Quote: Original post by MSW

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Chernobyl was an accident at a power plant, not a nuclear war. To point to the recovery of Chernobyl -- so far insufficient for the return of human inhabitants -- and make claims that a nuclear war wouldn't be a disaster for the entire planet is seriously misguided.

That is hardly what I ment to say. Nuclear war would absolutely be devistating, no question about it.

Sorry, my fault.

Quote: Original post by MSW
The OP has stated that his story takes place 20 years after a nuclear war killed 70% of the human population and wiped out all resources. And because there are no more resources, the survivors only option is time travel.

I'm simply pointing out that the scenario does not add up.

If all resources were wiped out in the war then there would be nobody left five, let alone twenty years later. If the war was as devistating as the OP claims then there would be no more rainforests to survive twenty years later.

Chernobyl is an example of how areas that recieved massive amounts of radiation fallout can act as a resource twenty years later. Humans cannot live there permanetly now, but they can certainly visit much of the area without excessive radiation protection. Heck for over a decade after the accident reactor number 3 at the power plant was still operational with workers trucked in and out each shift.

I see. It's also worth noting that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't abandoned after their ordeals.

Quote: Original post by MSW
If, as the OP states in his scenario, the rain forests are still around twenty years later. Then there are resources left. Humanity survived for several hundred thousand years, through an ice age no less, just on the resouces naturaly found around them. If the rainforests survived the war, the nuclear winter, the fallout...then its reasonable to assume that some number of human survivors could live off the resources found there.

Yes. However, it depends on how many survivors and what approach to resource exploitation they employ. One scenario is that the numbers of survivors is so great and their needs so massive that they quickly deplete the remaining natural resources. They might be contending with a countdown clock.

Quote: Original post by MSW
Obviously if the war wiped out all resources then how are the underground bunkers built? How is time travel even developed? How do they even have the resources to power the thing?

The bunkers could have been built before the war. They might exploit thermal power, perhaps a geyser or something similar. Don't forget there are several volcanoes in South America.

Quote: Original post by MSW
Of course none of that even dives into the illogical nature of the way the OP is useing time travel. Afterall that is the purpose behind going back, to save this one single timline...which if they could prevent the war in the same single timeline then there would be no reason to go back in the first place.

I think linear time lines in time travel tales are fairly common. They allow for evoking regret and related emotions as well as 'what if' and/or "if only" scenarios.

Quote: Original post by MSW

Quote: Original post by dskhury
one more thing, the objective of time travel is to avoid the nuclear war as a whole on that time line, as if it never happened.

Yes, I understand that. You are describeing a common time travel paradox of a single timeline.

Scenario A: The war occurs, humanity is doomed, timetravel is considered the only option.

Scenario B: The war is avoided, humanity survives, no reason to use timetravel to prevent a war that never happened.

The people the timetraveler leaves behind in scenario A do not suddenly find themselves in scenario B...And scenario B has no history of the war, so they would have no reason to send the player through the time machine...and the fact that the war occured in senario A, means that the timetraveler will NOT prevent it from happening.

Now if scenario A and B were DIFFERENT timelines and the time machine simply allowed the timetravler to cross from scenario A to B... Then the only way to save everyone in Scenario A is to send them ALL through the time machine to live in the scenario B timeline...but that presents a whole bunch of new problems.

The way I was looking at it was that the "time agent" in Timeline A is sent back to make corrections to avoid the war and in succeeding with his mission creates Timeline B. Timeline B splits off from Timeline A. Prior to the point of splitting there was only Timeline A. After the split, the "time agent" is stuck in Timeline B. Does Timeline A continue? That's a thorny question.

time travel is a very tough subject to approach, even tho all we know are nothing more than speculations there are a lot of controversial thoughts about it, at the moment i´m not worried about the cientific effects of it, all i want is to focus on something like Problem --> Time Travel --> Problem solved, there´s really nothing more to it besides what we see in the movies or books, ofcourse i´ll respect the simple speculations we have such as kill your father in the past and then you won´t live in the future, i don´t want to go to deep in that subject because well... there´s really nothing to it, what i want to be attractive is the main plot involving it, and the gameplay i´m thinking this could be applied.