There is absolutely no feeling of Post Apocalytpic Wastand in FNV as there was in Fallout 3. Fallout 3 had a great effect of it, but FNV absolutely had no feeling, felt like I was walking in a [censored] 1800s movie rather than Wasteland, even rage was more than a Wasteland. Such feelings are unacceptable!

Um New Vegas is just following what FO2 and to a lesser extent FO1 had where was building civilization, really could say its in stages,
FO1 focuses on a citys own problems and survial
Fo2 focuses on citys expanding, trying to offer trade, treaties and undercutting others what arnt so diplomatic (NCR and vault city) and in doing so forging nations
NV focuses on Nations with diffrent goals and philosophies fighting

and loads of little things inbetween.
FO3 is really the odd oen out on this, could say its going back to the more FO1 way of things but even then FO1 was more civilized

I agree on some levels, but I think that ultimately NV was a wasteland just like its predecessors. Since it wasn't fully hit by any nuclear weapons, New Vegas wasn't as destroyed as the Capital Wasteland. However, there were still vaults, futuristic weapons, abandoned factories, and a retro-futuristic si-fi quality that made it very much a true fallout game.

Fallout: New Vegas did a good job with the Midwest setting, but I prefer Fallout 3's setting. The desolate feeling was amazing, and made exploration so much fun. I still believe that New Vegas is the best game, just due to the other elements, such as writing.

Even though I back him in almost every playthru, u can blame mr. house for it not being like all wastelandy like fo3 was. Im one of the few dinosaurs that actually believe that fo3 is canon, on the purpose that just BC the westcoast wasnt as bad and got civilized quicker than the nations capital where I would expect it to hit the hardest still be a wasteland. Even the zettlements havent really been there for more than forty years talking bout megoton, the tower, and even rivet were all populated in apocolypic time terms, its still in infancy stages.


Alll except that city of lil kids, that they shouldnt have done. Really what was they thinking? But thatz really the only beef I have with fo3. The game oozed atmosphere and looked as well as felt a dangerous end of the world place. Fonv excelled in story but really only a dlc or two oozed atmosphere, but it was hands down I believe their best dlc. Im looking at you dead money, u gorgous thing you.

Then you obviously haven't played Dead Money or Lonesome Road and spewing nonsense on the New Vegas forums gets your point across in no way.

Honestly, I prefer New Vegas to Fallout 3 in terms of post apocalyptic feeling. Both were definitely wastelands, and they felt like wastelands. But Fallout 3 wasn't desolate, it was just empty and monotonous. Really, if someone just put up random screenshots from random places in the wasteland that didn't include major locations in them, you wouldn't know where they were. Where in NV there are multiple lakes mountain ranges, dry lakes, a river, cities. FO3 exploration got super boring after a while. In DC? Super Mutants and ghouls only, use the repetitive, boring metro system to get around. In the Capitol Wasteland? Only raiders, everything looks the same. In Vegas you have Securitrons, NCR, the Kings, Followers of the Apocalypse, Freeside Thugs, Fiends, and on and on and on. In the Mojave Wasteland there is a huge variance of factions, that vary across the map. Just because it's sunny and there is actually some infrastructure left doesn't mean it isn't post apocalyptic.

You might prefer Fallout 3's atmosphere over New Vegas's, but New Vegas isn't supposed to feel post-apocalyptic. The two games have very different
tones. New Vegas is supposed to be post-post-apocalyptic: the rebuilding of society and civilization.

This. I loved NV precisely for that reason. These days the post-apocalyptic genre is so saturated, I really enjoyed how Fallout is carving out a niche in the 'post-post-apocalyptic' sug-genre for themselves.

New Vegas' tone is supposed to be more on the rebuilding of society and the different ideologies that rose from the dusts of the post-apocalyptic deserts rather than, "Hey look, nukes! They blew up EVERYTHING."

But if you want to see post-apocalyptic, go play Dead Money or Lonesome Road. The Mojave Desert would look like a wasteland whether or not it's nuked anyways. Many of the buildings weren't high value targets, Mr. House deflected most of the nukes that were headed to the Mojave, and overall, considering only seven nukes hit the Mojave area, they probably hit low value targets. Targets that wouldn't have looked spectacular either way.

Besides, the Vaults are way more interesting. It's not all the same like in Fallout 3. Vault 22 has an overgrown germination problem, Vault 19 has the Powder Gangers, etc. It's not clear cut. Heck, there's even a Vault that had an incredibly sad history of only five people surviving and all committing suicide.

Summary of the OP: I don't think the environment is post apocalyptic enough = this game svcks.

It's over 200 years since the Great War, so of course civilization is going to start building up again. Since civilization coming means that the wasteland is going to be a little bit less of a "wasteland," the environment in Fallout: New Vegas makes perfect sense. This is contrary to Fallout 3, where, after 200 years, no one decided to make any progress at building a new civilization, so the world remains stagnant, and ridiculous imo.

Also, try to appreciate New Vegas for the writing, story line, quests, dialogue, and vastly expanded weapons, ammunition, and crafting system (aka New Vegas' strengths). Fallout 3's strength was a post-apocalyptic feeling environment, so if you want that, then play Fallout 3 again.

House stopped a lot of nukes from hitting the area so maybe that's why it doesn't feel like a post nuclear apocalypse. However, it still has a post apocalypse setting just a different one than the one we are used to.

As others have pointed out Fallout 3 is the odd game out in the Fallout Universe. There is no development at all in the 200 years since the Great war. There isn't even living trees and plants outside of Oasis and later Point Lookout. There is no agriculture at all. Some people farming a few brahmin but that is about it when it comes to farming. Pretty much people have been living in a radioactive hole in the ground doing nothing for 200 years.

While other places like the West have been developing. Fallout only takes place 84 years after the Great War. Every city completely destroyed or completely gutted by fire and long since looted of anything of value, yet people managed to build new. There are trees and plants as well as agriculture. A working economic system, city states with diplomatic relations.

Fallout 2 expands on that and New Vegas expands on that more.

Also as Razalas pointed out Mr.House managed to stop many of the nukes headed for the Mojave, and yet the wasteland looks more realistic than the DC wasteland. DC is the capital of the United States yet it looks in very good shape. It should have been completely obliterated. Nothing more than dust, but yet it looks like it only needs a new coat of paint.

Fallout 3 is inconsitant with the Fallout Universe and with reality. Bethesda even admited they didn't care about any of that because "playing in a destroyed city wouldn't be any fun." Funny since a post-apocalyptic setting would have alot of destroyed cities, just like Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout Tactics and New Vegas.

I loved FNV, the guns, mods, and the fact that you could pick different story lines which would have a dramatic effect on the play through, I'm not saying I hated it. I'm saying the post-apocalyptic feeling wasn't there like it was in FO3, I like FNV far more better than FO3.

It's been over 200 years since the nuclear war, it can only be post apocalyptic for so long, now its post post apocalyptic, that's one of the many things Fallout 3 got really wrong, trying to make the world really really post apocalyptic while still keeping most things intact, it just makes no damn sense.

New Vegas' world is superior IMO.

Well, since you mentioned FNV and not the DLC's or add-ons, I have to agree with the feeling of it not being post apocalyptic. I think the small map size had someting to do with that as well. Seemed like you could just about see the next closest town from whichever town you happened to be in at the time. Sort of gave it a feel of opening the front door in one town and making a quick dash to the next town. As far as it being "unacceptable", well FNV and FO3 are two different games so I dont think I'd go that far. This game did seem to focus more on what people would be able to accomplish after the war and less on just purely trying to survive.

One thing I do find amusing about these threads though. People are perfectly content with super mutants, ghouls, death claws, and other mutated creatures, yet complain about how unrealistic it is that civilization hasn't rebuilt it's self in 200 years.

I guess I misinterpreted your opening post then Sorry about that.

What about Lonesome Road though? That had a real post apocalyptic feel to it, especially in some places.

Fallout 3 is clearly intended to follow in Fallout 1's footsteps, not Fallout 2's. Whereas Fallout 2 and NV focus on post-apocalyptic life and culture 1 and 3 are more "how we got here" games and large amounts of game go poking around the past and people trying to learn lessons from it.

Mostly because it's a state of Post-Post-Apoc in the West. As you can see by NV and before in FO 2 NCRs grown and been able to lay down new infratstructure and semblence of both normal civilian and political life.

With 3 a different studio than the ones who made NV whose parent company now owns Fallout, Bethesda Game Studios, placed D.C. as a hellhole as understandably it was bombarded the hardest(1 also had that feeling of bleakness but 3 topped it).

Difference is FO1,2, and New Vegas explains all these details and how everything comes about. Nothing in 3, from food source to how so much still stands in the face of the war, is explained.

It's not new, BGS likes to use vagueness as a strength, "let the player make their own theories."

But in reality it shifts work off from them.

If you'd like a feeling like 3 play the original Fallout or 3.

Plus NV is set in the west aiding to more of that "Rangers" feeling set by "Wasteland" or westerns(Releasing in the same year as Red Dead Redemption)

If you dislike progress, sorry. But Fallout doesn't do Apocalypse for the seek of thrills. It's not survival horror. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is. Fallout does have dark humor but combines it with other themes, including survival.

That as well. Great, short, way to put it.

And again the explanations for even the Mojave region is there. It'd be even worse and most likely The Glow-like environments(Well, not really) if one of the regions power players, House, didn't directly manage to hold off a fair number of warheads from Vegas with a couple hitting the Mojave area itself.

3 and New Vegas explore very different themes and are in very different situations.

If the Mojave in the future is a hellhole itself or a rebuilding of humanity is based in your actions(And later on when a new games made, what's canon...Beth or Obsidian chooses)

Exactly, OP should relize this and not compare it to Fallout 3.

If they did they still failed miserably. Fallout is only 84 years after the Great War. The damage done in the West is worse than in DC, yet people managed to rebuild new settlements. People formed a working economy, large caravan companies, not just some guy with a brahmin selling junk. The people had agriculture and there are living trees and plants. The radiation is all but gone, but for places like the Glow.

You are missing the point here. I am not discussing the factual accuracy of either (in part because we don't know what happens after a nuclear war; in theory either Coast is a viable presentation), but these are games and games are developed with a certain topic in mind. Fallout 3 was intended to be a spiritual successor to Fallout 1 and that's all I'm saying. I know you love to bash the game but I'm not discussing the stuff that's inside them, rather the reason they're made.

Making assumptions about mutation is one thing, but it gets a bit ridiculous when showing inconsistencies in a several megaton nuclear blast.

i love the different factions. wish they woulkd have done that in FO3. being completely neutral in FNV is almost impossible. but i agree FO3 seems more 'Post Apocalyptic', FNV feels like you went back in time.