No what im saying is, is dont put horses in so we can ride them or have cavalry charges in the game, as a matter of fact i think that would make the game boring, what i enjoy about fallout is the walking about finding things, and riding a horse isnt that stealthy and honestly there would be so many times in the game were you would be looking for a new horse after the raider ambush just turned it into bloodied slush, same reason why theres no repair skill for vehicles, lots of intact vehicles around but you dont get a repair skill so you can drive around the wastelands. If a ww2 bomber can survive at the bottom of a lake for over 200 years and be made airworthy over the ad break, then im postive i can mcguyver a truck or bike to transport me around the wastelands. What im saying is either state why plainly and clearly why and if they are extinct and the logic behind it, especially since there are cattle, and brahim can pull wagon trains same as a horse can, same reason why in south east asian countries they use oxen to work the fields because there are no horses, but there are no horses because they are not indigenous to the region. In australia they used cattle to haul logs in logging camps, even when horses were available, but they were better for hauling heavy loads.
Horses were introduced by the spanish, and flourished in huge herds in north america when let loose, again its just my arguement that if horses die off after the war alot of the reason why horses would die would be the same reasons why cattle would die, if buffalo were in larger numbers in the US they would probably have a better chance of surviving because they were indigenous animals and could survive cold weather and low fodder, whereas domesticed cattle wouldnt, if the reason why horses didnt survive was because it would make life easier for survivors is a poor premise. And again carnivores would have problems because unless they have a decent supply of meat, they wouldnt survive either and deathclaws being high on the food chain would strip areas either making themselves extinct, or making their populations numbers very low due to lack of a food supply caused by themselves or unless there was a creature that was large enough and reproduced fast enough to keep carnivores alive.
Sorry, are you saying it's a poor premise because it's not realistic or because a sufficient explanation is not given in game? It's not realistic for the culture of the 1950s to exist unchanged for 127 years, but it's part of the setting. It's not realistic for high doses of radiation to turn humans into ageless ghouls, but it's part of the setting. It's not realistic for radiation to turn animals into giant aggressive versions of themselves, but it's part of the setting. It's not realistic for a global thermonuclear war to *not* cause a nuclear winter, but it's part of the setting. It's not realistic for two-headed bovines to survive and replace mono-headed bovines as the dominant domesticated animal, but it's part of the setting. Explain how an animal with two heads would function, realistically. Explain the evolutionary advantage having two heads gives an animal. Or maybe it wasn't natural selection, maybe all the radiation caused all cows everywhere to magically have the exact same genetic mutations.
Should they have to explain in detail the extinction of every species? Should we encounter an NPC who somehow knows and can explain why canaries (if they are extinct) died out while the crow survived? What about rainbow trout? What about pigs? What about raccoons? Skunks? Sloths? Bees? Antelopes? We're talking about a computer game here, not a comprehensive study of the effects of nuclear fallout on various flora and fauna.
I don't really understand how having them in the game but not ride-able is a better premise. Does the PC have some sort of equine phobia? Does the PC simply not know how to ride a horse? If that's the case, why not learn? It would be like having working cars in the game but still forcing the PC to walk everywhere for no explained reason.
How could the reason for not having horses in the game be due to engine limitations when the same engine was used in Oblivion which had ride-able horses? And I will again point out that horses were not in FO1, FO2, or Tactics either.
From Fallout Bible #8:
1)Did horses (in any form) survive the Great War, within the area of California? Arguably, I imagine that if they did, horses would begin to replace cars as the main mode of distance transportation.
Answer: Nope. Some mules did (the poor mule killed by the raiders in F1), but not for long. Besides, I think that mule was a discrepancy.