D.C. was'nt hit by 77 nukes.

That was (almost) Vegas.

ok i was sorta guessing but vegas wasnt hit by even almost 77. less when 10(which i found ridiculous). And

I never really played the original Fallouts, really because I didn't have the patience to. Waiting to see if I killed a rat with 50% strike and not hitting him kinda pissed me off. I'm not saying they were bad games, and I really want to give them a chance again, but they weren't games I couldn't get into. And if the SPECIAL system used to be like you described then it svcks about how they made it in FO3, I guess :shrug:

Uh... Yeah... Have you played Fallout 1 yet?
Cause Los Angeles is blown to Narnia and back.
If DC was such a high priority target it should look worse than Los Angeles.
So basically, the old games got it right, and Fallout 3 went with the "It's just a game" explanation?
Got yet another reason to trash on Fallout 3 then. :rolleyes:

I agree with most everything the tantrum has said on this thread so far

Indeed...The LA boneyard was practically leveled to the ground. Yet look at what life did there. Also House was a technical genius that ran Robco the foremost robotics and computer corporation in the world at that time. So your saying it wasn't in his power to build a laser canon defense system and hack some targeting computers?

Question for me or meant for someone else?

From rough

Would you like to pLay fallout 3 with nearly no DC? With nothing but nearly a plain desert?

Yup.
If it was bombed to hell then it was bombed to hell.
What kind of nuclear bombs did they use on DC?
Fire-crackers?

Maybe DC was constructed with better stuff, I mean you know, its the Capital of the United States, its need to be defended at all cost o.O

No... They just wanted to have all (or most) of the familiar landmarks... which makes all of the rubble piled around the edges of DC ridicules and unexplainable.

Maybe the talking raccoons from Fallout 1 constructed them to keep people out but were eaten by the super mutants?

I get that same feeling. It felt a lot like they were just testing the waters (reusing factions, very few quests, lots of exploration [something they were very good at from TES series]).

I would be extremely pleased if Bethesda takes a page from Obsidian in writing, creativity, and depth (reputation, hardcoe, ammo types, mods, etc) of game-play. Bethesda can, hopefully, perform better when it comes to execution and not release a buggy mess that was FO:NV.

Oh the irony.

Bethesda pushed New Vegas out the door too soon and Bethesda handled the Quality Assurance.

77 nukes were launched at New Vegas, 21 I believe hit the city because the others were shot down by House.

7-which also tunred everything into a pile of ruble, 21-were blasted in the sky by lucky 38 laser, 49-were disarmed and thats a bt far fetched.Why waste 77 nukes on a place which has any significant targets. My guess is that Dc was hit not by 77 but maybe lik 45 or something. Wate resources.

Hope they make more quests in F4.

First off, lemme congratulate you for being the very rare and elusive self-aware fan who happens to be a boy(that is a workaround!). This is anything other than an insult- you called yourself a Fallout elitist. This actually makes your opinions more valid in my eyes because you aren't operating under some sort of false perception that you are entirely fair. With that in mind, I hope to address several of your points in this post:

1- Earlier, you said that NV is 400% more of a Fallout game than FO3, but only 15% of what the sequel should have been. You also, being aware, said that it was ten years of hype and reading/re-reading the Van Buren design documents that created the benchmark. Well, the issue is that the game design document for any given game is always insanely better than the final product. Even if Van Buren were made, it would probably only be half of what you expect.

2- I generally agree with you on some other points. I love Bethesda and the RPG system they have *does* work- but for a Fallout game, it was not how it needed to be. Was it bad? No. You yourself have called the game good/amazing. But it was obvious that it was being worked on by new people, not the ones who had been in charge of the license from the start.

3- It is very likely that DC had some sort of missile defense, considering it was a vital cornerstone in the nation's lifeline. The sheer volume of targets likely overwhelmed the system, but the lack of such a defense in LA is likely what lead to total destruction in one city and not so much(by comparison) in another.

But DC was supposed to be the one that got hit the hardest. Which makes no sense after seeing how lower priority targets on the West Coast got leveled to the ground.

But do we know it was hit the hardest? Judging by how blasted to hell LA was compared to DC, whether we want to admit it or not, it doesn't appear to be the case. In the FO universe, DC is not as totaled as LA. It was also targeted by more missiles. In the absence of a good reason for it, invent one- we'll never know, but where gaps exist and will never be explained, I believe it is kosher to suggest reasons for how FO universe sites exist.

1. True, but it isn't just about the design documents, Fallout was never about sandbox exploration, annoying radios, dumbed down RPG mechanics, FPP format or "not" having a map node system for me. A lot of other variables reached my conclusion that New Vegas is more like a glorified demo of what a real sequel should be like.
But yeah I know, concept art for example always look... Just... It just looks so [censored] awesome! Then the game comes out and one's like "meh" about it.
Still, even if Van Buren wasn't an exact replica of it's design documents it would have been a Fallout game and not an Oblivion game disguised as Fallout. (I know it's harsh but New Vegas, while improved heavily, is still in core Oblivion.)

3. That could work, except, I find no evidence that they had such a anti-nuke security system.
One can always speculate on what happened and give several great, believable and functioning reasons for it as well.
But Fallout 3 was Bethesda's first go at it, in Fallout 4 on the other hand, they will have no excuses, they should know Fallout by then.

Oh and I'm not a boy.

[edit]

I got it!
Since there was an oil crisis cause of the resource wars, most of china's missiles ran out of fuel before they reached DC! (While a joke this could actually work.)

1- Agreed on all points. I was just pointing out that ten years of insanely high expectations and deep love of the game design documents set you, and anyone else who expected that, up for failure regardless. The cliff ended up being steeper than it should have been, but it would have been a quite a fall regardless.

As for the missile defenses, it is all justification. Now, in the FO universe, DC(which was a more important target and would have been the target of more warheads) is not as destroyed as LA. We must understand why. I say we combine the two- Chinese missiles tended to miss their targets due to lack of fuel and DC's anti-missile defenses took out some more.

Las Vegas is/was more populated than D.C., if I remember.

D.C. was hit by 20 something.

1. True.

2. Too bad that speculation is only fanon though.
I for example try my best to defend Legion but because the game is so heavily biased towards the NCR and not giving us proper lore about Legion it's hard to defend them without going into speculation which is neither true nor false.
Only written in stone facts are allowed as canon.
Anything else, while logical, is dismissed.