The nuke in Megaton is one of the reasons why Fallout 3 screwed up. Also we don't know if that was an enemy nuke, it could have been in a plane knocked out of they sky during a nuclear attack.

China had subs with nuclear missiles, hence the Shi. President Richardson takes about how the "Reds Launched." Fallout intro tells us that the Great War lasted two hours, so bombers dropping WW2 style nukes would be impossible and very stupid. "Fallout 2 talks about spears of nuclear fire raining from the sky." Fallout 3 has ICBMs in it and so does New Vegas' Lonesome Road. As Fallout Tactics has a nuclear warhead. So ICMBs are in the Fallout Universe. The First ICBM was built in the 1950s!

Also China and America were not the only ones fighting in the Great War. Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout 3 clearly state that it was a global nuclear war and the world was destroyed.

Also no I am not one of the guys that believe the pre-war president was Enclave and they ran to the oil rig before the war happened. That isn't canon, because in the same sentence it also says they went around the globe and that didn't happen. Based on Fallout 2, Fallout 3, New Vegas and their Game Guides clearly say that never happened. That part of the Fallout Bible is wrong.

I think... yeah, I would have liked to see some more obvious craters... in both Fallout 3 and New Vegas, come to think of it.

I got to be honest, with all of the buildings and structures, it was hard for me to get a sense that Megaton was built in a crater (and admittedly, one that was caused by a plane crash, and not a nuclear bomb going off.)

And in neither game did I ever really come across anything that really drove that point home, either. (Off-hand, I think there's supposed to have been a couple in both games, but for something as important as that, I kind of wish that they'd have really worked on driving the message home a bit more.)

As far as the whole "buildings standing in DC" thing - again, I think it's because Fallout 3 was designed with looks in mind first, with supporting facts added after. And I think that's okay (at least with me.) Fallout has always been a "soft" science fiction setting - it's never set itself up as a realistic portrayal of life after a global nuclear war. So I have trouble holding it up to terribly high standards of realism.

But yeah, all that said - I think both games were lacking some really big massive bomb craters to really showcase the level of destruction we're supposed to be talking about, here. I mean, I think that should be a big "event" moment in any Fallout game. Like when you come out of the Vault in Fallout 3, your eyes adjusting to the light and seeing the war-torn vista spread out before you. I think there does need to be a big moment where you come across a massive crater and see have that same epic "wow" moment...

You don't gotta tell me dude. I said it boggled my mind when I read no ICBMs.

However, we don't know how many or what types of nukes hit DC, we don't know what kind of defense system there was, and we can't assume every other country with long range nukes targeted DC. Europe may have been too bzy killing each other to bother nuking the USA, especially when they would know China already nuking it. Perhaps the Chinese purposely limited their nuclear strikes on DC because they thought their spies there would somehow take over the city.

New Vegas has the story. Fallout 3 has the enviroment.

That's all I think they have as advantages over each other. I find them equal in other manners (combat, rpg aspects & dialog etc).

To me, both games were well made and provided a level of entertainment which is satisfactory, which is what games are about? no?

Fallout 3 could have tried to explain why it wasn't hit.. The only parts that were nuked was Vault 87 and apparently the White House, yet everything around it still stands. The USSR and other countries would have sent nukes DCs way as well as many other American cities.

Fallout 3 has DC still radioactive after 200 years and yet all but the White House is still standing almost like they were on the day of October 23, 2077 before the nukes. People go on about how great Fallout 3 captured the nuclear apocalypse. That's total crap because first it has been 200 years since. Second, almost all the buildings still stand. Third, its DC for crying out loud, it should have been a huge crater miles across.

Fallout shows cities like LA and Bakersfield completely destroyed. Any buildings that still stand have been gutted by fire and looted long ago. The wasteland is dotted with the remains of cities, that were obliterated during the two hour nuclear exchange. That captures the nuclear apocalypse. Fallout 2 and Tactics show the world in much the same way. At least New Vegas gave a reason as to why Las Vegas is still around. Even then much of the city is gone due to 200 years of looting, fire/weather and neglect. It was only in the years before New Vegas takes place that Mr.House came along and fixed up The Strip.

So for people to say Fallout 3 has the right setting/feel, well that's just wrong.. yes I know its by opinion but when you compare Fallout 3 to other Fallouts and just think logically.. Its very clear Fallout 3 failed to get things right.

TBH, none of those are particularly good writing in a technical sense. They are merely competent writing. Compare, say, Randall Clark's voice to the voice of the nurse in Germantown - Clark has a well defined personality and characterization. The nurse does not.

You're basically pointing to those as the absolute pinnacle of FO3 writing... And to be fair, they are the best that FO3 can show.

But, if they were in FNV, they'd be in the middle of the pack. Not as evocative as Vera Keyes' story, nor as memorable as Tabitha or the brains in the Big Empty. Not as laden with depth and multiple layers of meaning as the Remnants story, or Ulysses' story, or the story of Joshua Graham.

In terms of writing, FNV has a whole lot more high quality writing than FO3 does. Which makes sense, as Obsidian are in the god tier for video game writing. They're specialized in that. Say what you want about bugs, but there has never been an Obsidian game who's story was not top notch.

Bethesda, instead, are artists. And it shows, for good and ill. Good in that they're really excellent at visual design and creating atmosphere through that visual design. Bad in that their writing is simplistic and generally garbage with a few gems in the rough. Remember Morrowind? Its entire plot was told rather than shown. That's a huge no-no for any sort of storytelling. Remember Oblivion? Where do I even start there? Beth has never been good with writing. They've been hugely good with atmosphere. Morrowind is popular based almost solely on the exotic setting. TSI was heavily praised for its unique setting. Fallout 3 was rightly praised for its setting (even if it didn't strictly make sense.)



I vaguely recall the old FO3 website having fluff pieces that mentioned some kind of ballistic missile defense system that shot down a lot of the nukes heading for DC. Mind, none of that comes up in the game at all, and it still doesn't explain how so much is still standing since even one nuke would wipe out most everything.



Personally, I figured the 200 year radiation is because the Vault 87 reactor is still pumping fresh radiation into the water and air. But that's totally my conjecture and never mentioned anywhere in the game. (Again, poor worldbuilding here, so you're right.)

Well I understand what you are saying. From a military standpoint, and if you going for kils, it makes sense LA be dust, not to mention the west is closer to China and the pacific(easier for Chinese subs to be in pacific).

What I don't totally agree with is the response by other countries. What I mean is you generally going to launch in response to country that launched on you, unless you are the aggressor. So, because we really don't know the sitiation in Europe, it is hard to come to conclusion who launched on who.

Again we also don't know about missile defense systems. Maybe in future games we will get an idea.

We know that the United Nations fell apart. We know the European Union also fell apart and the nations of Europe started attacking on another. They attacked the Middle East before that. We know that the United States was hated by pretty much everyone before the great war. Just because the United States and USSR were talking with one another doesn't mean a damn thing. They talked to one another alot in our timeline. They would have still nuked the crap out of one another when the time came.

Its called MAD for a reason. Once one person launches, everyone does and in Fallout everyone did. They got as many birds in the air as they could before they were destroyed themselves. As Fallout 3 put it "after millennia of armed conflict the destructive nature of man could sustain itself no longer." Everyone knew it was Game Over so they decided "If I am going down I am going to take you all to hell with me!" America is a long hated enemy of much of the world, so many ICMBs would have "Death to America" on them and not just China's.

My original point is... That people that say DC was hit worse then the rest of America are dead wrong.

We don't know about any missile defense systems because Bethesda didn't bother to tell us about any such system. And if they did, it wouldn't explain why DC was still radioactive after 200 years. If Bethesda comes out and says "oh well there was a missle defence system for DC."

First: They are stealing yet again from other Fallouts. Second: If DC had one why not every city in America? the hundreds of billions spent on the Vaults would have been better spent on the defence system. Third: China was able to get subs to America's eastern seaboard as seen in point lookout.

You do realize only 6 countries right now have ICBMs?

Now I realize the FO world is different, but an even more paranoid type America would probably be even more intimidating towards countries trying to develop. Plus with dwindling resources and all the other problems, developing them would be very taxing, possibly impossible for many countries.

I always thought USA and China nuked each other while Europe nuked each other with shorter ranged nukes.

Also, a ABM system isn't going to be perfect, again, hard to test, so that goes along with my long standing theory you do everything you can to survive and not juat rely on one thing.

Fallout World is different from our own. USSR never fell apart. The Cold War kept going. This means the United States would not be able to stop the USSR or China from giving other countries nukes or ICBM.

Even in our time it America has been pretty powerless in stopping third world contries from Getting nukes, so I doubt they would be able to stop a country back by the USSR or China from getting nukes and ICBM in the Fallout Universe.

Yes they would. The exact same way Kennedy did it. Umm, if you give them nukes, we war. So unless USSR or China was ready for nuclear war, they wouldn't do jack. I would imagine cold war not ending would just keep the stalemate going, but the US would view giving ICBMs to an enemy of the US an act of war. And so instead of 2077 it would have been 1989 or 2017. Obviously that never happened.

The Cuban Missile crisis is one of those things that never happened in Fallout. The ban on putting nukes into space never happened. The only reason why Kennedy was worried about Russia was because they were going to put missiles in Cuba which is really close to America. Russia only did that because America put missiles in Turkey but that part always seems to be left out when people go one about how great Kennedy was..

America would not have stopped USSR or China from puttin missiles in countries in Europe, Africa, Middle East or Asia. America would have also gone around giving countried nukes and missiles. When alliances started falling apart and nations started hating one another, those nukes and missiles would remain.

America never went into Vietnam or stopped China from annexing alot of Asia. So I doubt they would have done much about the spread of nuclear weapons, unless it was in the western hemisphere.

America can't even stop countries today from getting nukes and missile tech.


Anyways the point is it was a World War and everyone was involved, hence world war. It wasn't just China and America. DC would have been nuked alot worse, and those that say it was nuked worse then the rest of America are wrong.

Does anyone know if the authors of the Fallout universe ever visit these boards?

Would be fascinating to hear their "official" take on some of the discussions here.

Interesting debate by the way.

Yes they did, we had plenty of discussions when they where making NV.

I know the cuban missile crisis never happened, but the tactic is sound.

First, I highly doubt USSR and China just going to give nukes away. Sell, but in the fo economy who could afford?

And while they wouldn't stop short range nukes, ICBMs in countries enemy of the USA would create a situation similar to Cuban missile crisis. The whole point was the missiles didn't have to be ICBMs to reach USA from Cuba. The USA goes bonkers nuts when countries seem to be researching ICBMs, especially if they are considered an enemy.

Yes, it was a world war, but I don't think every country launched on USA or that every country had ICBMs.

Should DC have been more war torn? Prolly so. But like I said before, because of the oresence of Chinese spies and commandos, maybe it was deliberately limited in the bombardent for some kind of covert action to capture politicians or sieze the capital.

TBH FONV wouldnt have been as good as it was without FO3 being there because everything and i mean EVERYTHING besides the story was alrdy done and implemented by FO3 modders, if u mod u can pretty much get EVERYTHING that FONV did better . If u mod then basically the only thign that is different is story/faction vs exploration/random encounters. Both fantastic games, whereas Fo3 was the blank slate and the modders painted all over it and FONV took that painting and added words....

back to the OP, story wise FONV hands down beats FO3, only thing is im sticking with FO3 because FONV u can have 5 awesoem playthurs...after that u have pretty much doen everythign in everyway it can be done whereas FO3 since it dosent force in one direction for the first half of the game..im getting more replay value outta it being a different setup thru. Plus i have mods so alot of the stuff thats better in FONV is there in FO3 wheres its been before FONV came out...no way am i saying FO3 better, i love both to death i just cant seem to pull myself thru this 6th playthru having doen everything it feels liek im doign smae ol smae ol. Lol

Down to it, both fantatsic games but id have to say FO3 because im doign my 50th or 60th playthru right nwo and still after all this time with all its flaws having a blast.

USSR and China would have given Missiles and nukes to "allies." The USSR controlled most of Eastern Europe and China controlled most of Asia. So there is little the United States could do about the spread of nuclear weapons in that region.

America wanted to put nuclear missiles in Canada during the cold war but for some reason we said no.

America would have been against any attemt by the USSR or China to put nukes into the Western hemisphere but the rest of the world is far game. Not much they could have done if scientists went in to help countrie develope their own nukes.

The three largest nuclear powers at the time would have been USA, USSR and China. Each having an insain amount of nukes. USSR would have also attacked America as well as China. China would have attacked USSR as well as USA and USA would have attacked USSR and China at the sametime.

What good is it to capture the Capital of the United States, when you're home country will be reduced to radioactive cinders. That makes no sense "well our entire country was obliterated, but we captured their capital! So I guess we win? :shrug:"

It makes no sense not to nuke it. If there was some stupid plan to capture it, and it failed. America's capital would be still running and the government would be safe, which means America wins.

Maybe it would've been even better.

Just think if NV came first then FO3, how disappointed players would have been. I'd say NV raised the bar well above and beyond the level FO3 set.

Fallout 3 story is short & lame IMO. But its one hell of a game. Scavenging is more rewarding in Fallout 3. Fallout New Vegas has an amazing story. Its harder to find ammo & caps in NV. Some of the quests are just boring as you will just walk from place to place, back and fourth but there aren't too many of those.

New Vegas is the better game BUT it has issues. It doesn't run NEARLY as smooth as Fallout 3.

Fallout is the #1 gaming series EVEN for a player who doesn't consider himself a RPG gamer (I'm a good example)

Are you kidding? Fallout 3 is a linear as it gets, it forces you to go down 2 very black and white paths that end the end have no real impact, then you are forced to join The Brotherhood of Steel to fight the evil bad guy jerks.

After about 2 playthroughs you should have seen it all, there isn't much in Fallout 3 to explore, but people still say they are finding new things after playthrough 40, makes me wonder if they just forgot stuff they found and just keep finding it over and over again. Bethesda environments are pretty forgettable so I guess its possible.




You can say that about any game that is modifiable, should Developers just give up on improving things if the modding community already did it?

You seem to be making up excuses just to make up excuses, and poorly spelled excuses they are.

Well, thinking that way, yes. But imagine Obsidian doing a Fallout game without the Fallout 3 template -- surely there wouldn't have been requirements for the engine, gameplay and assets that did not exist.

I don't really see the purpose of pointless exploration though.
New Vegas allows me, through it's focus on dialogue, quests and NPC's, to define my character, to actually roleplay.
I tried doing that in Fallout 3 but it had too few quests, dialogue and NPC's to roleplay in.
I can't just put on an Enclave Officer outfit and pretend I'm Enclave, the moment they see me they still shoot at me.

Anyway, in 5 playthroughs you can do pretty much everything in both games.
But at least Fallout New Vegas allows the player to roleplay.
All Fallout 3 can offer is combat and exploration.
You could get mods to add more quests or NPC's but most mods aren't exactly top notch quality and I cannot settle for anything less.

So that argument can be used for both games.
A quest with 3 outcomes won't change the 6th time I do it but a dungeon I've visited 3 times won't change the 6th time I do it either.


I think he means the gameworld, and yes during the first and second playthrougs it will be pretty linear, go south do a U-turn up to Vegas and then you can finally explore as you please.
But after the first or second playthrough you'll learn how to evade the enemies blocking the path north and can pretty much explore right off the bat in any direction.
http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/186/a/4/nv_map__how_to_get_north_by_gabriel77cortez-d3l1vn8.jpg

I know, I really want them to make a fallout game with from "scratch" that follows the example of the original series.

New Vegas is my choice, more dynamic story is more important to me than the dynamic world of Fallout 3. If Fallout 4 can do both in quality and quantity, well then, I'd suspect that BGS and Obsidian worked together.