Print

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

[puke]

Oh, hey, how about the Metro games?  I understand they have a little bit of giant radioactive monster silliness, but are mostly grimdark struggle to survive and avoid radiation kinds of games.

I have the first one in my steam library, maybe should install it sometime.

The after effects of a nuclear war might actually be pretty green and lush, if you are just looking at the landscape a generation down the road.  On the other hand, if we are knocked back to a less advanced age of technology, it's not like we would have clean power options.  I imagine as civilization ramps back up we would see massive deforestation to fuel the engines of industry and war.

On the "nuclear winter" side of things though, here are a couple oldies but goodies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour-Geddon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transarctica

Does the original Wasteland make the grade, or is there too much comedy in there?  How about Roadwar 2000 and Roadwar Europa?

[thegoatgod_pan]

Actually most locations directly struck by a nuclear weapon will become impressive grass-and-woods covered craters in very short order, plants have incredible radiation resistance.  The largest logical fallacy of 'post apocalyptic' depictions is the blasted wasteland.  That's just not how nature responds to major events, take a look at volcanoes, wildfires, and any other landscape-changing event.  The addition of radiation to the mix is almost meaningless to nature, it simply adapts, and rather impressively cleans fallout in very short order (especially water systems, the only real contamination threat to a water system is ground water, the rest just gets buried in the sediment on the bottom of the ocean).  You just aren't going to find a 'realistic' nuclear war game, because the reality is completely divorced from popular media.

I suppose when I said "barren" I meant "barren in interesting things", I assumed there'd be flora, just I am not sure if living flora makes for a game, necessarily

[Sergarr]

Oh, hey, how about the Metro games?  I understand they have a little bit of giant radioactive monster silliness, but are mostly grimdark struggle to survive and avoid radiation kinds of games.

The Metro games are all bullshit because the most of Metro in Moscow is under the ground water level and there are pumps working constantly to avoid it getting flooded.

[Glloyd]

Actually most locations directly struck by a nuclear weapon will become impressive grass-and-woods covered craters in very short order, plants have incredible radiation resistance.  The largest logical fallacy of 'post apocalyptic' depictions is the blasted wasteland.  That's just not how nature responds to major events, take a look at volcanoes, wildfires, and any other landscape-changing event.  The addition of radiation to the mix is almost meaningless to nature, it simply adapts, and rather impressively cleans fallout in very short order (especially water systems, the only real contamination threat to a water system is ground water, the rest just gets buried in the sediment on the bottom of the ocean).  You just aren't going to find a 'realistic' nuclear war game, because the reality is completely divorced from popular media.

Well, not necessarily. Yes, not all plants on earth would die, but trees that receive a high dose of radiation will die. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Forest

However, this is not an impediment to new trees growing. As the article notes, biodiversity has actually increased in the area of the "Red Forest", even though some of the plants are stunted and the animals have had some minor issues as well.

Oh, hey, how about the Metro games?  I understand they have a little bit of giant radioactive monster silliness, but are mostly grimdark struggle to survive and avoid radiation kinds of games.

The Metro games are all bullshit because the most of Metro in Moscow is under the ground water level and there are pumps working constantly to avoid it getting flooded.

I think it's handwaved as the pumps are still working, except in the parts of the Metro where they've broken down and they've flooded. If you've read the books, it makes a lot more sense because Metro 2034 actually ends with one of the stations flooding. It's just not really mentioned in the games. If you get a chance, read the books, they're way better than the games.

Also, the monsters make more sense in the books. They're more... Ephemeral? More shadows in the dark, and bloated rumours than actual giant irradiated beasts. Again, the games are worse in this regard, but it makes sense why. I can count the numbers of times Artyom fires his gun in the book on the fingers of my hands. Half of those are him just shooting into the darkness in panic. The games are a totally different story, for the necessity of making it an FPS.

[Parsely]

DEFCON

[Aseaheru]

Ah, not nuclear wars result in rubble...

And, although you are asking for games, I  am gonna suggest a book:
War Day

[Eclectic Wizard]

Ah, not nuclear wars result in rubble...

And, although you are asking for games, I  am gonna suggest a book:
War Day

I can't really concentrate reading a book, but I will try seeing if I can find it on the library.

I have thought of making a realism mod for cataclysm, removing the zombies and making radiation much more dangerous than beneficial, etc. But I didnt do it because it would reuire me to fix and make NPCs more realistic.

I have also been working on an online multiplayer clone of Boomtown, but I got distracted and forgot all about it.

[varsovie]

Actually most locations directly struck by a nuclear weapon will become impressive grass-and-woods covered craters in very short order, plants have incredible radiation resistance.  The largest logical fallacy of 'post apocalyptic' depictions is the blasted wasteland.  That's just not how nature responds to major events, take a look at volcanoes, wildfires, and any other landscape-changing event.  The addition of radiation to the mix is almost meaningless to nature, it simply adapts, and rather impressively cleans fallout in very short order (especially water systems, the only real contamination threat to a water system is ground water, the rest just gets buried in the sediment on the bottom of the ocean).  You just aren't going to find a 'realistic' nuclear war game, because the reality is completely divorced from popular media.

I suppose when I said "barren" I meant "barren in interesting things", I assumed there'd be flora, just I am not sure if living flora makes for a game, necessarily

Considereing fungi are about the only thing that not only survived, but prospered inside Chernobyl, a senario like "The last of us" could happen.
The fact is we don't really know what would happen, and the outcome may depend of the scale of the nuclear war as well of the location of it.

[Sartain]

Wouldn't a "realistic" post-nuclear-war simulation simply be any standard game, with lots of added finger-pointing and saber-rattling in the UN?

[a1s]

Wouldn't a "realistic" post-nuclear-war simulation simply be any standard game, with lots of added finger-pointing and saber-rattling in the UN?

Nuclear weapons are generally the last resort (at least among the Old Guard- Russia, China and "The West". It remains to be seen if the new members of the nuclear club (like Iran) would be as circumspect, though I believe they will). By the time they are used, saber rattling will have become a distant memory. Also note that finger pointing, though vigorous, will be brief, since the losing side of a nuclear war is likely to be tried for war crimes en masse. That could very well be both of them, by the way.

[BigD145]

Wouldn't a "realistic" post-nuclear-war simulation simply be any standard game, with lots of added finger-pointing and saber-rattling in the UN?

Nuclear weapons are generally the last resort (at least among the Old Guard- Russia, China and "The West". It remains to be seen if the new members of the nuclear club (like Iran) would be as circumspect, though I believe they will). By the time they are used, saber rattling will have become a distant memory. Also note that finger pointing, though vigorous, will be brief, since the losing side of a nuclear war is likely to be tried for war crimes en masse. That could very well be both of them, by the way.

Not likely. In the past the trials for war crimes absolve a side from certain acts if both side involved did them. If both sides drop hydrogen bombs on civilian cities then nobody is tried for dropping hydrogen bombs on civilian cities.

[Neonivek]

Wouldn't a "realistic" post-nuclear-war simulation simply be any standard game, with lots of added finger-pointing and saber-rattling in the UN?

Nuclear weapons are generally the last resort (at least among the Old Guard- Russia, China and "The West". It remains to be seen if the new members of the nuclear club (like Iran) would be as circumspect, though I believe they will). By the time they are used, saber rattling will have become a distant memory. Also note that finger pointing, though vigorous, will be brief, since the losing side of a nuclear war is likely to be tried for war crimes en masse. That could very well be both of them, by the way.

Not likely. In the past the trials for war crimes absolve a side from certain acts if both side involved did them. If both sides drop hydrogen bombs on civilian cities then nobody is tried for dropping hydrogen bombs on civilian cities.

Plus the existence of nukes is such a great dissuader of nuclear war that it actually does have the effect of causing peace...

[Sartain]

Wouldn't a "realistic" post-nuclear-war simulation simply be any standard game, with lots of added finger-pointing and saber-rattling in the UN?

Nuclear weapons are generally the last resort (at least among the Old Guard- Russia, China and "The West". It remains to be seen if the new members of the nuclear club (like Iran) would be as circumspect, though I believe they will). By the time they are used, saber rattling will have become a distant memory. Also note that finger pointing, though vigorous, will be brief, since the losing side of a nuclear war is likely to be tried for war crimes en masse. That could very well be both of them, by the way.

Not likely. In the past the trials for war crimes absolve a side from certain acts if both side involved did them. If both sides drop hydrogen bombs on civilian cities then nobody is tried for dropping hydrogen bombs on civilian cities.

Plus the existence of nukes is such a great dissuader of nuclear war that it actually does have the effect of causing peace...

Because as we all know, the world has known peace ever since we invented nukes

[TripJack]

compared to what came before, yes it absolutely has

[Sartain]

compared to what came before, yes it absolutely has

I wouldn't know how to prove or disprove that, I just meant it as a snarky comment since humans are still obviously waging war on each other