Agreed. Important for all the FO games after FO2, IMO.

And me

I wasn't going to bother watching any of that, but since you mentioned it, I went ahead and tried, and failed. I watched some summary instead.. Maybe I'll try again later. The fact that Fallout 76 has the option to nuke and loot (presumably immediately) nearby territory is insane. Sure, Fallout is fiction, but one thing the first game did pretty well was to impress upon players the fact that atomic weapons are not fun and games. Of course then they cancel that realism by giving us radaway and rad-x, I guess.

From the Vault Dweller's Survival Guide, presumably read by all of the Bethesda Fallout team: And that's not even taking radioactive fallout (which the game was named after) into consideration.

For comparison, Fat Man and Little Boy were 21 kT and 15 kT, respectively, and they are low-powered compared to their successors, especially those mounted on missiles. What sane person would set off such a bomb right next door? What kind of idiot nukes his own country? Only someone completely ignorant of The Bomb would add that to a game (along with crap like exploding cars and short-range micro-nukes).

Edit: In the mean time, I've watched Todd's Fallout 76 presentation. I guess this feature is what you were talking about. Again, kids, nuclear weapons are not toys. Only an insane psychopath would, after just surviving a nuclear war, lob missiles at sites that are within walking distance, even if the radiation can be mitigated.

Well, clean, unsalted nukes don't tend to leave bad radiation in the real world as long as they don't burst close enough to ground to pull up debris that will easily become radioactive. I don't recall the lore (and, for that matter, neither does Bethesda) well enough to know how clean the Fallout universe nukes were but for little kiloton stuff, it's not entirely crazy to imagine shoot and loot.

I do dislike the wording in the nuke guide, though, even though it's not technically wrong. Since it's almost impossible to meaningfully shape a nuclear chain reaction, the energy is given off in almost a sphere, so the lethal range really increases with the cube root of the yield. So a 100kT warhead puts out similar destructive force a little less than five times as far away as a 1kT yield.

Incidentally, the Fat Man Fallout weapon is actually based on a real weapon. The US Army prototyped a crew-fired mini nuke launcher, because 'Murica. With a range of one or two miles, you were throwing a nuke to a barely-safe distance. ( source )

Anyway, since the 90s the go-to to learn cool stuff about nuclear weaponry has been Carey Sublette's High Energy Weapons FAQ, which apparently is currently updated and hosted at http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/

These are silo-based missile-launched nukes. I generally expect them to be H-bombs, or just a little more powerful than average. Not something you want to toss around in your own back yard. In general, you don't want to set off nukes in your own back yard if there are alternatives. Granted, the dangers of radiation are not that great, given the presence of radaway and rad-x, but I doubt the loot is in pristine shape after being nuked, regardless.

With a yield similar to a ww2 conventional blockbuster bomb, I wouldn't want to fire that at an enemy at close range. Thus my comment about "close-range micro-nukes".

Also, I know there are better references than the Fallout 1 users' manual, but I quoted that specifically because Bethesda should have at least read that, if nothing else (and really, I doubt they even read that).

edit: fixed a few typos. Also, thanks for the link, OneFiercePuppy, although I think the "sister" Trinity site is more entertaining.

Oh, I agree with you, mostly. I was just filling in blanks, and saying that if we're going to suspend disbelief enough to play Fallout, it's not entirely unreasonable to suspend disbelief about the effects of a smaller nuclear explosion. I don't understand why, now that we have the GBU-43 "MOAB" as a reference point, Bethesda didn't sort of shy away from using bigger nukes and just go with conventional bombs like that or fuel-air thermobarics. They're big enough to make mushroom clouds.

Yeah, I think "don't set off nukes in your own back yard" is sort of unassailably true =)

If they don't want to cater for offline users then that's lost money to them which I think is bad business on their part.Same as Elder scrolls,never touched it or any other online game,this is the only online game I play.

TES Online has become a huge success, and I doubt Blizzard regrets turning Warcraft into an MMO. There's games made for people who aren't us and that's okay.

Sure,it's okay by me.Still,if you want to make money then you go to and use all avenues,possible.Greed is good when it ends up in the sky rocket.

Last numbers I saw suggested Blizzard had made the better part of ten billion from the game and its expansions, I think I recall. Yeah, hard to find a regret in a pile of money that big, I would imagine.

Be happy to find out, empirically. For science?

quote from Todd Howard, "Starfield will be a single player expierence, fallout 76 will not...."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4017&v=Nmt50MAH0OM

Quote by Jeff Gardner from the making of Fallout 76 documentary:
"Super Mutants are attacking, you know, Aunt Mabel's farm. So you'll go over to protect it from super mutants, and you don't know like, will 10 other Yaoguai come running in at the same time because someone trained them in from across the mountain?"

This is their idea of fucking emergent gameplay? Great for a twitch viewing audience maybe, it's not great if you're that person just trying to do their thing.

Seems I was right about nukes being a means to create high level zones with better rewards. Stuff to keep you busy at endgame basically. Still not clear what's supposed to happen if you nuke another player rather than the intended targets.

Where can the quote be found? You're link doesn't point to the correct point in the 1:45:35 long video. Could you point to or create a link to where he says so?

1:17:58 he says it
couldn't get the exact link for that exact line so I just put the time stamp.

Thanks for the insight. That seals it as far as I'm concerned for Fallout 76. The road ends with 4.

On the other hand, I see the following thought popping up voiced by various people in the comments of the YouTube video:

They're saying Fallout 76 is a spin-off and predict there will be a Fallout 5 more in the lines of 3, New Vegas & 4.

We'll just wait and see. The rate that I finish games by the time the next-from next Fallout (singleplayer Fallout 5?) I still won't have finished 1, Tactics, 2 (the isometric trilogy) nor New Vegas and 4 (completing the singleplayer 3D trilogy that I've only yet finished Fallout 3 off).

From a personal perspective, what saddens me more, is I didn't wait with buying Fallout 4 for 24,99 and it's Season Pass for 24,99 until the next Fallout (76) is released and causes the price of FO4 to drop (a price fallout, if you permit me a bad pun).