Fallout 3 - Official Site Launched

[Dhruin]

Bethsoft has replaced their Fallout 3 (http://fallout.bethsoft.com/home/home.php) teaser site with a full offering, featuring a game overview, screens, the E3 trailer and a diary from Todd Howard titled Welcome Back to Fallout (http://fallout.bethsoft.com/vault/diaries_diary1-08.01.07.html), which makes for interesting reading:
When we started Fallout 3 in 2004, we obviously had big ideas of what we could do with it, and I talked to a lot of outside people, from ex-developers to press folks to fans. What made it special? What are the key things you'd want out of a new one? The opinions, and I'll put this mildly…varied. A lot. But they would all end the same, like a stern father, pausing for affect – "but do not…screw it up." Gulp. Let me write that last one down a few times.
I'm going to assume that if you're reading this, you've probably read between 1 and 50 previews of Fallout 3 already (they're linked on this site). There's already too much info out there, in different forms and in conflicting ways, for me to cover or correct it all here. If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that the information never gets out 100% correctly, and you will certainly never be quoted correctly. For the record, I never compared the violence in Fallout to Jackass, I compared it to Kill Bill…big difference. I also never said "fantasy is riding a horse and killing things," but oh well. Ultimately the game speaks for itself (certainly better than I do). The other thing to keep in mind is that preview comments often circle around the small-footprint sensational elements (Fat Man, toilet drinking, bobbleheads, etc), while sometimes missing the key points of the hour-long demo we give, which are: player choice, consequence, sacrifice, and survival. [more...]
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=5885)

[Brother None]

For the record, I never compared the violence in Fallout to Jackass, I compared it to Kill Bill…big difference. I also never said "fantasy is riding a horse and killing things," but oh well.

I'm not sure if Jackass to Kill Bill is that big a difference. Kill Bill, as hard as it tries, isn't violence as a form of art.

Love how he never said "fantasy is riding a horse and killing things," the opening quote of the Codex Oblivion review. Why do I love it? Because that quote is from GameInformer., which got the exclusive first look at both of Bethesda's last titles. You'd think you could trust someone you go exclusive with twice, no?

[Billy]

I feel bad for the guy. All he is doing is giving the most people what they want. Millions of people loved and played Oblivion that didn't play Morrowind, who didn't play Daggerfall. If any of us where in his shoes in would be our duty to do exactly what he is doing, which is making a game that the most amount of people will buy and enjoy. I'm not one of those people, and it sucks that Fall Out has to be raped to achieve that goal. But let's face it, I like games that will now, and always, only be made by independant developers from now on out. Getting mad at a business for making good business decisions is childish.

And reading through this, and other sites, and seeing people make comments such as "too bad Obsidian didn't get Fall out, blah blah blah." The only three people that could've and would've made a real, honest for goodness, true to the series, not dumbed down or stupid Fall Out 3 worked at a company whose name meant Three (usually horses, but could also mean people and nations), and one of them is actually selling houses now. We have a certifiable RPG genius who, instead of making games, is selling houses to illegal immigrants in California to support his crack habbit, which he should be supporting by making Fall Out 3 and Arcanum 6 and Bloodlines 4, and ToEE 5. But us, the "rpg" fans, screwed them over. We pirated their games, or bought them after the closed, or cried and whinned like girls.

This is what we get. It is our punishment for having poor taste and putting way to much value and weight into graphics and nonsense, instead of content and gameplay. We are reaping what we sowed. We can do it like we have some sort of male genitalia between our legs and take it like a man, or we can cry like girls who are sad that their cute little fuzzy teddy-bear was torn apart. Any hope for a real Fall Out 3 died with Troika, we can let the masses have a good time and enjoy the franchise we handed to them on a platter, that will provide the sucky game play we made a mraket for, or we could b a bunch of hate mongering babies, pouting because we are being forced to lie in the bed we made.

I'm Billy and I don't cry and pout. I salute you Mr. Todd Howard and I hope you sell billions of copies and put many smiles on the faces of the superficial people that buy your childish games. No offense meant to either party if that came off harsh. I just learning Engrish so please excuse my communication abilities. Billy signing off, good night and God bless.

[Squeek]

Sometimes I'm certain Todd Howard makes posts at forums like these using pseudonyms.

[Moriendor]

I'd say the chances of this being Roqua in disguise are much higher actually :) . This one here is 100% Roqua:This is what we get. It is our punishment for having poor taste and putting way to much value and weight into graphics and nonsense

... and this one is 120% Roqua...

We can do it like we have some sort of male genitalia between our legs and take it like a man, or we can cry like girls who are sad that their cute little fuzzy teddy-bear was torn apart.

[Lucky Day]

and what do we get on the first page? The shot of the guy who's head is blown up. *sigh*.

[Maylander]

Truth be told, it is hard to blame someone for being successful. I know he might not make the games we want, but there are far worse developers out there.

[Acleacius]

Afaik, the reason they were successful with the previous title was Controlled Media Misrepresentation, not becasue they delivered what they claimed, just as they are currently doing with F3.
I certinaly don't want F3 to suck, but since they are using the same team to make F3, hardly seems like much hope they can actually make an RPG, let alone a good one.

[xSamhainx]

Nice site. Encouraging diary entry.
Liked the pic of the team entering the vault:lol:

[Corwin]

Yeah, I want one of those T shirts!! :)

[Prime Junta]

I'm not sure if Jackass to Kill Bill is that big a difference. Kill Bill, as hard as it tries, isn't violence as a form of art.

Then again, neither is Fallout (1 or 2). All three are violence as a form of entertainment.

[bjon045]

but since they are using the same team to make F3, hardly seems like much hope they can actually make an RPG, let alone a good one.

It's not the exact same team. Different team lead and several new developers (some from the Oblivion mod community) were recruited.

[coyote]

If I had to focus on one small point, what bothers me most at the moment is the trivial presentation of nuclear weapons. For the sake of Fallout, the developers should hire some physicist who knows what a critical mass is and more importantly who can calculate blast radiuses and the actual radiation effects on human tissue we now know about (or have one of the team who has some background in physics read up on this himself - using textbooks and not wikipedia alone).

Nuclear crossbows might make some people go "wow", but most will probably just lose immersion and wonder why a good story would have to rely on unrealistic superweapons. If they really have to, they should add the mad science where it was used in previous Fallouts - at the very end. And even there it was not completely over the top like it seems to be the case in the third iteration of the series.

[guenthar]

Because it is based on what people in the 50s thought the future would be like and then destroyed. They thought everything was going to be nuclear powered and didn't know the consequences of that.

Controlled media and misrepresentation only go so far and those games still end up failing if they are bad. The Xbox 360 version of Oblivion is still on the top ten list on gamefaqs and has been since it came out so that means people are still playing the game.

[kalniel]

Forget realism. I want fun :)

[coyote]

@guenthar: good point, but even in the 50s people would have laughed (cynically) at the idea of a nuclear powered crossbow.

Let me be a know-it-all for a minute: while small yield nuclear fission does exist (Davy Crockett) even for a minimal power nuclear device it will be lethal to be less then around 200 meters away from it when it detonates (which is a low estimate). Critical masses are around 10 kg, the bomb at least 20 kg, the initial velocity to get 500 m away around 80 m/s => to shoot this thing, you will accelerate from 0 mph to 45 mph in the time you fire the bomb and probably kill yourself when the crossbow hits you from recoil. This is a bad joke and I only had to use school level physics for it!

@kalniel: I really agree with you there, but I always found that I like stories better where it was apparent that the author made at least an effort to be plausible, by researching the subject thoroughly. Take Joe Haldeman, Assimov, Card or most other notable scifi authors as an example.

[Prime Junta]

@coyote -- I disagree. Since you mention Asimov, have you read the quintessential 1950's sci-fi book _Foundation_? That has atomic-powered everything: flashlights, matter transmuters, blasters, cars, spaceships... there's even a plot twist centered on a society devolving back to coal and oil to the point that they don't realize that "plutonium" is a laughably primitive way of producing atomic power.

I've read another sci-fi story from around the same time where the hero used nuclear hand grenades where you could dial in the yield you wanted, from 100 grams to about a kiloton of TNT equivalent. I'm afraid I don't remember who it was by; there was just a cool scene where he dialed in about two tons and dropped it down a ventilation shaft.

I still think the hand-held nuclear catapult sounds a bit dumb, but not for that reason.

[bjon045]

Has anyone got the exact details of this "hand-held nuclear catapult"? Sounds a little bit dumb to me as well and I'm hoping it's like a metaphor.....

[coyote]

@Prime Junta: I admit that I did not read the Foundation series by Asimov, so I can not comment on whether I would have liked the style. I was not really bothered by the idea of using hand-held nuclear weapons in Heinlein's Starship Troopers, although those at least were missiles. Also some books, e.g. Alice in Wonderland, are absurdly unrealistic, but still excellent. So is realism overrated? I think it strongly depends on the setting.

I am guessing here, but at the time Foundation was written, Asimov probably did not think of more realistic forms of highly advanced power supplies, so using nuclear powered everything was necessary for him to show an advanced state of technological development. On top of it, he was an excellent writer and people are used to reading his stories as science fiction stories and allegories to contemporary and past history as well, so he could easily get away with some unrealistic technology. Alice in Wonderland was never meant to be realistic and derives much of its humor from absurd yet interesting sitations.

Fallout however is supposed to be a science fiction story in a postapocalyptic alternate future starting off from an alternate past in the 50s. It is not supposed to be completely absurd, so while a hand-held nuclear catapult will certainly get some laughs, the obvious absurdity of it would harm immersion. It could certainly be worse, but I just think it goes too far.

Edit: if the catapult fires a missile half a mile and the explosion destroys everything in a 50 m radius, than my argument becomes invalid. This does not seem to be the case, however.

[BillSeurer]

I certinaly don't want F3 to suck, but since they are using the same team to make F3, hardly seems like much hope they can actually make an RPG, let alone a good one.

Since you are apparently so much smarter than all the rest of us explain why F3 is not going to be a cRPG? Better yet, define what a cRPG is.

[BillSeurer]

Nuclear crossbows might make some people go "wow", but most will probably just lose immersion and wonder why a good story would have to rely on unrealistic superweapons. If they really have to, they should add the mad science where it was used in previous Fallouts - at the very end. And even there it was not completely over the top like it seems to be the case in the third iteration of the series.

So I take it you hated the earlier Fallouts because of their unrealistic "superweapons"? Solar powered super ray guns, arm mounted gattling guns, gauss rifles, ...

[coyote]

@BillSeurer: the ray guns were of alien origin, and we all know that aliens can do things like this. If you ever watched Terminator II, you will know that arm mounted gattling guns are far from impossible, and concerning the gauss rifles, they seem a lot more realistic than hand-held nuclear catapults to me, especially when those nuclear catapults cause "mini nuclear explosions" which is kind of stupid and just ridicules what at least some post apocalyptic worlds, including Fallout I and II, which I enjoyed immensely, might make us think about: the cataclysmic power of a nuclear holocaust.

But hey, it is obviously a matter of taste, and while I enjoy a modicum of realism and it is my opinion that it actually increases the fun one takes out of a story/game/whatever, this is apparently not generalisable to everyone.

[Squeek]

If you ever watched Terminator II, you will know that arm mounted gattling guns are far from impossible...That's why we elected Arnold Schwarzenegger governor here, in California! He's a man who can get things done! He could shoot one of those nuclear crossbows with deadly accuracy -- trust me!

[Dyne]

So I take it you hated the earlier Fallouts because of their unrealistic "superweapons"? Solar powered super ray guns, arm mounted gattling guns, gauss rifles, ...
Was the solar-powered one that Alien Blaster encounter? I don't remember a weapon that was described as solar-powered.

Anyway, I think the simple point is that plasma guns, scaled-down gatling guns and gauss rifles are "plausible", sensible paths for military technicians to take. A gun is a gun is a gun. From smoothbore to rifled, to free-floating barrel, we've stuck with the gun for about 600 years; abandoning the sling, bow, catapult etc. We're very comfortable with the gun as an ingenious mechanical device.

Any sort of catapult cast as a "star weapon" could be seen as regressive, and I think illogical regression can upset people's suspension of disbelief. You can't beat explosive expansion of gas driving a lump of metal down a rifled tube, for accuracy and range. Nor can you beat the crazy rates of fire from closed/open/rotating/whatever-is-the-best-one bolts, recoil operation etc. Certainly not with a catapult.

That said, if they can write a good rationale for such a weapon in its item description, I imagine it's possible to spin it in such a way as to be plausible. "What is the benefit of catapult technology over some sort of firearm?" is the question begging to be answered.

[BillSeurer]

@BillSeurer: the ray guns were of alien origin, and we all know that aliens can do things like this. If you ever watched Terminator II, you will know that arm mounted gattling guns are far from impossible...

So if aliens do it or it was in a Terminator movie then its OK? :-O

[Prime Junta]

That said, if they can write a good rationale for such a weapon in its item description, I imagine it's possible to spin it in such a way as to be plausible. "What is the benefit of catapult technology over some sort of firearm?" is the question begging to be answered.

I hope they will, since, as you say, it's not difficult to write such a rationale.

For example, suppose that one pre-holocaust weapon was a miniature variable-yield nuke that was used as a warhead on a small missile -- say, shoulder-launched or air-launched. Then suppose that post-holocaust some group of enterprising and technically savvy survivors stumbled on a stockpile of these warheads. Now, since the warhead isn't designed to survive the acceleration you get from firing it out of a gun, and you don't have access to or the technology to build the rockets, what's the simplest way to launch them? A catapult, of course.

[bjon045]

What about leg mounted gattling guns i.e. Rose Mcgowen in Planet Terror.

[coyote]

@BillSeurer: you got me trying to joke there. A hand-held gattling gun is not obviously unphysical to me, and even though the recoil will probably be a problem, California's Governator might well be able to wield it even at the age of 60 (with deadly accuracy). In the case of the ray gun, it is a matter of the setting. If I find a ray gun and a picture of Elvis near an UFO and a sign "Property of Area 51: please return if found." this is obviously an easter egg meant for comic relief and that is fine with me. Also, a ray gun is not unplausible given sufficiently advanced technology.

However, having mini nuclear mushrooms rising from the ground is physically impossible, and hand-held nuclear catapults, depending on how they work, seem unphysical as well (see my post above). This is not a question of "advanced technology", since you already specify how it will work. I also agree with Dyne here: firearms and missiles are much more realistic as a delivery system, although Prime Junta offers a good explanation why an alternative might be used. The recoil from a hand-held device not using missiles should shoot one out of ones shoes efficiently, but this will probably not be realized by most players.

[SexyLady]

I figure when what could be reasonable adults start arguing about, and defending the merits of crossbow launched min-nukes as if it isn’t the most retarded, asinine, and childish idea ever imagined, this must be the herald of some sort of cataclysmic event that will usher in the end of the world.

Fall Out also had giant ants and scorpions that are implausible/impossible. But there is a huge difference between implausible, impossible and retarded. Hit Points are implausible, getting to one hit point and drinking a mana potion and returning to full hardy health in the blink of an eye is impossible, etc, etc, but launching mini-nukes is retarded. Its like Bethesda conscripted a bunch of seven year olds and asked them to fill out a wish list of things that would be super awesome. Maybe there will also be mutant Easter Bunnies that shoot Cadbury Eggs into the protagonist’s mouth while yelling “Cowabunga Dudes!!!!!” But what can you expect from a child’s game? Just silly, mindless entertainment, like watching Pokemon.

Let us all at least admit the mini-nukes are beyond stupid. They could of taken all that childish, juvenile, and retarded creativity and put it into including weapon mods (like scopes, etc), which are not included and were a very nice feature of the real Fall Outs.

[Moriendor]

Sandy vagina much, SexyLady? :biggrin:

[SexyLady]

Well!!! I Never!!! You rascal!!! My vagina is not the topic of discussion!!!!

[Eternal Dragon]

Seriously, you guys are reading WAY too much into, and focusing WAY to much on utterly trivial and minor stuff like nuclear-powered catapults, grenades, and cars. You make it sound like it's the focus of the game, when clearly it is not.

[xSamhainx]

There are such things as suitcase nukes, am I right???

Professor SexyLady does have a point tho, it does have a retarded ring to it, it's literal meaning is akin to a Pocket Aircraft Carrier or something. Words have meanings, and "nuclear bomb" has a very distinct meaning. But what if it isnt meant as literal, like perhaps "mini nukes" might be a slang type thing, or a figure of speech. Like another word for "grenade" or something???

[coyote]

Fallout 3 is still a long way off, so I thought bringing up and starting a discussion about the single feature I dislike most might change the mind of those responsible and thereby improve the game, in particular since it should be relatively easy to change an inane thing like nuclear catapults into a more reasonable weapon. I was surprised to see that many do not seem to mind, though, so I guess my attempt was less than successful even if a developer reads this board.

Anyway, there are other things to do than making comments on a computer game with over a year of development time still ahead of it which are probably not read by any of the developers and which I might not even have the time to play when it comes out :rolleyes:

Still, for the sake of the Fallout series: do not…screw it up!

[HiddenX]

Okay -

A developers' check list for the next Fallout game:

00) making choices with consequences
01) character development / many stats with an impact on the game
02) finding / buying / selling lots of different equipment (unique items, rare items)
03) a good nonlinear story - interesting, intriguing main quest
04) great challenging dungeons / locked doors / chests / traps
05) riddles / hard too find secrets, items / mysteries
06) lots of fun, humor
07) cool weapons
08) lots of conversation, conversation options to solve quests and avoid combat
09) interesting challenging combat with many options
10) interesting NPCs with a background
11) NPCs with a schedule
12) future world with conflicts to solve
13) different groups, guilds with various occupations
14) chance of winning prizes, medals, houses, ranks ...
15) deadly cool arch-enemies
16) making weapons & items
17) many (not necessary) side-quests
18) much world interaction / manipulation
19) eastereggs
20) free world, setting borders with harder to beat enemies and hard to find items (keys), only.
21) good (non breakable) economy model
22) many different groups with different goals, conflicting interests -> choose your friends and enemies
23) interesting (funny) dialogs with your partners
24) surprises and twists, more than one story path

other than that:

25) no bugs
26) scantly clad vixens !

[Prime Junta]

Fallout however is supposed to be a science fiction story in a postapocalyptic alternate future starting off from an alternate past in the 50s. It is not supposed to be completely absurd, so while a hand-held nuclear catapult will certainly get some laughs, the obvious absurdity of it would harm immersion. It could certainly be worse, but I just think it goes too far.

There are plenty things more absurd than a nuclear catapult in both FO's. The G.E.C.K. for starters.

[Prime Junta]

However, having mini nuclear mushrooms rising from the ground is physically impossible,

It's quite easy to produce a mini mushroom cloud. All you need is a fireball that then rises up as it cools and expands, which it will do because hot gas is lighter than cold gas. For example, take a pint of gasoline and blow it up with a small black-powder charge; it'll disperse into droplets and ignite. Voilà, mini mushroom cloud. You see these in low-budget action movies all the time. (Sometimes high-budget ones too, e.g. if a car's gas tank gets spectacularly blown up.)

I'm not sure what an actual nano-nuke explosion would look like, assuming you could make one. (Meaning, an explosion comparable to, say, a few kilos of TNT, only nuclear.) However, it might very well produce a mini mushroom cloud -- the explosion would be extremely fast and extremely hot, which would produce a sphere of super-hot plasma; this would rise and expand as it cools, giving you your mushroom cloud.

I can't see any hard physical reason making such a munition impossible, although it's beyond our technology at this time (I think). You'd need to use a material with low critical mass, and find another material to slow down (or produce) enough neutrons to make it even smaller. Then you'd need to figure out ways to control the yield very precisely. We already have suitcase-size nukes; going from that to grenade-size isn't an inconceivable leap. Since the FO universe has plasma grenades and portable fusion packs, it must have some extremely powerful ways to contain plasma -- magnets many orders of magnitude more powerful than we have. Use those magnets to implode a spherical shell of fissile material, and you've got your mini-bomb, without the need for fussy and bulky HE to drive it.

The more I think about it, the more useful such a weapon sounds. If you could make it hand-grenade size, it would be extremely versatile -- you could use it as an offensive infantry weapon (dial in very low yield, throw at your target), defensive infantry weapon (dial in larger yield, throw from behind cover), demolition charge, anti-armor mine, booby trap... wowee, imagine what you could do with one as an IED.

[coyote]

@Prime Junta: regarding the G.E.C.K. it might well be an electronic library of sorts, but I will not pretend that everything is realistic in the previous Fallouts. Regarding the mini mushroom clouds, you have a convincing argument, and apparently you can create small mushroom clouds even with conventional explosives (and without using trickery as in the case of the gasoline explosion).

As far as I could find out, nuclear bombs exist as small as 23kg (weight of the W54 warhead), with a minimal yield of 10 tons of TNT. Even with a neutron reflective casing to reduce the critical mass, the minimal amount of fissionable material should be a few kg (there are only so many (semi)stable isotopes around). Radioactive contamination would make such a warhead quite inconvenient as a close range weapon, even if the force of the explosion alone is reduced.

Since neutrons can not be diverted using electromagnetic forces, I do not see how fission based bombs could be improved using any kind of magnet - nuclear fusion is another story, but then one could always go with the "sufficiently advanced technology argument".

[Lucky Day]

Okay -

A developers' check list for the next Fallout game:

00) making choices with consequences
01) character development / many stats with an impact on the game
02) finding / buying / selling lots of different equipment (unique items, rare items)
03) a good nonlinear story - interesting, intriguing main quest
04) great challenging dungeons / locked doors / chests / traps
05) riddles / hard too find secrets, items / mysteries
06) lots of fun, humor
07) cool weapons
08) lots of conversation, conversation options to solve quests and avoid combat
09) interesting challenging combat with many options
10) interesting NPCs with a background
11) NPCs with a schedule
12) future world with conflicts to solve
13) different groups, guilds with various occupations
14) chance of winning prizes, medals, houses, ranks ...
15) deadly cool arch-enemies
16) making weapons & items
17) many (not necessary) side-quests
18) much world interaction / manipulation
19) eastereggs
20) free world, setting borders with harder to beat enemies and hard to find items (keys), only.
21) good (non breakable) economy model
22) many different groups with different goals, conflicting interests -> choose your friends and enemies
23) interesting (funny) dialogs with your partners
24) surprises and twists, more than one story path

other than that:

25) no bugs
26) scantly clad vixens !

27) graphic and realistic exploding heads
28) general sophomoric stupidity
29) (im)mature rating
30) no content filters
31) oh, and single player

[Prime Junta]

Since neutrons can not be diverted using electromagnetic forces, I do not see how fission based bombs could be improved using any kind of magnet - nuclear fusion is another story, but then one could always go with the "sufficiently advanced technology argument".

You misunderstood me; I meant using magnets instead of high explosives to implode the fissile material.

Here's my design for a Sufficiently Advanced Technology Corp. Dial-A-Yield Nuclear Grenade:

The S.A.T.C.D.A.Y.N.G. consists of a series of concentric spherical shells surrounding a vacuum.

1. The innermost shell is made of a highly fissile alloy of U-235 and certain synthetic top-secret transuranic elements.
2-3. The second and third shells are spherical arrays of S.A.T.C. Ultra Electro Magnets, each with its own internal power source (also used in S.A.T.C. Micro Fusion Pack), facing each other. Shell 3 also includes a mesh of U.E.M's configured to hold together by magnetic attraction when the array is triggered.
4. The fourth shell is a lead-bismuth alloy.
5. The fifth shell is a spherical array of Nano Proton Accelerators, also each with its own internal power source.

When the device is triggered, the U.E.M. arrays in shells 2-3 energize at opposing polarities. This causes shell 1 to implode into the vacuum, forming a superhot sphere of molten fissile material. The U.E.M's forming the mesh in shell 3 prevent the outer shell from exploding as the inner one implodes. Simultaneously, the N.P.A. in shell 5 floods shell 4 with accelerated protons. This releases a flood of slow neutrons from the lead-bismuth shell (by spallation). When the flood of neutrons reaches the fissile material in the center of the sphere, it causes it to undergo fission. This also results in a phase change to plasma. The U.E.M array in shell 2 will contain the plasma for a nanosecond, allowing the chain reaction to complete, before being vaporized by the released energy.

To control the yield, the amount of protons released by the N.P.A. shell is user-controllable: fewer protons mean fewer neutrons, which means that a smaller amount of the fissile material undergoes fission.

Note that S.A.T.C.'s product catalog also includes the Dial-A-Yield fusion grenade, which, although being slightly bulkier and more expensive, has the advantage of producing less radioactive residue.

[Role-Player]

Why did you people stopped talking about vaginas? That was a lot more interesting. Prime should write one of those technical documents to explain how V.A.G.I.N.A.S. work. I guarantee nerds all over could benefit from that knowledge.

[Prime Junta]

Regarding the mini mushroom clouds, you have a convincing argument, and apparently you can create small mushroom clouds even with conventional explosives (and without using trickery as in the case of the gasoline explosion).

Regular high explosives don't produce fireballs, so you won't get a mushroom cloud either. Incendiary munitions do. A fertilizer bomb produces a spectacular one. The gasoline-and-gunpowder trick is a type of simple incendiary bomb.

I messed with explosives a fair bit back when I was in the army. I was in combat engineering, which was mostly about blowing stuff up, so I got to see up close what they look like. White phosphorus at night look just plain lovely, like a big silver fountain...

[Moriendor]

Why did you people stopped talking about vaginas?

SexyLady pussed out (pun is coincidental, of course).

[Role-Player]

Of course! :D

[coyote]

@Prime Junta: heh, I see you know what I meant with the "sufficiently advanced technology argument". I might point out that the device seems not to be able to create a chain reaction, and the energy used for mass neutron spallation (worsened by the fact that the neutrons go in all directions, not only to the center) would have to come from somewhere, but I am sure that the "Sufficiently Advenced Technology Corporation" can produce anything it wants, with components designed to do exactly what it wants them to do, as long as they want them to do it. Funny way of describing a mini nuclear bomb with components ten times more unrealistic than itself, though.

@all: Shame on you all for scaring away my good friend SexyLady!

[Prime Junta]

Funny way of describing a mini nuclear bomb with components ten times more unrealistic than itself, though.

Yeah, well, there is that. :-)

I guess my real point is that Fallout isn't big on technological realism. If you start looking at it from that point of view, it falls apart pretty quickly. It's not even intended to be realistic: it's a pastiche of the Gernsback-style retro-futurist vision you had in the 50's. (I'm surprised they didn't include food pills.)

IMO you can make a better argument against the nuclear catapult from the setting consistency angle. However, without actually seeing what it's like and how it fits into the game, I think it's a bit premature. It's quite possible to devise a reasonably credible in-game rationale for it, after all.

[Maylander]

This goes for pretty much all sci-fi games/movies, because the people making them are not scientists. Personally I don't think it would be as fun if they were - realism can really ruin creativity/fantasy. The most fascinating fantasies are often those of a child, because they are never limited by what is possible and what is not.

[zakhal]

Hmm did a typo on the age entry and accidently got somkind of permaban from the official fallout site. Now I need to hassle around with proxies if I want to read the official site. Feels kinda stupid.

[Atrachasis]

Hmm did a typo on the age entry and accidently got somkind of permaban from the official fallout site. Now I need to hassle around with proxies if I want to read the official site. Feels kinda stupid.

Have you tried simply erasing your cookies?

[Alrik Fassbauer]

@Prime Junta: regarding the G.E.C.K. it might well be an electronic library of sorts

Sidenote : The almost-died out German word "geck" means in English "dude" or "dandy" or so, as far as I know.

[zakhal]

Have you tried simply erasing your cookies?

Ok. That worked perfectly. I feared they saved my ip to their database but it was just a cookie.

[coyote]

@Prima Junta and @Maylander: I am still uncomfortable with the idea that nuclear weapons might be trivialised in the next Fallout game for the sake of the retro science fiction setting, whereas previous Fallouts took more of a thinking man's approach regarding the consequences of using them, but I agree that realism can not be the deciding argument here. Unfortunately, whether it fits the setting or not, complaining about it when the game is about to be finished will almost certainly achieve nothing, since at that point the main priority will likely be to remove bugs.

@Alrik Fassbauer: 'Geck' indeed is a word for 'dandy' in germany - 'dude' does not convey the same negative connotations as far as I know - and as you said, it is mostly extinct, occasionally appearing in classic literature, e.g. 'Nathan der Weise' by G. E. Lessing <== wisenheimer comment of the day

[Prime Junta]

About that nuclear hand grenade -- I did a bit of "research," and it appears that it's not that far beyond what we can do now. You could theoretically make a fission grenade out of Californium or Curium (although the shielding would be a significant technical challenge, and of course the stuff is absurdly expensive). More interesting, however, is an "isomer bomb" -- something that's based on triggered nuclear isomer decay (Hafnium 178m2 was mentioned) rather than fission, and has no lower size limit. This is being seriously researched by DARPA (among others). Theoretically, a golf-ball size bomb could release as much energy as 10 tons of TNT.

[ http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4049 ]

So, trivial or not, fitting the setting or not, a nuclear grenade doesn't appear to be physically impossible -- and a good deal more plausible than many objects known to be in the game.

[Prime Junta]

Another tidbit, about Davy Crockett that coyote mentioned: [ http://www.guntruck.com/DavyCrockett.html ]. Now *that's* a Fallout weapon if there ever was one!

The page also has a picture of a mushroom cloud from a 10-ton yield nuclear explosion.

I had better stop, or I'll get to the point of not just believing that a nuclear grenade is plausible, but actually wanting to *own* one...

KABOOM! hi-hi-hi-hi...

[Prime Junta]

Argh, now I do want one: [ http://www.paricenter.com/library/papers/gsponer.php ]

In a nutshell: another possibility for a nuclear grenade would be a pure fusion bomb. You'd need some way to trigger the fusion reaction without using the fission "detonator" that current thermonukes use; however, it appears that there are possibilities for managing just this. (Fusion doesn't have a critical mass, of course.)

[coyote]

Thanks. The above three pages are an interesting read, with varying levels of madness.

Reading the last article, I got the impression that Dr. Andre Gsponer is trying the impossible by arguing against 4th generation nuclear weapons proliferation and insistently fishing for nuclear weapons research funding at the same time.