Somewhere outside of North Amerika and Asia. I want to know what happened to the rest of the world.

Doesn't anyone else besides me agree that it naturally seems right for it to take place in NYC?

Nashville and surrounding environs. Main reason is that, well, I live in that general area, and I've always wondered what it'd be like if the excrement hit the air circulator in this area.

A lot of people apparently do, but I certainly don't.

1. It would have been bombed to smithereens.

2. If it wasn't bombed as badly as it would have been, there's also the issue of it being the absolute most cliche place to set a videogame ever. There are hundreds, if not thousands of games set either in NYC or in a city based on NYC, and a fair amount of those are post-apocalyptic games like Fallout.

I don't want NYC because I want Bethesda to do something original. Like the Commonwealth. NYC might be okay for some DLC but that's it.

Firstly You're right it is a cliche but I still want to play there in the Fallout Universe plus you can throw in lots of film references into the game as well.

Secondly The Commonwealth is a good suggestion and would be my second choice.

Thirdly You don't know its been blown to smithereens, the Guidance System on the Nuclear Warhead may have failed mid-flight plunging it into the sea causing NY to be hit by a Tidal Wave plus of course radiation would still remain if it was a close in-sea-detonation. Unless theres some FO Lore that informs us about the fate of NY, if anyone knows do let us know.

if they ever have it in new york, I wonder if a proton pack will be a weapon

How about in Finland. Only forest here!

It sounds cool. Maybe something like japanese merchantships would come trading there or something.

I want a Fallout down south. New Orleans or somewhere down there.

Yeah the commonwealth is mass ( specifically cambridge and boston ) , which is Connecticut, Rhode Island, Mass., Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. Man, I live here, so these so much I could say on this, however I won't. All I can say is it would be amazing.

Huh? The only, and I repeat, only, confirmed information we have in regards to where the Commonwealth is is that it is in the area of pre-war Massachusetts. Anything else is pure speculation.

Well yeah, but think about it, cambridge is the most likely place for many reasons, not just because it's an intellectual sanctuary, but I believe the buildings there would have a fair chance of surving the shockwave of a nuke without immense damage, of course there would be some, but still..

That may be so but there is a huge difference between "most likely" and "definitely confirmed." By saying what you said you're telling people false things that they'll believe to be true, and they will spread it to others. I'm just stopping the spread before it beings.

But if you want to speculate, I'm fairly certain it will take place in Boston because that is almost definitely where The Institute is. Whether or not Cambridge is featured in it will be up to Bethesda, but they'll only choose one location to be the "major city" in the game.

Well I mean Boston and Cambridge are basically the same city antibody, they're right next to eachother, as in you can go into one from the other and not know.

In real life, yes, in Fallout, no. Even if Bethesda doubled the size of Fallout 3's map for Fallout 4, it still wouldn't cover all of Boston. They will have to focus on one city alone, and possibly include a smaller version of the other. I'm anticipating them including only key areas of Boston like they did with the D.C. Ruins, except Boston would still be a functioning city so it wouldn't be ruins. They may not even be able to include Cambridge in there. Bethesda's goal isn't to recreate Boston in perfect detail, just to get the gist of it. Cities that may be near or in real-life Boston may be overlooked or purposely excluded for the Fallout version of Boston.

Anyway this is drifting into Speculation so I suggest that if you want to continue this discussion we move it to the Speculation thread.

I have to agree with this I expected the what is now New Vegas to be in that direction with all the talk about the commonwealth in Fallout 3 ... however if they don't go with that I'd like to see something using an area encompassing New Mexico and Texas (A little of these each of these states.) I think plateaus would be interesting terrain and come on... Roswell ... and desert... seems like a harsh area to me.

I like the idea of the game being set in Louisiana or east Texas, with the main plot focusing around banditos, cartels,and Mexican regulars who invaded Texas in the aftermath of the collapse of the USA. That's not exactly PC but it is sure to be fun. The Alamo could wind up being one of the settings/bunkers. It would have a lot of bayou and desert/wild country opportunities. North Louisiana and east/northeast Texas, those are definitely winning combos for rugged terrain/country. There are few primary nuclear targets in Louisiana, particularly in North Louisiana, and the only major target would be Barksdale Air Force Base, which is in the extreme Northwest corner right near the Texas border.


I also like the idea of a European Fallout, perhaps set in northern France, with the Islamists in power throughout France and maybe Germany, the goal being to reach Switzerland which was neutral in the war (big shock there), and has remained free from Islamic control, being relatively intact. From Switzerland you will venture out to get much needed supplies and industrial/electronic equipment in places such as northern Italy, Austria, etc.

A Russian Fallout, having to contend with a resurgent Turkish/Ottoman Empire in the wake of the collapse of the main world powers would be interesting, along with the usual enemies of the Russian Mafia, Chechen fanatics, etc.

The only thing that might burst your bubble, and I hate to burst it, is that NYC would probably be an irradiated crater.

You'd have to figure any city with more than 1-2 million people would be a primary or secondary target in a strategic nuclear exchange.

As opposed to the Nations Capital?

Any primary or secondary target should be excluded, unless it were somehow missed. Tertiary targets might be fair game for a game setting...

http://www.survivalmonkey.com/forum/general-survival/3753-u-s-target-list-full-scale-nuclear-war.html


http://www.survivalring.org/community/library/us-nuclear-targets/

That's the thing. NYC is a teeny-tiny target compared to D.C. It would only take one, maybe two nukes in Fallout's world to level the city to the ground. That wasn't the case with D.C.

In all actuality, in keeping with the strength/yield of nuclear weapons of the 1950s (and into the 1960s-1970s even), Washington DC would be erased from the map, not even the gutted remains of buildings would be left.

We're talking weapons with a yield anywhere from two to ten megatons.

A one mega-ton weapon would destroy all of the DC Metro area.


http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclear_weapon_effects/nuclearwpneffctcalc.html


Set for air detonation, one mega-ton, place it anywhere you want in the DC Metro area.

Fallout's nukes are less powerful than our nukes, though. At least that's how they explained away Fallout 3 not taking place in a giant crater.

I wasn't aware of that, I thought the logic would have been DC was a target but it was a "near hit" or a somewhat of a miss hit, which would explain the widespread damage but the remains of gutted/burnt out buildings, as opposed to nothing being left except piles of ash. The missiles/delivery systems at the time were fairly inaccurate, which is one of the reasons the yield was so massive. Even if they missed by five or ten miles, they would still cause tremendous damage to the intended target area.