Just what I'm noticing on playing through fallout 3 and fallout new vegas is that fallout 3 is alot more true to 1950's world of tommorrow concept (Vaults, pip boys, threat from Reds, nuka-cola being dominant, newspapers, hairstyle, automation in daily life, and more!) The only way Fallout new vegas relates to this is maybe the Lucky 38 tower and the gutted Vaults as opposed to the intact ones in fallout 3. Any thoughts on why New Vegas simply blows in this aspect of the Fallout series?

I AGREE new vegas looked like a 3 world country and it was way to westerne

Another VS thread :sadvaultboy:

what does VS stand for?

However, this isn't a vs thread because it isn't "FNV svcks" it's "what makes FNV less like the others in the series"
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy both games for different reasons, but FNV just doesn't seem like it fits in Fallout

Fallout 3 made me fell important and that what i was doing made a huge difference but FNV made me fell not even a little important and that what i was doing didn't matter at all

Uh-what?

Think of it this way. All fallout games before New Vegas made feel part of something larger than yourself. Christ, you popped from two Vaults, slaughtered thousands of mutations, helped out the most powerful badasses in the known universe and beat up anything that stood in your way. All in an alternative history timeline, too, that's what makes it unique :fallout: . But New Vegas simply caps you and dumps you in a tin shack destined to wander and get lost in caves/dirt piles/the bad karma vibes of Caesar's Legion. If the Fallout series wants to get a jumpstart, in isn't in this latest game.

Looks like some one didn't play the originals.....

FO3 got it wrong, the "people of today" aren't the ones that did the whole "1950's world of tomorrow concept (Vaults, pip boys, threat from Reds, nuka-cola being dominant, newspapers, hairstyle, automation in daily life, and more!" as you put it. that was all Pre-war. that was a century ago. The only place where that stuff existed was in relics and old tech. To me it was a sign that gamesas didn't understand. FO3 made it seem like the bombs only fell a few years ago. Everything was "fresh" like everyone in the DC wastes knew all about pre-war life. The originals had a much more "mad max" feel. No one dressed or talked like they did pre-war. Everything was back to wild west type of towns, or barter town in Mad Max. Built from the wreckage of the past. Making a new way for themselves.



Say what? what you did in FO3 meant nothing. ending slides only passed judgement on you, didn't say anything about the fates of the people or places you helped and if you have BS reconned the whole ending in the first place. In FONV you see exactly how much you effect the realm. You hold the balance of power in your hands. When you choose a side, and help them gain power there's Vastly different outcomes.

anyway for those that just TL;DR FO3 fails because it tries to hard. For those that don't believe me go back and play Fallout 1 and 2. See just how much the whole "world of tomorrow" in FO3 is over done and shoved down your throat. gamesas didn't get that that era is pre-war, we're in the post-war now for 2 centuries.


Well Fallout 1 dumps you outside your vaults door, with only Vault 15 on your map and a pistol. So you have to "wander and get lost in caves/dirt piles" as you put it. Same with Fallout 2, this time they chuck you into the temple of trials before kicking you out with nothing but Klamath on your map and a spear, thats not even sharp unless you do a miniquest.

You're right about that, for sure. I think 3 and NV were rushed a bit quick from the dev teams, and that you saw consequences of your actions more in NV. I also haven't played the original (If I could just get a copy) but from stuff I've seen about it, it looks a lot diff from the more recent games in the series. Thanks for your thoughts

Because Nevada and California started to built their lives???

Maybe??





Fallout was about reconstruction of the civilization in the Post-Apocalyptic era

It was supposed to feel like NV

Nvs atmosphere is realistic unlike 3s where bombs fell 200 years ago yet everything has rads and it looks like it happend 7 hours ago AND THEY DONT KNOW HOW TO FARM

Fallout 3 had some problems, sure, but this isn't one of them. The answers are in the game. The DC area was hard hit (must have been airbursts, though, or nothing would be standing) and absorbed a lot of radiation. The water was ruined -- you can't grow edible food from irradiated soil and water. The settlers here (whose timeline is admittedly wonky) cannot farm (It's plainly a trade society, though the game missteps by only vaguely alluding to the outside areas they trade with). Dr. Li is in Rivet City trying to perfect large scale hydroponics because the land will not support agriculture.

There are lots of perfectly legitimate criticisms of fallout 3, but this one is unsupported and needs to be put to rest.

Oh, yeah -- Fallout radiation is not real life radiation. In real life it persists for thousands of years. The inhabitants of Fallout got off easy.

*fixed

None of the games have truly realistic atomspheres.

The extremely heavy "World of Tomorrow" vibe in Fallout 3 is what made me fall in love with the game, personally. To each his own.

The GECK was originally only going to have some papers on how to purify water and build water condensators and a couple of seeds in it and an instruction manual of how to farm.
Shady Sands built their town in the middle of nowhere in the desert and was perfectly able to get by with some water and a couple of seeds.

LA, LA was hit far worse than DC considering that just about nothing was intact while in DC a lot of buildings and structures were intact.
That means that LA should have more radiation, yet, it has less.

The water got ruined, at the docks in San Fransisco people are fishing for food and it doesn't seem to be filled with radiation. :/

And let's not forget the real world Chernobyl who's vegetation is coming along just fine.

:shrug:

Edit. The idea in Fallout was to take the 50's world of tomorrow and drop nukes on it. In Fallout 3, it seemed more like they took nuclear armageddon and dropped 50's world of tomorrow on it, if you know what I mean.

You want to know my response to that? Why in the bloody hell is anyone still living there if it is so bad off?

I agree. I love the feel of Fallout 3.

The Mojave was not hit that bad. Vegas fell apart due to 200 years of neglect. Mr.House rebuilt the Strip.

The Rest of the West was wiped clean off the map. In the East DC still stands, and so does Pittsburgh. We are given no reason as to why two such cities survived the great war. With Vegas we are given a reason.

Locations in Fallout and Fallout 2 have a reason for being. How they make money, how they get water, how they feed themselves. We see farms of both plants and animals, trees and wild plants. There is a working economy and rebuilding.

Fallout 3 is 200 years after the great war and yet, there are no trees and plants other then Oasis and later Point Lookout. No one knows how to farm but for three brahmin outside Arefu. No ones rebuilding, no working economy, no clean water. After all that people some how learned to do complicated facial surgery.

Edit: The people in the West still managed to do all that rebuilding even when the master and his super mutant armies were around. So some dumb super mutants in DC with no leader should really be a none issue.

No one's saying you can't. We're just saying this wasn't really the same in the first two games so when people such as the OP claim New Vegas doesn't have the "Fallout vibe" because the people of the wasteland aren't all running around acting like it's the 1950s it's a bit frustrating.

Far too often people seem to think Fallout 3 defines what Fallout is.

New Vegas is a Fallout spin-off and not a Fallout sequel that's why. Simple as that.

I never accused anyone of not accepting my opinion. I just stated my thoughts is all. :biggrin:

I understand that Fallout 3 was a change in pace from the original Fallouts, I do. And I understand that the original Fallouts were not nearly as heavy on the 1950s "world of tomorrow" aspect, but Fallout 3 and New Vegas are (with New Vegas being only slightly less in my view). Its just that I like the new feeling that Fallout 3 brought, I like the 1950s setting and atmosphere, its one of the reasons I love Fallout 3's atmosphere and not so much the originals.

Simple as what?
Who decided it was a spin-off?
When was that decided?

Nvs not a spin-off