Factions there put pressure on peoples ability to farm yes but did not stop people in the Core Region. Second it still does not explain why there are no trees like there are in Oasis and PL growing all over the DC wasteland. Does not explain why the sky is not blue.

Well the BoS has the technology, the armor, and the weapons to do so. The people of DC... again baseball bats and pistols. Plus if people leave their "settlements", slavers will probably raid them, raiders will pick off the rest. Just a theory. the BoS there is too busy fighting the super mutants to offer protection like guarding them all the way west. Point Lookout might work.

There's no trees because it is to give you the feeling that DC has become a [censored]hole.

Ok so maybe there is no explanation for why there are no trees or the sky is tinted green. DC and Core Region are two completely different places. Since DC has the impression that it was "nuked 20 years ago"... there is your explanation.

I don't know, you've got me there, guessing the environment isn't capable to produce trees.

I believe many would try to make it to a better place. "The Grass is always Greener." All the people with Caravans would try. People put all that work into Rivet City and Megaton cold have spent better finding better place to go.

The Dev of Fallout 3 were trying to say the whole world is like DC so there is no place to go. Oasis was away for the player to feel like they can bring life back to the wasteland but life should have already been there.

I've given up on arguing with them Styles, I'd advise you do the same. Both sides fall back to the same arguements.

Because really there is no way to argue this successfully. We are arguing with each other's preferences and personal taste and thats not really something that can be debated or people's minds changed about.

There is the element of personal taste I agree but canon wise and logic would say things in DC should have been more like the West. I can agree DC is suppressed, that they did not develope as fast as the West but it does not excuse why there are no living trees other then Oasis or the colour of the sky or why people would choose to live in radioactive mud holes surrounded by chaos. The people of DC are not facing anything different then what the people of the Core Region faced but yet something holds them back but they should not be that far held back.

Hopefully FO4 will have signs of progress. Living trees (not contributed to Harold) and farms. A blue sky and a better working economy. As well as areas high in radiation like The Glow and Gecko and Vault 87.

You guys are saying "why don't people just leave," but I don't think you realize how unrealistic that is. It's like saying "Oh that trouble going on in [enter random third world country here] is pretty bad, why don't people just leave?" Where exactly do you want them to leave to? And for that matter, how do you expect them to leave? This isn't like moving out of the slums of a city into a better area. When all you can see for miles around is an irradiated hellhole, and there's no long distance communication to let you know there's someplace better, how exactly do you expect people to pack up everything they own, leave what was likely the place of their birth and venture out into the unknown looking for someplace better?

I'm not saying the settlements in D.C. were realistic. They should have had visible signs of sustaining themselves, but the majority of them didn't. They clearly didn't look like they'd actually survive under realistic conditions. But saying that they shouldn't even realistically exist is just plain wrong. The people who originally founded the cities in D.C. had their reasons for doing so. If they knew of a better place, they would have founded the town somewhere else, but they didn't. The people born in these new cities stayed their because it's all they knew, and it just isn't human nature to wake up one day and say "Wow, where I live svcks, and even though everywhere I'm aware of on earth is a wasteland, I think someplace is better so I'm going to leave everything behind and try to move anyway," and even if a few people did that, most are going to realize that staying within the city they were born in, despite it's faults, is better than venturing out into a wasteland full of things wanting to kill you. Why don't people living in one of the many deserts around the world book a flight to a better place? Why don't the people living in poverty in a third world country just leave? Why don't the people living in the Capital Wasteland venture out into the unknown in search of a better place?

There are a lot of things you can say about the settlements in the Capital Wasteland, but saying "It's unrealistic that they're even there" isn't a valid complaint.

I honestly would rather see the next fallout 5 or 10 years after the war. I really don't want to end up playing the Sims in power armor

I don't want "progress" and "rebuilding" as keywords for Fallout 4. Definitely no. New Vegas is good for a big expansion back, but when it comes to Fallout 4, I want to return to the atmosphere of desolation and world-end that were in Fallout 3.

Then maybe it should be set 20 years after the war instead of 200 so it actually makes sense?

And I want Fallout 1 and 2s rebuilding.

I don't care if people are rebuilding in Fallout 4, all I want is urban warfare like in DC. I'm no CoD crazed fan or anything (I actually stick with CoD 2 and 3) but Bethesda blew my mind away with the DC ruins.The detail the put into that, however small it may have been, was astonishing, that's what I want Fallout 4. This goes to why I think they could make a New York based Fallout game just amazing. There could be a wasteland outside, because that is true of New York, they do have a country-side. Wow, I'm picturing it now...

I think that a good compromise would be to have for example the settlements outside of D.C. starting to rebuild while the center areas of D.C. are still avoided due to it being the last stronghold of the mutants. That way we have the rebuilding like in N.V. and that desolate ruined city that everyone loves.

Why not? I wish Fallout 4 would do that.

I've seen some post-apocalyptic stuff. Mad Max, Hokuto No Ken. But I've never played one. Fallout 3 was my first post-apocalyptic rpg, and I liked it more than I imagined. Now I'd like Fallout 4 to bring back that same feeling, because New Vegas feels completely different.




Nah. Because if we see that a part of the world is still alive and being rebuilt, then there still won't be that melanchonic end-of-world feeling that Fallout 3 had.

I'd say that there could be both, but that would have to constitute a map-node system to really get right.

100% agreement! I love FO1s map-node.

FO2s was even better. You got a car ^_^

yes i agree with that i want more action and crime. the atmosphere was depressing and happy in fallout 3 like all the time. There was more crime and more enimies and you were the one to bring justice or the BOS.

The DC wasteland is not like today. People living in a bad area with alot of problems can't up and move to another country because we have borders. Once they cross those borders they become refugees and are not free to move about the host country. In the wasteland, you live in a bad place like DC you just up and move. Great Khans do it. Question is Why settle in DC in the first place. Some say to scrap everything, well then I would think the people would be better organized, still know how to farm, have a better working economy, talk about places outside DC.

Yes it is a Valid complaint to say "its unrealistic that they're even there." Every Fallout but FO3 has had a good record of explaining why settlements are there, how they feed themselves. How they trade, how get along with other people. FO3 was heres a settlement have fun. People living in Megaton would have died long ago, no one is afraid for the Bomb or the Mr.Burke asking every new person to blow it up. People eating radioactive pre-war food for 200 years is just stupid. People back west figured out how to farm by the time of FO1.

Even if some how the people are just that stupid they can't figure out how to farm crops after 200 years (yet some can do facial surgery) it does not explain why there are no trees and other plants all over the wasteland other then Oasis and Point Lookout or why the sky is not blue.

There was only one Super Mutant dressed as a woman, and that's because she was a woman before being dipped.

Two actually. Lily and best-friend Tabitha. Both women before they were dipped. Both insane due to stealth-boy use.

I think people have a POV of their own cultural biases, and project that onto the people of the wastelands. For me, I pretty early on concluded that the Lone Wanderer was unique in many ways from the others he met in the Capital Wastelands - for one thing he had an education. He could read and write. Most of the people outside the settlements probably could not read and write, and would have to settle for myths about the other places that haven't been directly observed.

If I wanted to make a game of the Irish potato famine, I wouldn't make a game about the irish in New York City and what they knew. I would make a game about the Irish in Ireland and what they knew. The myth of America would probably be larger than life, filled with dreams and hopes and unrealistic aspirations. The poor farmers dying in Ireland would have a myth construct about that place that spread by word of mouth, and which grew in the telling for very human reasons. The tellers would make themselves more important, more in-the-know, and so on.

The same is probably true about the wastelanders in DC, and the myth-construct about other places are probably negative. Instead of "Go beyond the horizon, because the streets are made of gold and honey", it would be "Don't go there! The super mutants are huuuge, and they eat children!".

People have probably left DC. Lots of people have probably left DC. But in a world without communication and education, we can't know anything about them. We only have to deal with the ones that remain. The ones that remain are the ones that huddle in basemants, hiding from raiders and super mutants and whatever that's out to kill or rob or enslave them. Maybe more bombs fell on the DC area, which made the short term poisoning of the soil last longer. Maybe, instead of a halving-time of 60 years the DC area needed 120 years. Or something. It's not stated, so we can't know, and we can only speculate.

There are hints that the chaos has been going on for a long, long time. Dialogue between Sentinel Lyons and LW seem to indicate this, as when BoS came to the DC area it was totally overrun by super-mutants, and that was years ago. It's taken this long just to carve out a few safe havens for the BoS in the DC area: the Citadel, the GNR-building. Even now, the GNR is under constant attack.

But all of what I've said is just theory-crafting, because that's all we have. Much isn't stated in the games due to various constraints. But the theory-crafting I presented here is as valid as the theory-crafting that tend to knock FO3. Both are valid, and invalid at the same time. Both want to make the POV the true and real one at the exclusion of the other. It becomes silly in the end. It becomes worthless mind-games.

The truth is - both FO3 and FONV are great games that appeal to slightly different demographics and play-styles, and arguments against any of the games becomes an argument to invalidate the play-style and the preference rather than an argument against the particular game.

All makes sense to me.

They're both women still. West F.E.V. just sterilizes.