Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[itisnotlogical]

Yeah, it looks like they tried to make each weapon of the same rank a side-step, i.e. a Tsunami IV versus an Avenger IV, but it kinda fails because there's always one that has the best stats in every category.

[Krevsin]

I don't like games that feature "nuclear" devices with blast radiuses smaller than that of the average grenade (ie. Fallout: Lonesome Road, Ratchet and Clank 2: Going Commando, etc.). The only game I've seen that avoids this is Postal 2 where the tactical nuke launcher takes out about a third of an average sized map

I'd hate to break this to you, but...

[Neonivek]

Mind you the explosive yield of nukes aren't as impressive as people think. It is the fallout that is far FAR more effective.

To put it in perspective... The nukes in WW2 didn't actually destroy either city physically with their detonation... it couldn't if they tried.

[Sergarr]

There's also the short (1-1.5 km) radius where you get hit by neutrons, so there's that

but yeah nukes are kind of overexaggerated in their destructive ability; even biggest practically usable nukes can't destroy a really big city like Moscow alone; you'd need 7-8 of them.

[Broseph Stalin]

Levels or sections that serve no purpose and provide no gameplay but to link cutscenes. If I have to walk to the end of a hall and press a button in between cutscenes just make it two cutscenes that I can skip. 

[Urist McScoopbeard]

I don't like games where you have to make a lot of inventory management decisions. If I wanted to do that I'd clean my bedroom.

games where you can't micromanage your huge inventory

[NobodyPro]

Levels or sections that serve no purpose and provide no gameplay but to link cutscenes. If I have to walk to the end of a hall and press a button in between cutscenes just make it two cutscenes that I can skip.

Sometimes this is just a sneaky way to load/unload assets.

[Bohandas]

I don't like games that feature "nuclear" devices with blast radiuses smaller than that of the average grenade (ie. Fallout: Lonesome Road, Ratchet and Clank 2: Going Commando, etc.). The only game I've seen that avoids this is Postal 2 where the tactical nuke launcher takes out about a third of an average sized map

I'd hate to break this to you, but...

The Davy Crockett is analogous to the tactical nuke from Postal 2 which takes out about a block, the Fat Man gun from Fallout only takes out an area comparable to a small building and the mini-nuke from Ratchet & Clank 2 only takes out an area the size of a small room. The worst offender however is the "Lonesome Road" add-on to Fallout: New Vegas, which has small building-sized explosions from what are clearly stretegic nuclear warheads

[Krevsin]

I don't like games that feature "nuclear" devices with blast radiuses smaller than that of the average grenade (ie. Fallout: Lonesome Road, Ratchet and Clank 2: Going Commando, etc.). The only game I've seen that avoids this is Postal 2 where the tactical nuke launcher takes out about a third of an average sized map

I'd hate to break this to you, but...

The Davy Crockett is analogous to the tactical nuke from Postal 2 which takes out about a block, the Fat Man gun from Fallout only takes out an area comparable to a small building and the mini-nuke from Ratchet & Clank 2 only takes out an area the size of a small room. The worst offender however is the "Lonesome Road" add-on to Fallout: New Vegas, which has small building-sized explosions from what are clearly stretegic nuclear warheads

Yeah, sod that game with its unrealistic portrayal of distance, population, laser phyiscs, robotics, plasma phyiscs, radiation, evolution, mutations, life support systems, spoilage of food, computing power, power armor, weapon manufacturing and space travel.

Fallout is a horrible example of realistic nuclear weaponry (and pretty much everything scientific) and it revels in that fact. It's basically just 1950s pulp sci-fi levels of science (everything is better with nukes, right?).

[Rolan7]

Yeah it's specifically an alternate universe where radiation and atoms work differently.  That's the "point of divergence" which led to all the pocket-size nuclear technology, and everything else.

[NullForceOmega]

Mind you the explosive yield of nukes aren't as impressive as people think. It is the fallout that is far FAR more effective.

To put it in perspective... The nukes in WW2 didn't actually destroy either city physically with their detonation... it couldn't if they tried.

Okay, Neo, not trying to call you out, but I don't think you actually understand how nuclear fission weapons work:

The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fairly low-yield by today's standards, outputting only fifty (50) kilotons of destructive force combined (and were designed for airburst-detonation to minimize fallout and destructive force.)

Just for reference, 50 kilotons equals a 100,000,000 pound bomb made with conventional explosives (specifically measured in tons/kilotons/megatons/gigatons/etc. of TNT.)

These weapons are by today's standards about equal to the warhead used by a naval anti-ship Tactical nuclear torpedo.

A modern Strategic weapon ranges between 50 MEGATONS and 250 MEGATONS, and even from an airburst would flatten areas of up to fifty miles in diameter (that is reduce them to shallow craters lined with obsidian due to the insane temperatures and blast force.)

Source: U.S. Army NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) training.

[Henny]

Mind you the explosive yield of nukes aren't as impressive as people think. It is the fallout that is far FAR more effective.

To put it in perspective... The nukes in WW2 didn't actually destroy either city physically with their detonation... it couldn't if they tried.

Okay, Neo, not trying to call you out, but I don't think you actually understand how nuclear fission weapons work:

The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fairly low-yield by today's standards, outputting only fifty (50) kilotons of destructive force combined (and were designed for airburst-detonation to minimize fallout and destructive force.)

Just for reference, 50 kilotons equals a 100,000,000 pound bomb made with conventional explosives (specifically measured in tons/kilotons/megatons/gigatons/etc. of TNT.)

These weapons are by today's standards about equal to the warhead used by a naval anti-ship Tactical nuclear torpedo.

A modern Strategic weapon ranges between 50 MEGATONS and 250 MEGATONS, and even from an airburst would flatten areas of up to fifty miles in diameter (that is reduce them to shallow craters lined with obsidian due to the insane temperatures and blast force.)

Source: U.S. Army NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) training.

My dwarf senses are tingling.

[Funk]

A modern Strategic weapon ranges between 50 MEGATONS and 250 MEGATONS, and even from an airburst would flatten areas of up to fifty miles in diameter (that is reduce them to shallow craters lined with obsidian due to the insane temperatures and blast force.)
Source: U.S. Army NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) training.

250 MEGATONS?
Some one should check there facts.

A megaton is a lot, the total energy of all explosives used in World War Two (including the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs) is estimated to have been 3 megatons of TNT.

The Heligoland Explosion was just 3.2 kt of TNT
Fatman was 20 kilotons of TNT.
The biggest nuke ever detonated was the Tsar Bomba at 50 megatons.
Today US nuke are in the 0.3 to 340 kiloton range for the B61 and 1.2 megatonnes in the B83 bomb.

[NullForceOmega]

Which are Tactical weapons and do not include Strategic level ICBM delivered city killers or heavy area denial weapons.  You cannot compare a bomber-delivered weapon to an ICBM delivered weapon.

[SquatchHammer]

Interesting link....

The Titan I could hold a W38 or W49 warhead with explosive power of 3.75 megatons