the intent. And what is so bad about a light-hearted weapon, anyway?
     
  7. The Dutch Ghost

    The Dutch Ghost Grouchy old man of NMA Moderator

    Jan 11, 2004
    I just mentioned the Davy Crocket.

    And nukes are suppose to be scary and dangerous, not something you just fling around with, remember?
     
  8. Oppen

    Oppen FIXT n°1 fan

    Dec 26, 2011
    It fits with the general retro-futuristic idea, yes, but not with the particular Fallout implementation of it. If it's a war because oil and nuclear fuel are scarce, it makes no sense to waste it using it as something like grenades. It might fit as a unique, experimental weapon, but actually for that making any sense it should be really far more destructive: you won't waste nuclear fuel just to kill, I don't know, ten or twenty people per bomb. AFAIK, PAs (the only thing I think could justify a nuke for such a low number of enemies) was USA only, so the enemy would not be likely to justify this kind of weapon.

    On the being good or bad, I don't know, I found it to be fun when I played FO3. But I don't think it fits the universe.
     
  9. BonusWaffle

    BonusWaffle Still Mildly Glowing

    244
    Mar 6, 2013
    iirc its not even physically possible to have a nuclear weapon that small.

    I think its a nice addition to the game though, and to be fair it wasnt just laying around for no reason, you find it on a dead brotherhood paladin who presumably was carrying it in case they encountered a behemoth.

    If it WAS possible the US military would be all over that, are you joking? Shoulder mounted artillery?
     
  10. Yamu

    Yamu Le Fromage Vieux oTO Moderator Orderite

    Jul 26, 2003
    Dutch Ghost beat me to it, but meet Davy Crockett.

    It was a functional design, it was just dumb as hell, in that innocent atomic-age genius sort of way. It was more successful than the reactor-powered airplane, for what that's worth.
     
  11. Makta

    Makta The DICKtator

    Jul 29, 2010
    I think that the mirv was a "just for fun" weapon and the fat man itself came along due to the nuke is awesome feeling in Fallout.
    I don't mind the Fatman but they should not put it everywhere....

    Agreed
     
  12. Languorous_Maiar

    Languorous_Maiar A Smooth-Skin

    688
    Oct 25, 2011
    Great note from Fallout Wiki
    But it isn't first time, when Beth completely fcked up something. :(
     
  13. BonusWaffle

    BonusWaffle Still Mildly Glowing

    244
    Mar 6, 2013
    yes but the davy crockett would obliterate anyone who tried to fire it out of a fat man

    I mean a mininuke size nuclear explosion is physically impossible due to physical limitations on the ratio of the conventional explosives to the nuclear material
     
  14. Stanislao Moulinsky

    Stanislao Moulinsky Vault Fossil

    Jul 16, 2009
    The biggest problem the fatman has is its range. A spring loaded catapult that throws a mini-nuclear bomb? Gimme a break. At least the Davy Crocket had a range of 2-to-4 Km.
     
  15. BigBoss

    BigBoss Your Local Scrub

    957
    Dec 24, 2012
    I agree. I would have to aim the Fatman really high just to hit something a dozen yards from me. I think the devs added this in so that this enormously powerful weapon could have a drawback.
     
  16. Makta

    Makta The DICKtator

    Jul 29, 2010
    If you went by real life logic for stuff like that you would mostly see common guns and you would probably die in 1 hit from any weapon.. Not that i wouldn't like that :twisted:
     
  17. Wumbology

    Wumbology Actually a sentient CRT

    299
    Mar 5, 2013
    To be fair, this is the same universe where lasers and power armor are viable combat options.
     
  18. Arden

    Arden Still Mildly Glowing

    250
    Feb 26, 2010
    Yeah, but realism or science are not the reason why the Fatman makes no sense. Lasers and PA's make sense in that they are better weapons/armour for infantrymen to increase their effectiveness. An extremely minituarized nuclear warhead does not. Nukes are great as strategic weapons to flatten cities, they are somewhat useful as tactical weapons to vaporize masses of tanks or a fleet. That is their role, to make a dammn big bang. To develop nukes, then minituarize them back to make a blast that’s as big as that from a 40mm grenade is… well… wasted effort. You have all the drawbacks of nuclear weaponry (radiation, cost, inability to hide them, cost, massive collateral damage and cost) without the benefits (big bang) because the bang had to be reduced massively so that the operator doesn't kill himself with it.

    As makta said, it's not about realism and as you said, it's not about scientific viability. It is about making sense and the fatman makes no sense whatsoever, not realistically, not scientifically and not even from the point of view of the game itself. It is just there because "nucular guns are kool". That's why the fatman and frankly miniguns too make me try to ignore them as best as I can.
     
  19. Wumbology

    Wumbology Actually a sentient CRT

    299
    Mar 5, 2013
    This is true. I guess it makes no sense, for a weapon.

    However: abstracting weapons for the sake of balance is not new. Every game has done this- previous Fallout titles included.

    So, do you think that the Fat-Man more akin to a Davy Crockett in range and power would be acceptable? Or would that be overly powerful?
     
  20. Oppen

    Oppen FIXT n°1 fan

    Dec 26, 2011
    Well, yes, it would be OP. But TBH the Euclid C Finder in NV is, too.

    EDIT: I'm assuming that what you suggest is a unique weapon with really limited ammo like the C Finder is in NV, that is more akin to a Davy Crockett of course.

    Anyway, this makes it sound like it's this or the other, when there is no need for any of those to appear.