Logic failures in video games.
- Thread starter blackshark121
- Start date
There are fuel stations present in the wastes. While replacing spent nuclear material is likely a bit more difficult than just dumping flamable liquid into a storage tank in a vehicle, one can assume that if the technology had reached a state where it was a common consumer product the infrastructe existed to support the technology.stinkychops said:
Besides, if we want to take inductive reasoning to its conclusion, you won't find a compelling argument for a nuclear bomb in a car. First, we know that the vehicle is not carrying weapons grade fissile material. Second, we can assume that as a common consumer product, the fuel in the vehicle would have to be insufficient to achieve a super critical state. Third, we know that there is insufficient mass of material required to allow the fuel to naturall become super-critica simply because the dimensions available would not store the required quantity of fuel. There is simply no evidence nor any compelling argument that would indicate you actually would get a nuclear detonation out of the vehicle.
Even more to the point, if you assume for a moment every point I stated was false, you'd have to wonder just why people use nuclear weapons if they have such a pitiful blast radius. A human can stand against the blast at a few dozen yards without injury afterall.
Personally, I'd conjecture that what you see is not, in fact, a nuclear detonation, but rather an explosion of some other component in the vehicle that spreads a quantity of fissile material about as a result. This provides a better explanation in general.
Of course, the real logic problem in play is we know the Great War was fought over petrolium resources (that is, afterall, why China invaded Alaska. Once the reds were defeated there, a counter-invasion of the chinese mainland eventually triggered a full scale nuclear exchange. This is after a number of local exchanges in the middle east after oil ran out there). Since we know that nuclear technology had reached a state such that virtually every vehicle in America had a nuclear reactor powering the whole thing, and fission batteries and the like were commonly available as well, why were we fighting over oil at all? Seems like we might have moved past that particular problem doesn't it?
Why most rpgs involve having the world be saved by some preteen with no military or combat training who starts the game with a wooden sword but eventually has weapons and magic that can destroy armies if not countries. Also how the world/battle field keeps regenerating after certain summon magics make explosions big enough to call hiroshima/nagasaki "fireworks" (E.G. Bahumut in FF games)
That is a fascinating point, I never heard that it was over Petroleum, but I never played the DLC.
I think the main issue with your logic, is the 'mini-nuke' launcher. It demonstrates that they have somehow created a nucleaur substance that can achieve critical mass with a tiny blast radius, and without any apparent Standard explosive charges.[/quote]
Yes, but that doesn't not indicate a failure of reasoning on my part - rather a failure of science on the part of the developer. There are miniture nuclear weapons in the world. Some of the smallest can be fired from a 155mm howitzer. These weapons have a yield in excess of 4kt, which works out to an instant death blast radius of about 1000m and a variable degree of lingering death for another few km beyond that. The mini-nuke is firing a shell not much smaller than any of those so you'd generally expect a yield of at least 1kt.
Again, if you take what the weapon's effect is, it's actually closer to a relatively small standard charge - likely less than 10kg worth. When you consider that a standard hand grenade manages a wound radius of 15m with less than .5kg worth of explosive you rapidly realize just how pitiful the supposed "nuke" is.
I think the main issue with your logic, is the 'mini-nuke' launcher. It demonstrates that they have somehow created a nucleaur substance that can achieve critical mass with a tiny blast radius, and without any apparent Standard explosive charges.[/quote]
Yes, but that doesn't not indicate a failure of reasoning on my part - rather a failure of science on the part of the developer. There are miniture nuclear weapons in the world. Some of the smallest can be fired from a 155mm howitzer. These weapons have a yield in excess of 4kt, which works out to an instant death blast radius of about 1000m and a variable degree of lingering death for another few km beyond that. The mini-nuke is firing a shell not much smaller than any of those so you'd generally expect a yield of at least 1kt.
Again, if you take what the weapon's effect is, it's actually closer to a relatively small standard charge - likely less than 10kg worth. When you consider that a standard hand grenade manages a wound radius of 15m with less than .5kg worth of explosive you rapidly realize just how pitiful the supposed "nuke" is.
Lucien in Fable 2 still being a pushover after apparently draining so much power from those three heroes.
Fallout 3: The one character who's immune to the radiation doesn't go in the radioactive area in the end.
Fallout 3: The one character who's immune to the radiation doesn't go in the radioactive area in the end.
How, for whatever reason, a couple of regular old bullets can kill a supernatural monster most likely from hell.
Also, how the main character in Bioshock can carry around all those weapons and yet easily pull them out at any given time. Does he hide them in his ass?
Also, how the main character in Bioshock can carry around all those weapons and yet easily pull them out at any given time. Does he hide them in his ass?
why, in cut scenes, do characters not do the most logical things?
for example, MGS4, end of act 1, Snake has Liquid in his sights for a good 2 minutes before the nano machines go mental. why didn't he put a bullet in his brain then? (aside from the fact he switched back to the Operator, from my perfectly viable Sniper Rifle.) Again, on the volta (act 3) he had a clear shot with an assault rifle. but didn't take it. why not? (aside from making the game criminally short)
for example, MGS4, end of act 1, Snake has Liquid in his sights for a good 2 minutes before the nano machines go mental. why didn't he put a bullet in his brain then? (aside from the fact he switched back to the Operator, from my perfectly viable Sniper Rifle.) Again, on the volta (act 3) he had a clear shot with an assault rifle. but didn't take it. why not? (aside from making the game criminally short)
Video games, in general, do a terrible job of replicating just how fantastically lethal the modern battlefield is. It doesn't take nuclear weapons to neutralize a square kilometer of space - a single divisional artillery group can do the job inside of 20 seconds. People don't shrug off .50 caliber machine gun (or rifle for that matter) fire - rounds from such a weapon turn people into hamburger in single shots. Hell - MW2 has an excellent example in multiplayer. When one calls in a flight of stealth bombers, they find that the total payload of the plane is sufficient only to kill people in a strip less than a dozen meters wide and less than 100 meters long. In reality, there is enough firepower packed into that plane to reduce any given map in the game to gravel.stinkychops said:
Yeah, but to create a system where everyone says your custom name perfectly without sounding like total shit would be something not even Chuck Norris could do. Well...Ironwampa said:
The fact that you are always the ONLY ONE who could stop them but the ones telling you this are a fully capable army