Maybe a somewhat good reason why DC looks firebombed?

Delbert

Delbert

Vault-Tec Employee
Look at photographs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki aftermath, lots of buildings were obliterated.
I don't know why I'm trying to defend this, just been studying nuclear weapons/atomic bombs lately.

This still leaves a lot of holes, though.

EDIT: Then again, WHY THE HELL DOES FALLOUT 4 LOOK SO NICE THEN?
 
Last edited:
So it's cool and pretty to explore, while still having that abandoned/desolate feel to it
 
Didn't the *single* A-bomb that fell *near* Boston detonate far enough to not actually harm it? That's the explanation I'm most afraid of. Because it wouldn't make any sense whatsoever.
In FNV we had a good sensible reason for Vegas not to be a hole in the ground, but in Boston? I don't know. Hope they won't "say, hurr durr, Institute is where House got his lazors, so they defended themselves the same way!" I would say it makes sense for it to defend the institute itself, but the whole region?
 
TheChosen1 said:
Well, from what I remember, Fallout has low-yield nuclear missiles more akin to our neutron bombs.
Click to expand...

Probably the best explanation would be to say consider that whatever high yield nukes either side had were few in number and reserved for targets where destroying the infrastructure was more important than killing the people. Since if you kill everyone in DC, what exactly are other people going to be able to do with what remains? That way you can both have things like "they literally blew the top off of Big Mountain" as well as "there are identifiable landmarks in DC."
 
PossibleCabbage said:
TheChosen1 said:
Well, from what I remember, Fallout has low-yield nuclear missiles more akin to our neutron bombs.
Click to expand...

Probably the best explanation would be to say consider that whatever high yield nukes either side had were few in number and reserved for targets where destroying the infrastructure was more important than killing the people. Since if you kill everyone in DC, what exactly are other people going to be able to do with what remains? That way you can both have things like "they literally blew the top off of Big Mountain" as well as "there are identifiable landmarks in DC."
Click to expand...

Wasn't Big MT blown off due to an experiment, not a nuke?
 
TheChosen1 said:
Well, from what I remember, Fallout has low-yield nuclear missiles more akin to our neutron bombs.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe in the Fallout Bible it said that the yield of their weapons were around early 1950's levels.

However, it is said that ALL capable nations launched atomic weapons at each other during the Great War, and I think they may have had a LOT more nuclear weapons than we ever have had in the real world, being the great fear-mongering and a likely adherence to the philosophy of "nuclear deterrence".

I'd say that Boston would be higher up on the list of targets for the commies to send some A-bombs at, being so populous and prosperous.
 
Not everything in the game needs to make 100% sense and follow strict realism, sure Boston would be a priority target but then it wouldn't be interesting to explore at all if the landmarks were razed to the ground...
 
frajaq said:
Not everything in the game needs to make 100% sense and follow strict realism, sure Boston would be a priority target but then it wouldn't be interesting to explore at all if the landmarks were razed to the ground...
Click to expand...

It should be at least 100% with the world's science. Morrowind sets rules and follows them. Fallout 3 doesn't with the water plotline.
 
frajaq said:
Not everything in the game needs to make 100% sense and follow strict realism, sure Boston would be a priority target but then it wouldn't be interesting to explore at all if the landmarks were razed to the ground...
Click to expand...

So we explore the region for real life, pre-war landmarks, or what happened AFTER the war? I couldn't give fess f*cks about some old monuments, I want to see what the survivors have done with what was left. If I wanted to see the capitol, guess what, I would've went to see it IRL. But since I can't exactly get to see a post-apocalypse city, I'm forced to look for one in a game.
 
Well, If they wanted to go hard, they could make it a radioactive hole in the ground and make you explore it as a ghoul. Of course that is miles away from any sort of comfort zone and no AAA title would dare, but the possibilities would be countless. Though the game would probably not be much fun.
But in retrospect, a hole in the ground would still be better than the DC we did get...
 
maybe off topic but its frustrating seeing pple complain about dc looking ugly and desolate. it got destroyed by nukes what do they expect? thats what its supposed to look like.
 
Askorti said:
But in retrospect, a hole in the ground would still be better than the DC we did get...
Click to expand...
I don't agree. I honestly wouldn't find a giant version of The Glow preferable to a desolate, destroyed DC since that would essentially make 25% of the map useless, and there are already complaints about F3 being rather small. There'd be nothing to explore and you probably die pretty quickly if you tried.
 
Askorti said:
But in retrospect, a hole in the ground would still be better than the DC we did get...
Click to expand...

You're joking right? That would've been really boring lol

That main DC zone was one of my favorite places to explore in Fallout 3
 
socomelite said:
maybe off topic but its frustrating seeing pple complain about dc looking ugly and desolate. it got destroyed by nukes what do they expect? thats what its supposed to look like.
Click to expand...

Most people complain that DC doesn't look damaged enough. It's the capital, not some backwater town, meaning it would have been hit far worse. Would have been a crater.


The game should have been set somewhere else, like Florida.
 
Dr Fallout said:
Most people complain that DC doesn't look damaged enough. It's the capital, not some backwater town, meaning it would have been hit far worse. Would have been a crater.
Click to expand...

It's weird how DC is simultaneously over-developed and under-developed. Like there are way too many standing buildings, but most of them serve no purpose other than to serve as walls to frame shooting corridors, as it's not as though you can go inside most of them or do anything there.
 
Metro took care of this whole "well, it's iconic, why ain't it bombed" thingy very good imo.

They said that the Kremlin was not hit by a nuclear weapon, but by something much worse -- a biological weapon.

Obviously the weapon resulted in something... interesting, but I am not spoiling the story for you, go read it.
 
It's funny because the Capital Wasteland is both, Too intact to have been "Bombeb extra hard" specially compared to The Boneyard in Fallout 1, and too destroyed and barren to be set 200 years after the war.

They could have explained it with a defense system but they didn't, even when they had that stupid Quarterback Robot later on, they didn't even think of using it at all to explain or justify anything, it would've only taken them a paragraph and the Giant Robot would've fit better into the whole thing, but like with the Lincoln statue being intact and the Washington monument still standing it's just a "KEWL!" element they didn't put much thought into.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top