starbug9

Yes, yes there isn't. Because the game's over. ... ... :mellow:

Most romances, if not all, I think, are more dependent on where you are in the game than anything else, even approval rating, and also on whether you have completed the character's personal quest or not. They act like every other scripted milestone in the game, they're designed so that they can't advance past a certain point at a certain time. They also seen to be quite dependent on how much time they spend in your party and which particular events they've been able to see and comment on. Your approval will increase just because of a romance anyway, it's not such a big deal, and it's probably meant to simulate a gradually strengthening relationship as it happens, not before it happens. You don't just suddenly get to sleep with Leliana or any other character, it takes a while and there's a few stages along the way.

I'm sure the major world powers are aware of the potential for a problem like this and will probably actually do something if and when it starts happening. Worse case scenario, yes this is entirely plausible, but I highly doubt you could figure all of this out while the world's brightest and/or leaders fumble around scratching their heads, no offense. The thing with hypotheticals like this is that they are already conceived hypothetical scenarios. People will see something like this happening, what they do could, by some horrible quirk of fate, make it worse, but it's unlikely. The UN will probably step in, or try to step in, if things get right out of hand. Currency reset, or whatever that is, regulating currency/destroying excess currency, setting up temporary fixed currency values - there's a lot of ways to get this sorted out, many of which could effectively eliminate bankruptcy worldwide. Money is an interesting thing in that, if it does get really, really, really out of hand, we can actually do whatever we want to fix it. Okay, assuming the world's currency gets screwed over, that would be a hard change to make considering how attached many Americans are to their guns and how many people in the US Government will be attached to their guns. Martial law would probably sooner be a civil war, for a while at least, and things would, as you suggest, just disintegrate after long enough. By this stage all quick fix solutions are probably useless and any real improvement is going to take time. Seriously, though, the US isn't stupid enough to try and ban guns at a time like this and really isn't stupid enough to enforce martial law, I think they'd see the potential drawbacks. Do remember Europe is still in play, and Russia doesn't want to nuke the US or any of her 'protected' countries, there's no point and, amazingly, Russia probably isn't a country of pure evil that wants to kill hundreds of millions of people. Some of the bigger players might get a bit adventurous in their expansionist policy, but they would have no reason to openly attack any countries the US has been covering, a subtle takeover, possibly, but nothing drastic. If anything they'd go for the US itself, being the only one with any real incentive to attack, and even then nukes or large scale assaults would just be destroying what they would be trying to get in the first place. Unless there is a substantial potential payoff for doing something stupid and rash I really doubt any country is going to start pushing its borders very far at all. Mexico seceding I can see. It would help them get out of the whole mess. And a result that extreme is, well, extreme. Even in the extremely extreme worst case scenario there would have to be forces in play actively trying to destroy America for that to happen - it's just not feasible that a first world country could become that unstable and nobody and nothing can or will stop it getting worse. The further it goes, the harder it is to stop, but there's also more of a reason to stop it. Still, this is a hypothetical... Basically it's a yes, I think that it is 'possible'. Could it happen? No.

Am I the only one who thinks that's a bit harsh? I don't think it's wrong, but in mostly stable global conditions, especially post 2000, there's plenty of decent rich people floating around. Do remember that it didn't take THAT many people to start the whole financial crisis and consider just how many wealthy businesspeople there are out there. Admittedly people do like to hold on to their money when it all starts going away but it's an instinct reaction, they're scared. Some are greedy bastards, but most of them are probably getting stingy because they don't know what else to do, and that's what's going to keep shooting America, and other countries, in the foot - the people who have money to spend won't be the ones spending money.

It's impossible on several levels. The biggest problem with people is, of course, people. As soon as the world becomes perfect it isn't anymore, because nothing isn't perfect, and even then, running on the average definition of perfect, a perfect world isn't just boring, it's really quite a difficult place to live in, or at least unusual. The c**p in life makes life what it is just as much as the good things, just like the c**p in people make people people, take it away from either of them and they're not the same anymore. Living without the other end of happiness is, arguably, not really living and, ergo, not perfect.

True, though I would like to see how powerful the Enclave actually is after two major defeats. They're probably either nearly destroyed, from which they will then recover and reappear again in the next or a later Fallout game, or they have some other base somewhere and will continue to do what they're doing - I doubt they will throw away such a useful plot element. After Broken Steel they would probably have little influence left in the DC area, but now that you bring that point up I'm not sure what they've got left, or where it could be. I guess it depends on how they spin the lore for the next game and there's still a lot of places left unexplored by any of the Fallout games.

I know what you mean, Monolithic0117, and I think you're right, the BoS are, fairly unanimously, better than the Enclave, but my main point was that as evil as the Enclave are and as good and shiny as the BoS are, in the long, long run it makes no difference. Tyrants get overthrown, it's just a matter of time, and tyrants will come out of the best leadership. Okay, it's not that simple and there's always the chance that things could go horribly wrong repeatedly, but, in this context at least, we're talking about rebuilding the world, or at least America. Yes the Enclave will probably do a lot of damage in making things better but they probably will rebuild as quickly as they can, it's in their best interests to do so and develop a stronger power base. The sooner the world is back on its feet the sooner it can patch itself up. That's not to say the BoS aren't going to help the world, they probably will, and they would go about it much better than the Enclave would. I agree that the means justify the end but what end are we justifying? Does the BoS have enough power to make enough of a difference? Would siding with them effectively be giving them a license to be heroic and chivalrous to change the lives of the people in the Capitol Wasteland, say? Do those means really justify that end? An end that leaves the vast, vast majority of the world in fear, in the dark, and in the sh**, to put it lightly. Okay, the BoS probably would get further than that, probably considerably further, but it's the fact that their means aren't aggressive enough and they just don't have the resources to make a huge difference in a short space of time. So, in the long, long run, would anything be any different? One way is faster to rebuild, longer to work out the kinks, and the other is slower but with a much nicer ending. I'm not saying you're wrong, if anything I actually agree with your idea more than my own :P . I'm just saying that there will always be the temptation of power to make way for tyrants and there will always be people to bring them down. It's a gamble, but I honestly think it's plausible that, in this case, the tyrannical empire may be the world's salvation, or at least, just as much the world's salvation as the knights in shining armor. And, Witcher ftw.

True, but they were referring to life forms genetically the same as them, ghouls are a bit different. With ghouls, as long as they can't find a cure, they'll always be different. Even if everyone else accepts them for who they are and all that c**p, they still need to accept themselves for who and what they are. I think it would be better to say that, if you want an analogy, this is the same as the Nazis eventually accepting the non-worthy while the non-worthy continue to be somewhat removed out of fear and being different. It will change in time, most will probably get over it, some might even enjoy being different, but there will always be some who hate it, and they won't be able to do anything about it. It isn't a case of segregation by choice.

Megaton virtually has a dictator as a leader, an ex-slaver doctor, a druggie, suspected child molester, Moriarty, Jericho, you get the point, it's not actually a nice place at all. Tenpenny Tower is full of bigots or murderous ghouls no matter what happens, Rivet city will probably struggle to stay morally clean seeing as it's a science driven complex, then there is the Republic of Dave, Andale, and we haven't even gotten to the raiders and mutants. There's a massive number of problems in the Fallout universe. the ghoul issue is a unique take on rascism, the factions on major powers all fighting for superiority. There's nothing stopping any of them from being as evil or worse than the Enclave. I'm not saying this is all black and white, that's for you to decide, I'm not saying that it's hopeless or beyond help, but the BoS and Project Purity work of the notion that they can save it. It took us a long while for society to get to where it is now and we did it without having to deal with supermutants and post-apocalyptia. Their intentions are good, admirable at the very least, but they may not be practical. Think about it, would you condemn generations of people to live in the wasteland, under constant fear of assault, death, abuse, disease, despotism or ghouls to remain persecuted and so different they can never really fit in with any society? There's so many things going on and the balance, if there is one, is extremely delicate. Everyone wants to fix the world. Realistically, the Enclave will probably do it much faster. Suppose the virus does work. It will, effectively, stop all the s**t in the wasteland. It could rebuild the world as it was before. The Enclave is probably the world's best shot at fixing itself. The world can deal with a corrupt government or a nationwide famine, or a plague, or racial upheaval and discrimination, or a large scale war, but not all at once. The choice boils down to sacrificing thousands of lives now to spare millions of potential lives from the wasteland and to allow many more to live in relative peace, by comparison, or letting life do what it does, which seems to be sort itself out in the slowest, most painful way possible. Even with the purifier's help, things won't be pretty. The biggest question is probably 'Is life worth living even if it's this bad? Even if there is absolutely no hope of fixing it in your lifetime, or your children's lifetimes, if you're lucky enough to have any.' You can't protect yourself, your family, anything you could ever be connected to is as good as dead from the very beginning. But does that warrant murder? Does that warrant genocide? I honestly don't know. Anyway, sorry for getting all serious but it seemed like the right thread to do it in.