"Life After People" Movie Raises Q's About FO3. : Fallout Series Discussion

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 12:20 pm

An interesting side note..
Did you read the story about the black fungus on the reactor walls? It somehow uses melanin to feed [Yep, feed] on the radiation.

I read that it was being looked at as a long term [possible] food supply option for space future voyages.

That's interesting...I'll check it out

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:19 pm

I realize that Bethesda made the creative decision to go with a "wasteland" landscape to stay true to the series and make game seem more lonely/desolate. But I just wanted to bring up this point of what really would have happened, in this case and how different it would be.

Apart from the radiation though, a lot of the buildings (especially wooden) would have been destroyed, because of rotting and infestation of termites.

Sure, that's true. When we first saw screens of the game, we had a huge debate about the wooden buildings around Springdale. The buildings look more like 20 years after the war, not 200. But again, it's more fun to have ruins than nothing.

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:44 pm

Chernobyl was a isolated incident. The Fallout 3 world is the aftermath of a worldwide catastophe-- probably thousands or millions of Chernobyls. It would actually have an effect on weather patterns and kill off whole species. You don't see plants overtaking the buildings because most of those plants are extinct. Unlike the Chernobyl disaster, there's no untouched outside environment from which the life can filter back in. It's gone.

If Chernobyl is a knife wound in an otherwise healthy person, then a worldwide nuclear exchange would be a cremated corpse.

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:14 pm

Even if we ignore the issue of scientific legitamacy versus a 50s era concept of nuclear Armageddon there is a big difference between the destruction and radiation unleashed by the Chernobyl disaster and the amount you'd expect from an actual nuclear bombardment.

Although I think poetic license is the most important factor here: the devs were trying to create a specific atmosphere even if it didn't wholly fit expected entropy (even within the Science! of the World of Tomorrow).

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:48 am

The devs were aware that in real life, nature would have reclaimed everything after 200 years. But they had to use artistic license in order to have the iconic wasteland that is Fallout. Wouldn't be much of a wasteland if it was covered in forests. I do think setting the game 200 years after the war was a serious error. If it had been set only 20 years afterwards everything would be much more believable..

ICAM.

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:25 pm

Well, like others have said - Fallout was never meant as a serious exploration of the real-world effects of nuclear war. Any attempts at "hard" Sci-Fi elements in the games are only ever added in to serve as a bit of flavor for the setting. The entire premise is based on a nuclear war leading to a devastated desert world that the player explores.

It's not like for any of the Fallouts they did impeccable research on the subject, developed computer simulations of the plausable effect this would have on global atmospheric conditions, and then calculated the rate and extent to which nature would bounce back - and then made a game around those findings.

Whether or not Fallout is a realistic depiction of life after a nuclear, or whether Fallout 3 is realistic in what life would look like 200 years after the War; is sort of irrelevant. Had "realism" ever been one of the founding tenets of the franchise, then you could viably poke holes in it. That Fallout has only ever been "soft" science fiction, at best, sort of makes any real attempts at discussing the relative realism of the game sort of pointless.

It's like looking at Star Wars and then wondering how they're able to break the Light barrier without having to deal with the whole problem of relativity.

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:02 pm

It's like looking at Star Wars and then wondering how they're able to break the Light barrier without having to deal with the whole problem of relativity.

midichlorians :nerd:

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:39 pm

THIS GAME ISNT VERY REALISTIC HLOY CARP LOIS!

Lmfao.

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:15 pm

THIS GAME ISNT VERY REALISTIC HLOY CARP LOIS!

Hloy Carp?

Anyway, if you want trees, try this mod: http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=5168
It adds some trees and other veg. I used it, but stopped until I complete the Oasis quest.

Also, one thing I liked about STALKER but miss in FO3 is weather. It should rain and stuff. That would be cool.

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:09 pm

THIS GAME ISNT VERY REALISTIC HLOY CARP LOIS!

Hloy Carp?

Anyway, if you want trees, try this mod: http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=5168
It adds some trees and other veg. I used it, but stopped until I complete the Oasis quest.

Also, one thing I liked about STALKER but miss in FO3 is weather. It should rain and stuff. That would be cool.

it would be cool if it rained especially if it was like acid rain or irradiated would make radiation a more serious problem i think than it is now.
with all that rad away that's available, i have a question though for some people, have any of you ever payed to get healed by a doctor?
seriously why did they make the price so high when stimpaks/rad away is so easily obtained, not to mention sleeping cures all ailments in the game.
got a broken leg? only 3HP left? sleep it of p*ssy. that's basically what it comes down to, a bit of a let down in my opinion.

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 12:38 pm

As I've said in a couple of other places:

Part of the problem is that the setting of the previous Fallout games is a part of the country which is desert now, already, no bombs required. The East Coast... isn't.
(You can also blame our own perception of the post-apoc wasteland, which was shaped not by 50s stuff, but by some very modern movies like Mad Max - set in, you guessed it, the arid Australian outback.)

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 5:03 pm

As a quick note, they are extending this into a 10 part series.

I guess 5 million people tuned into the movie, and they smelled advertising money.

If I were an FO3 dev, I would watch these episodes to get ideas for future DLCs. Apparently they are going to visit a lot of landmarks in the show.

R

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:21 pm

As a quick note, they are extending this into a 10 part series.

I guess 5 million people tuned into the movie, and they smelled advertising money.

If I were an FO3 dev, I would watch these episodes to get ideas for future DLCs. Apparently they are going to visit a lot of landmarks in the show.

R

Nice, is everyone talking about that show that was on Discovery last month?

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:32 pm

It was on the history channel yesterday, right after the nostradamus special

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:13 pm

It was on the history channel yesterday, right after the nostradamus special

Ah yeah history channel, I seen that last month i'm sure. Because the nostradamus 2012 thing was on after aswell.

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:05 pm

Lol I also saw this documentary and thought of it when I played Fallout 3...my excuse was that the radiation killed and sterilised the majority of plant and insect life which could deteriorate man-made objects. Best I could come up with =/

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:26 pm

I just finished watching the movie "Life After People". The movie is basically showing the progression of Earth after humans are gone. It shows the growth of plant life, corrosion of buildings, etc. But the one thing that really made me question the legitimacy of FO3 was a part about the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster, in which a town had to evacuate after a nearby nuclear plant exploded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster). And after 20 years, with no people maintaining the structures, buildings have already started to become covered in plants. Areas of high radiation have already made a comeback and are now forests.

So basically, after watching this movie, it made me think about the landscape of FO3. In Fallout 3, you rarely see a living tree, and after 200 years there are still plenty of standing buildings (i'm assuming they haven't been maintained, since people are fighting for survival). It just seems like Bethesda would have gone more in depth about the plant life's adaption in this type of environment and the corrosion of buildings. Now I know that in the FO universe, the world was destroyed by nuclear war and not just a nuclear blast, but in areas of low radiation more plant life would have come back.

Also another quick point, what is with the dead trees scattered about the landscape? If they died from the nuclear blasts then there is no way they would still be standing after 200 years.

I recommend this movie, it's really interesting and provides lots of information as to how and why the Earth will progress back to it's earlier state before humans.

They said in a interview, About broken steel if you added Modifed FEV. It affected the life in the wasteland and the wasteland it self, There might be trees. they didnt go in to much detail

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 5:33 pm

Also, if you go by the Fallout lore, shortly after the bombs dropped there was a "black rain" that fell for several days, and wiped out most species of animal and plant life. So according to that, perhaps the soil is still so toxic from the black rain that only a few hardy weeds and bushes can live in it..

This is one reason that didn't happen, another being (I'm sure it was said before but in case it hasn't I'll say it) that nuclear energy works differently in FO than in real life. It follows 1950's Sci-Fi nuclear physics, where when you irradiate something, it gets bigger and meaner, instead of like real life, where it grows tumors and then suffers until it dies horribly.

EDIT: As for why the buildings didn't collapse or erode, well.. you ever notice there's no rain in the game? For stone/concrete to get soft and fall apart, it needs a catalyst, most commonly H₂O, to start the chemical changes. Without that, well.. in a dry, arid environment, few things deteriorate fast, if at all. They've found ancient corpses with skin still on them in deserts in real life, so I don't see why the buildings in Fallout wouldn't remain even 200 years later if denied the things they'd need to erode.

» Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:07 am

Well yes the OP is right. There's plenty of nature in the Chernobyl area, even very rare birds have their place in the ruined city for some reason. But you can't compare fallout with reality because then there would be plenty and plenty more that doesn't fit the real world. Though Bethesda could've researched on it, they decided to make their own world, not ours, and look how it turned out, awesome

.

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:46 pm

Well since it barely rains in the capitol wasteland, maybe thats why plants cannot grow.

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 12:49 pm

Sure, that's true. When we first saw screens of the game, we had a huge debate about the wooden buildings around Springdale. The buildings look more like 20 years after the war, not 200. But again, it's more fun to have ruins than nothing.

You would be surprise how long a wooden structure can stay intact in a dry arid environment.. Wet, humid climates are detrimental to wooden structures, Gramted 200 yrs is pushing it, but regardless I thought that should be mentioned, and more than likely termites would've perished in the radiation, or perhaps mutated so that houses would be mere snacks... I live in a rainforest (very wet and humid) and there is houses here that are 100 yrs old all over, granted they are maintained, but as I said in a dry arid climate It may be possible for wooden structures to survive, Not hugely likely but possible nevertheless..

» Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:14 am

You would be surprise how long a wooden structure can stay intact in a dry arid environment.. Wet, humid climates are detrimental to wooden structures, Gramted 200 yrs is pushing it, but regardless I thought that should be mentioned, and more than likely termites would've perished in the radiation, or perhaps mutated so that houses would be mere snacks... I live in a rainforest (very wet and humid) and there is houses here that are 100 yrs old all over, granted they are maintained, but as I said in a dry arid climate It may be possible for wooden structures to survive, Not hugely likely but possible nevertheless..

Also, don't forget the ghost towns of the Old West. Those wooden buildings have been there well over a hundred years now..

» Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:20 am

Just to refresh this thread, there was an episode of "Life After People" that focused on Washington, DC. In the absence of people, DC would be susceptible to moisture and water issues. DC is built on basically a swamp and is very close to sea level. Apparently the Potomac is only kept under control by the human consumption of it's waters (appetizing thought, eh?). I can't remember the time frame, but DC essentially becomes a great lake. Monuments destroyed by moisture, mold and plant growth.

Fast forward to the science fiction of Fallout 3: DC becomes a desert waste with an arid climate. Scorpions (desert creatures) inhabit the area. Giant ants and cockroaches are the true survivors. Buildings and monuments are preserved, except for war damage.

So, yeah, the science is flawed, but it's much more fun than swimming in a big pond absent of buildings. I guess if we wanted a pirate game, then a Water World style DC would be good. Anyways, I like discussions about FO3 vs. Reality.

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:06 pm

As for the trees? I got no idea.

Trees were still standing near the epicenter of Hiroshima after the bomb dropped. There was even a Gingko Tree that began growing its leaves back a few weeks after the blast. Considering how there were barely any animals or people after the bombs dropped in the Fallout Universe, its concievable that those trees would still be standing since no one is chopping them down,and as far as I know,there are no termites,and the radiation sterilised most of the bacteria that would cause the wood to rot. With that in mind,the only things that could bring the trees down would be wind,erosion of the soil around them,and something like a deathclaw ramming into it.

» Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:11 pm

People in the movie just dissapear and in the game, there's a nuclear war.