pcmodhouse Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 it just aggrevates me that DC still sits in rubble 200 years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keanumoreira Posted June 26, 2010 Share Posted June 26, 2010 Agriculture isn't the foundation of a stable society; but administration is. And I think that a fair dictatorship is ten times more effective in getting a wasteland back on it's feet then a democracy is :P No, but in a world like Fallout, where food everywhere is vanishing as fast as their fossil fuels did prior to the war, its a key element in survival because until they can stop acting like selfish asses and mindless fools and successfully activate a G.E.C.K again(as intended, not for water purification.), then nevermind. Sure they did it once and created a thriving town, but they screwed it up and now look what happened. I hate to say it, but your right about the dictatorship. I 100% object to this type of goverment, but in survival you have to do anything to make it. Lets face it, Democracy has too many rules to rebuild the world successfully. What they need to do is find a responsible, semi kind dictator to form a new nation, then gradually overthrow the family over a course of many centuries, and then return Democracy to the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilneko Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 it just aggrevates me that DC still sits in rubble 200 years later. Yeah. It should mostly have fallen down by then. Most of the buildings should be in far worse shape than they are. And the Washington Monument? No longer flipping the bird to super mutants. Capitol Dome? Not so domey anymore. And those billboards scattered throughout the wastes should be long gone, taken down if not by nature, then by scavengers looking for materials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcmodhouse Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 And with all that rubble, you'd think that more buildings would be excessible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keanumoreira Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 it just aggrevates me that DC still sits in rubble 200 years later. Yeah. It should mostly have fallen down by then. Most of the buildings should be in far worse shape than they are. And the Washington Monument? No longer flipping the bird to super mutants. Capitol Dome? Not so domey anymore. And those billboards scattered throughout the wastes should be long gone, taken down if not by nature, then by scavengers looking for materials. I don't agree with the nature thing, the only thing to erode away the buildings and houses would be wind and dust(since there is no longer rain), known as sand blasting erosion, but even this, for two hundred years, wouldn't cause as much damage as you would like to believe. I would know because I've seen a house that was over two hundred years old, abandoned in the desert, and still half standing. The game designers got it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilneko Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 The water cycle would not simply stop because of a nuclear war. The only way rain would stop is if all the surface water on earth were to dry up. Thus, there'd still be rain, and given DC's location, probably plenty of it, along with highly destructive freeze/thaw cycles, key differences from your average desert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keanumoreira Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 The water cycle would not simply stop because of a nuclear war. The only way rain would stop is if all the surface water on earth were to dry up. Thus, there'd still be rain, and given DC's location, probably plenty of it, along with highly destructive freeze/thaw cycles, key differences from your average desert. But that doesn't answer the whole "irradiated water thing." If it rained occansionaly, then they could just collect that fresh water since there'd be no radiation in it when it falls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilneko Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Rainwater isn't necessarily clean. And what about your container? :teehee: All this really illustrates though is that many things in Fallout just don't make sense. 'course, it's all in the name of Cool and Fun, amirite? :biggrin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keanumoreira Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Rainwater isn't necessarily clean. And what about your container? :teehee: All this really illustrates though is that many things in Fallout just don't make sense. 'course, it's all in the name of Cool and Fun, amirite? :biggrin: Yeah I guess, but I'm still with the buildings standing after 200 years of sand and RAIN erosion. If you see that one show "Life after people" they support this. But fallout is suppose to be an advanced future, you'd think the buildings would be in better shape with the technology the'd have. (Self cleaning buildings, self fixing buildings, ect. that would still work even after the time of civilization.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilneko Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Actually Life After People showed that DC in particular wouldn't survive as well as it has in Fallout 3. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts