Well, seeing how I am replaying FO2 right now... there are a lot of blown out ruins in FO2. But, many are in random encounters.

The towns in FO2 don't look blown out, because... they are "new".

But, abandoned vaults, military bases, where people do not live, look blown out.

DC on the other hand, is not rebuilt, and the reasons are obvious. Feral ghouls, super mutants. Mutated creatures. Nobody lives in DC but ghouls.

Who is going to rebuild DC? Hmm lets go into a highly dangerous area and rebuild cuz it has been 200 years! Oh crunk I just got killed.

I would say most people who somehow lived, left the area, never to return.

Also, this assumption that DC going to be obliterated is nonsense. What is the goal of war? Kill as many as your enemy as possible. Hmm, California has 2nd largest city and 1/10th of the entire population. I'm surprised Vegas isn't ocean front property. Learn how to swim.

DC is worthy of a nuke or two. Seeing how the nukes, if fired from China, would hit west first, the idea of surprising politicians is pointless. So, your primary targets become highly populated areas and military bases. New York is a better target than DC.

For a tactical nuke, surprise attack scenario, DC is a prime target. For full fledged nuclear war where the system of govt, chaos, everything will be wiped out regardless, not so much.

Primary targets: LA, NYC, Cali, Texas, Chicago, key military targets and tech/industrial areas.

This is the case, because the West (Mojave, California) as a whole did not suffer as much damage as the East (DC, Pittsburgh), and because of factions such as the NCR and people like Mr. House, the West has developed exponentially faster than the East Coast.

The maps of FO1 and FO2 are gargantuan compared to DC. There are blown out areas/ruins in FO1 and 2 but for the most part, people do not live in those cities. LA was wiped off the earth. Cali as a whole was hit hard. Mojave prolly not as much. DC is one area. Are there people who have rebuilt? For sure. The game just centered around DC, so it takes place in a blown out dangerous place. If FO1 or 2 took place in one spot, that was hit by nukes and scarcely populated, they would have been identical. But to say the west was not hit hard, is inaccurate imo. The games just did not focus on blown up areas, although you do visit some.

I like both settings to be honest.

I play Fallout 3 when I'm looking for a more traditional post-apocalyptic "wasteland" feel and I play New Vegas when I am in the mood for civilization and progress.

In the end it works out nicely in my opinion. If only Fallout 3 was better written....

Fallout 3 is what got me into the series, and i guess its everyones right to say stuff like: fallout 3 svcks, but i think all the games are actually pretty fun (except fallout brotherhood of steel, it kinda svcked). New Vegas is in my opinion far superior, and i may be the only one but the reason i like it is cause of the combat. The combat in fallout NV was awesome, it really felt like a shooter RPG, it was worth it. The combat in like every fallout game svcks more or less in a way.

Fallout 3 did have a more post apocalyptic feel, but its still not the best game.

Yes, but without the DLCs NV feels like it was attacked by an army of Super Mutants, not nukes. FNV has abviously progressed more because there isn't really anything, unlike fallout 3; there were Raider Camps, all NV really had was a few Jackal Gang Members. The Powder Gangers were pretty much [censored]es at level 50. In FO3 DC was filled with Mutants giving humanity a hard way to rebuild. Overall they were both fantastic games.

NV progressed more because of House. If it wasn't for him, there would still be tribes controlling the strip. One of those tribes was a tribe full of cannibals! If it wasn't for House, the whole area would have been hit by nukes and even fewer people would have survived the war.

It would make sense to specifically target highly populated areas over the leadership of a country. If you take out the military and leadership of a country then you have the civilians at your mercy. This isn't to say that China wouldn't have nuked places like LA or San Francisco(which they did), but DC would have been undoubtedly harder hit as Bethesda has confirmed. The President and all of his/her staff(generals, aides, department head...the people who actually run the country) would be in DC.

Besides, the game world of the Capital Wasteland also makes no sense. The area outside of the city looks like it was charred from nuclear missile-caused firestorms less then a decade ago while the city is largely intact. The amount of power needed to cause devastation like that would have melted the very few buildings left standing(in any acceptable definition) into an indiscernible mess. Since it is clearly such a hostile environment full of radiation, super mutants, ghouls, yao guai and deathclaws, how are there any humans left there at all? Bad writing by Bethesda is the only reason why. They've created a world that is too hostile and has too little resources for it to make any sense for any sort of human life to prosper. It being situated next to a major river isn't even a good excuse since it has been completely irradiated for 200 years.

I agree with OP. Just got done with F3 for the hundreth time and went to New Vegas for the 50th time. Number 3 has a better atmosphere IMO. New Vegas is cool in its own way, but I prefer Fallout 3s feeling and atmoshphere more.

Is it just me, or does Fallout 3 have better graphics too???

Also I think sand rather than dirt would make the wasteland seem more...idk, like a wasteland in New Vegas. Even though the Mojave isn't that sandy for real, but dunes and stuff would make it cooler.

You are not fighting a nuclear war to take over or control the enemy people. The war was lost. This was Chinas last attempt and destruction of the USA.

Also, the president and many other leaders were not in DC. They were on the Oil Rig.

China would know, they launch, USA will counter launch. The end. Therefore, you target high populated areas.

IMO, like I said, DC would only be hit by a couple nukes. Which is why it not just a crater. The dangers is why the area is so densely populated, and why little to nothing was rebuilt, like the West. Makes sense to me. If Beth wants to say something dumb like DC was heavily nuked, well that not my problem. Cuz yer right, their version of DC would make no sense if it got hit by 20 nukes, but again, why? Leaders not there, and other targets can give more casualties.

I like how it reinforces the war never changes aspect. As in, we've built, we destroyed everything in the Great War, we rebuilt, and now we have huge wars with each other again. But I really understand what you're saying.

Personally, I loved the style of Fallout 3. The total lawlessness, with the only faction that can provide security, the Brotherhood, doing their best, but struggling. Facing problems in logistics and personnel, but having their forces fighting valiantly for the wastelanders.

The NCR is similiar in New Vegas, but they don't have the feel of being overwhelmed (even though they really are). It would've been cool if Bethesda made doubled the amount of NCR armour available. Have the ones in-game (which are pretty tidy) given to soldiers like those at Mojave Outpost, who are fresh, inexperienced recruits. Then have a uniform that's really destroyed - dirty, ripped, damaged briastplate, most of the paint missing on the plate, etc - given to troops at the front line, like Forlorn Hope.

I tried to actually go find some mods on the Fallout Nexus that changed the NCR armour to more ragtag force, but could only find high-tech super-soldier stuff :/

I completely agree. However, that does not mean I think any less of FNV as a game: it captured the mood of imminent war and threat fantastically. While FO3 captured desolation and destruction better. Both are pretty bleak.

Hey, wiping out the command structure for the entire nation would be a massive blow even if you were trying to kill everybody.

In the real world, Congress had a massive vault underneath a hotel with all the equipment to survive and contact the rest of the nation to coordinate organization and rebuilding if something exactly like this happened.

You take that out and your enemies are screwed even moreso.

When everyone is dead, there is no relief. If Congress or other leaders are "safe" your viable strat is to destroy everything else. So, a couple nukes in DC, to kill who you can and cause problems, but areas like NYC, LA, etc are going to get pounded. Which is why LA is basically gone. I would imagine NYC the same.

The sheer chaos is enough to collapse the government.

This! Exactly my thoughts. I mean I like the Urban environment of FO 3, but the whole time I was thinking, wait, is it 200 years AFTER the Great War or was D.C. JUST nuked? I mean, come on NO progress in 200 years?

New Vegas did an excellent job in combining re-building efforts with ruins, left over from the Great War.

Are people forgetting how FO3 forced you into those horribly boring Subways?

Maybe they didn't destroy it for tactical reasons then, maybe they wanted to wipe it off the map for the LULZ. I'm being serious here. In the Battle of Stalingrad, one of the biggest and bloodiest battles in history, Hitler wanted it for the sole reason that it was named after the Soviet leader. Maybe it was something like that.

I hated the subways too....but how is that relevant to the discussion here?

The entire inferstructure of the U.S. Military was completely fine. Are we really trying to justify the lack of devestation in D.C. as plausible. Pennsylvania Avenue was a ground zero, this is what it http://images.wikia.com/fallout/images/2/21/Pennsylvania_Avenue.jpg; the nuclear bomb didn't even damage that fence at the bottom but turned the White House into crater. There was no attempt at realism with the damage here.

Seriously, one or two nukes for Washington D.C. because it's not very populated.

I like new vegas but fallout 3 will always be my favorite of the 2, i just love downtown DC (maybe because i love the thought of getting lost in a ruined city)

New Vegas has features better than FO3 but FO3 seems more fun to me

It's still post-apocalyptic my all means. FO3 is set in D.C., which was hit hard by the bombs. It gives off that eerie, desolate feeling.

NV is set in Nevada and it wasn't hit hard by the bombs. Plus, the Hoover dam is close by which is responsible for generating electricity.

I have a question that I have been wondering for a while.

Why does everyone site 200 years as being proof they realistically would have rebuilt (I’m of course talking about fallout 3). I agree that some rebuilding would have taken place which it did. But large scale rebuilding relies on allot of factors. Lobar force, morale, and resources. to just name a few. And even then what would prompt them to start the construction of the civilization. Their on ground zero. The place where the capital of the greatest civilization in the world once stood. At least that’s what they would think. The depression of the constant looming reminder of the once great nation would glare at them day after day. And more than likely stories of the US would be passed down in a way that made it seem like the garden of Eden to wastelanders that couldn't find out differently.

I mean look at the fall of Rome. not everyone just jumped up and said oh well lets go make an empire. And the over glorification of Rome lasts to this day. it quite the same but pair all that with the constant danger of mutants and rads. (though I do agree there would be less radiation though not all. some radioactive isotopes have very long half-lives.

No offense, but..

http://www.anglonautes.com/hist_us_20_ww2_hiroshima/hist_us_20_ww2_hiroshima_aerial_buildings_river.jpg

I still see stuff standing. People are a lot more frail than buildings. I'm not saying a building can survive a direct hit, but some buildings are built better than others.

I have brought this up. Most of the large cities, would still appear as rubble.

In FO1 and 2, most communities started fresh. Really, it would not be easy to rebuild. There are no construction vehicles to haul away the tonnage of concrete, etc. So, most cities just be abandoned.

Also in FO1 and 2, in some random encounters, you will occasionally appear on a map that looks like a pre-war town in ruins. People just don't want to live there, and it easier to find just a open, vacant area and build, than to try and clean up and build.

That is irrelevant considering how strong nukes would be in 2077.