Fallout Plotholes.
#1
Posted 25 April 2009 - 07:11
The Fallout series is especially no exception, but transferring the game into the hands of another developer seriously exacerbated them.
So lets point them out shall we?
One of the biggest faults I found in Fallout 3 are the exploding nuclear cars. After 200 years of post-apocalyptic warfare and before that a nuclear holocaust, there are still hundreds of these cars which go off with a bang with a few hits. How is that possible? Their reactors are still running after 200 years? And how does a nuclear explosion not detonate most of them but a few bullets blow any of them up?
#4
Posted 25 April 2009 - 17:03
#5
Posted 25 April 2009 - 17:09
In a nuclear war, wouldn't the nation's capital be hit hard? There should be nothing left of the place, yet there are still buildings standing just a few meters from the crater that was the white house.
How powerful are the nukes in Fallout anyway? I haven't seen one shred of information about this anywhere, but judging by the size of the craters that dot the area around fort Bannister they can't be very powerful. Granted I never played fallout 1 and 2, maybe they explain the war better.
It's also amazing to see how much food/ammo/guns/meds were lying around the place, even after a nuclear holocaust and 200 years of foraging.
Edited by Sicarius, 25 April 2009 - 17:11.
Sanctify the early light just like the old man can, boy!
Change the world? You'd better change yourself, man/ boy/ man
Challenge the mind to be more like the rolling ocean, man!
#6
Posted 25 April 2009 - 18:00
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline
#7
Posted 25 April 2009 - 22:04
Quote
Many thanks to Comrade KamuiK, is credit to team
#8
Posted 25 April 2009 - 22:34
Sicarius, on 25 Apr 2009, 17:09, said:
In a nuclear war, wouldn't the nation's capital be hit hard? There should be nothing left of the place, yet there are still buildings standing just a few meters from the crater that was the white house.
How powerful are the nukes in Fallout anyway? I haven't seen one shred of information about this anywhere, but judging by the size of the craters that dot the area around fort Bannister they can't be very powerful. Granted I never played fallout 1 and 2, maybe they explain the war better.
It's also amazing to see how much food/ammo/guns/meds were lying around the place, even after a nuclear holocaust and 200 years of foraging.
Fallout 1+2 were much better.The WAS nothing left of any pre-war buildings that weren't substantially reinforced against a nuclear blast or maintained by survivors. Looking at the world maps you can clearly see craters that could only have been left by MASSIVE bombs. Loot was only found in the settlements of survivors or in secure facilities untouched by them, not lying around in janitor's closets and supermarket shelves.
19681107
#9
Posted 26 April 2009 - 02:50
Edited by AllStarZ, 26 April 2009 - 02:50.
#10
Posted 26 April 2009 - 10:48
By your logic there should be nothing left, which doesn't make for a very interesting game
Masonicon, on 17 Oct 2009, 13:44, said:
#11
Posted 26 April 2009 - 19:02
RaiDK, on 26 Apr 2009, 10:48, said:
Actually, it was probably MORE interesting, the focus being on the rebirth of human civilization and it's falling back on it's old, destructive habits that lead to the war.
19681107
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users