Strange arguments you had with other Fallout fans?

RevBladeZ

First time out of the vault
This has probably been posted here before but its always an interesting one..... in a twisted kind of way.

Recently i had one claim that it somehow makes sense that a supermarket 200 years after the war would still have food in it simply because there are less people around than there were before the war and that it makes sense as the only food source the people have... And when he asked for proof and i said common sense and that apparently wasn't enough of a proof. Then i said that even Bethesda clearly understood this in Fallout 4 by having farmland around and even that wasn't enough.

He also said that it makes sense that it would be edible and sure, while there certainly is food that can remain edible for extremely long times, food like that is very much in the minority, food that can last for 200 years even more so.

So tell me about your experiences with people like this.
 
Maybe it was freeze-dried food. But I doubt the pre-war America would make it an effort to freeze dry every canned food product, unless they knew the nukes were falling.

Or maybe Bethesda is just retarded.
 
I mean its sort of an issue but I don't think its the biggest issue ever you know in the scheme of things. The problem with food in the game is to do with settlement. Fine that have some pre war food fine. But how is this suspose to sustain city its way to expensive. Like 20 caps aday on food most people should't really be able to afford it inless there doing something dangerous rather than just cillying aroud the city. NV hande this much better with the farms and also that place in freeside that gave out food really adressed the problems.

But yeah you think if they wanted to susvire they would find a way to produce food as susposedly they have to pay alot of caps for water anyway.
 
I make the headcanon the food you get in supermarkets isn't leftover but the fact people in the markets are using them as ice boxes and storage units.
 
Headcannon that outright ignored what the game has put forth isn't headcannon. It's denial.

Maybe the markets (the ones that weren't sacked and reused by people as bases, as Super Duper Mart in Fo3 was), but one of the more interesting theories I've read is that the "pre-War" food circulated in stores is actually contemporary food repackaged by crafty traders.

After all, it's not like anyone has a point of reference for what the pre-War food tasted like.

Maybe it was freeze-dried food. But I doubt the pre-war America would make it an effort to freeze dry every canned food product, unless they knew the nukes were falling.

The fear of nuclear war was an integral part of American culture, so it makes sense they would add enough preservatives for the food to survive Ragnarok (not to mention all the Nuka-Cola lying around since the first game).

Anywhoo, wrong forum and topic's borderling cross-forum trolling. Renaming to be less inflammatory (come on guys, "Bethesda apologist" was trite ten years ago).
 
Maybe the markets (the ones that weren't sacked and reused by people as bases, as Super Duper Mart in Fo3 was), but one of the more interesting theories I've read is that the "pre-War" food circulated in stores is actually contemporary food repackaged by crafty traders.
A theory that seeks to reinterpret ingame facts or presentation that is based on literally nothing is inherently contradictory and therefore worthless.
 
A theory that seeks to reinterpret ingame facts or presentation that is based on literally nothing is inherently contradictory and therefore worthless.

To you, maybe. Not to people who enjoy speculation and analysis.

By the way, it's not baseless. Home-brewed Nuka-Cola and Sunset Sarsaparilla is a thing in FNV, after all.
 
That's not imagination that contradicts what the game has put forth.

Given you find squirrel on a stick and other stuff there which is very much post-apocalypse food, I'm not sure what you're saying other than repeating errors yourself.

:)
 
Okay let's see if I can get this thread back on topic...

Let's see, the worst things I've heard to explain Fallout lore contradictions? Almost everything that Mr.MattyPlays has said in the defense of Fallout 4 to be honest. Like the time he said he liked the shallow voice acted dialog options. What a total tool.

That guy is a paid shill I tell you!

Honestly though I only regard having to apply handwaved explenations when it comes to Fallout 4. Fallout 3 I don't feel breaks the lore in any way. It's like the "what do they eat video." The game explains that fine. Just because they can't farm like Nevada and California doesn't mean food magically falls from the heavens like it did for the Hebrews. Like c'mon, you find brahmin being herded for steaks and "milk" in Canterbury which is the place that even slavers trade with.

Scavenging is still a thing although it has become a not very efficient tactic since by 2277 in D.C. stores and supermarkets are pretty much picked clean.

Wait... I just became a Fallout 3 apologist! But seriously, Fallout 3 stretches the limits the lore can take but doesn't go far enough to break the tread Fallout 1 & 2 established. Hell, from what I understand Fallout 2 kinda contradicts Fallout 1 is some minor ways.

Lesson Of The Story: Sequels always mess something up somewhere. Unless you're Fallout 4. If you are, then picking the "Fan-Boy" perk is essential to survive.
 
Me: "I dislike heavily the gunplay of Fallout 4 here. It's like shallow Far Cry - clone with huge amounts of level scaling."

Fallout 4 Player: "Then maybe you should install mod for it?"

Me: "Can you link one for example?"

Fallout 4 Player: "Just search upon Nexus, there are hundreds of mods to get what you need for."

Suffice to say, not helping at all for me to get back to playing the game and trying to beat it at least. And looking upon the player's profile, he seemd to have installed everything that was most downloaded, along with the kind of mod that makes women look like plastic.
 
An individual and I had a disagreement about whether or not you could steal the desert Eagle from the Librarian in Fallout 1 Hub. They thought you couldn't and believe me I was rather dumbfounded by how little though they placed on the subject. To make a long story short it turns out this individual never played the game focusing on stealth or the ability to pick pocket. So in those cases I can see how they are correct.

However they did not change their mind until I played that part of the game, and showed them.
Not really sure of what to make of that one, selective observance?
 
Fallout 3 stretches the limits the lore can take

I've got the opposite impression. Fallout 4 neatly fits into the lore, while Fallout 3... Sheesh. I guarantee you'll say "Fallout 4 was OK, lore-wise" ten years from now.

I was there when it was released. Woah boy, the forums were lit up like crazy.
Me: "I dislike heavily the gunplay of Fallout 4 here. It's like shallow Far Cry - clone with huge amounts of level scaling."

Fallout 4 Player: "Then maybe you should install mod for it?"

Me: "Can you link one for example?"

Fallout 4 Player: "Just search upon Nexus, there are hundreds of mods to get what you need for."

Suffice to say, not helping at all for me to get back to playing the game and trying to beat it at least. And looking upon the player's profile, he seemd to have installed everything that was most downloaded, along with the kind of mod that makes women look like plastic.

Fallout 4 combat rebalance on Google spits that out as the top result. Quite popular too.

http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/11657/?

That and Survival mode, I'm told. It's brutal until you learn the ropes.
 
Fallout 4 combat rebalance on Google spits that out as the top result. Quite popular too.

http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/11657/?

That and Survival mode, I'm told. It's brutal until you learn the ropes.

I'll seek upon that, but about Survival, it was not my cup of tea. Like I can get the appeal of difficulty of having needs, surviving with illness or such, but I'm not the person to like about that. For me it's the combat difficulty which I look up for.

I do thank you for showcasing the link, I could kiss you for it.
 
I'll seek upon that, but about Survival, it was not my cup of tea. Like I can get the appeal of difficulty of having needs, surviving with illness or such, but I'm not the person to like about that. For me it's the combat difficulty which I look up for.

I do thank you for showcasing the link, I could kiss you for it.

:D

Survival also makes the combat much, much more punishing for both sides. Something you might also be interested with.

Yeah, trust me, no chance of that happening. Fallout 4 is a failure of modern game design and storytelling.

I said the same thing about Fallout 3.
 
Back
Top