So basic question it's 200 years after the great war (not counting when fo4 will take place) when do you think you pass the phase of the "post apocalyptic" era?
I think 200 years is pushing it and I feel fallout games are gonna have to become alot more civilized the way it's going unless there is some sort of nuclear war happens again.
And what do you think should/ want to happen for fallout series to have another nuclear set back or maybe follow the fallout universe after the post apocalypse?

I don't want stable civilisation spread throughout the world, i would enjoy some sort of civil war in New York or something. But, if anything, i just want the series to stick to its roots.

i think all of the power structure we see in game now should be shaken to the ground by one means or another.
it doesnt have to be from nukes. there are all kinds of things that can wreck a (newly emergin) civilization.
Throughout mankinds history there ahve been civilizations that have popped up and perished. none of them had anything to do with nukes.

disease
famine
war
pre war tech/resources runing out
climate change
newly evolved species
astroid impact
earthquakes
de-evolution of peoples (cultural)
genetic issues causing birthrates to drop


It should not become too civilized. and i dont think the passage of time means that is has to or that it necessarily would.And if it did, it would become a completely different setting.
I like the idea of the mid dark ages more than the renniasance.

a post-apocalyptic world could last untill a civilized world can b made and plus fallout was made to take place over that time spand

It all depends on how bad the destruction was. If it removed 9/10 of the population directly, then it could take hundreds of years to repopulate and get a civilized society going. But the extended effects will last for a very long time. If the theory of "Nuclear Winter" were found to be true... you could have decades where there was potentially little to no weather that would provide for crops or warm weather. Famine, cold, disease, could wipe out even more people for decades. Then you'd potentially have the lasting health affects of prolonged exposure to radiation, for generations. These are all working against people making a comeback. Assuming we are talking about basically a world wide event, or the better part of it. Also... Keep in mind that the greatest danger to what remnants of civilization remains, would simply be fire. The only thing stopping fire is people. So you remove most of the people and a viable water system, and you have absolutely nothing stopping fire from raging across wild areas and through the remains of cities. Most city remnants would likely burn down in a short period of time.

Keep in mind... Authorities will not be letting anyone move back into the direct Chernobyl area for a very long time. You can spend a day in the area here and there and not be at great risk. But living there would raise your chances of contracting some sort of ailment from the contaminants, and those will still be around in abnormal levels, for hundreds, if not thousands of years. So major fallout on a worldwide scale would probably be pretty devastating, over hundreds of years or more.

Yeah there is alot to consider, difficult to work out a specific time. Even if you did it would differ from place to place.

That's why I wish Van Buren was made. Most everybody in it were primitive tribals armed with spears. Guns were relatively rare and what ones there were, were pretty bad, like one-shot muskets/rifles or something called a Zip gun.

I just want one fallout game where they show us how bad everything is and just how far humanity has fallen befire they start rebuilding.

Its odd, but not bad, to hear that from a dinosaur

While I would like for them to first expand upon the original Fallout universe, I think your on to something here. It would be cool for them to make consecutive fallout games take place in new fictional universes with varying drastic scenarios. The term fallout can be related to more than just the consequences of nuclear war(though that will remain the reason for the series namesake). Virtually endless potential with this concept.

I dunno about alternate consecutive universes. I am thinking more along the lines of someone learning to ride a bike or drive stick. Sure progress is made, but there is a decent amount of crashing or stalling out. Rebuilding after a post apoc event, progress wouldn't be uniform and linear. There would be gains and losses. What I listed are examples of things that could upset progress.

Food for thought. If everything just progressed in a linear fashion with no setbacks, northern Africa would be the pinnacle of civilization. Some of the greatest civilizations perished not hecause of war, but climate change, disease and famine. .

Hmm playing through the original Fallout games actually shows that mankind was re-building even as close to 80 years after the war. There were a lot of great established settlements on the West Coast. Humans are tough and resilient, we crave order and leadership, I guess. So, to have a complete radiated Wasteland in Fallout 4 would make no sense at all.

I think Fallout 3 juggled the radiation and the wasteland very well, yes, it had plot holes, yes, it wasn't the best writing, but considering that D.C. was a central target in the war, it would explain the rubble piles.

Fallout New Vegas really balanced the re-building effort with the wasteland feel very well, in my opinion. It wasn't hit as bad as the East coast, sure, but it didn't look like it was only a few years after the war.

I'm a firm believer that 200 years is plenty of time to do SOME re-building. Sure, we don't have as many people and there are a lot of factions that rather do Jet and Psycho, instead of building stuff, but come on, the NCR was HUGE in Fallout 2 and I'm sure they have grown their ranks since then. I mean look what they did with Shady Sands. I'm sure they can re-build and grow other cities.

Plus, I'm sure there are pockets of survivors in the Mid West that haven't even been touched. Maybe they are the ones who will build the next big empire.

I'm ok with the New Vegas setting, with the progress they were making, farming, electricity, monorails etc Fallout 4 should certainly not catapult people back into the "nuclear dark age".

as i mentioned in thie other game, and I think youll agree on. It really depends on the loation of the next game.
If qwe go back to the west coast, we can expect to see progress. Unless of course, it is explained in game that tehre as an event such as the ones i listed above that hindered that progress.

But this is also why I think it is a good idea to leave the west coast alone.
The factiions have been done to death, all of the locations/major cities pretty much exploited. and it becomes more of a military or political strategy if we find ourselves too far forward with that progress.


Going to the east coast was a smart move, because no settlements were in place from previousgames. They ddint necessarily have to build off of any progress. They did decide to build off of existing factions (it is what it is). . But it isnt as necessary as it would have been if they would have set the game on the west coast.

There are people on here clammoring for progress, and some that want the mood to fit just after the great war.
i think it needs to be a balance- that comflicting progress can be counter productive at the very least, keeping things relatively unchanged.
it just needs to be explained in game, for me

There is still a lot of area to cover on the borders of Legion and NCR, so I don't want either of them to fall apart just yet.
But at some point, yes, they need to shatter, not crumble apart all together, but shatter into several smaller pieces.

Though I quite frankly wouldn't be opposed to the idea of the US being completely under one nation in 2514.

Hmmm... instead of an new nuclear war I'd prefer something else, a plague for example. Make it the same magnitude as The Black Death, mix even a slight hint of radiation to that plague and *poof*, less populance, nice halt to progress and possibly new types of enemies that are the outcome of this plague.

But truth be told, I'd rather just continue the current formula, just keep the time jumps between the games short.

So, I know everyone is discussing the fact that it's been 200+ years since the bombs fell. I agree that progress should be well noted, but the major factions havn't rebuilt or extended their influences completely from border to border.

Anyway I was more wondering what happens when the U.S. is under one flag and power? The U.S. had annexed Canada, so i'm assuming they push to get this area under control, exterminating the dangerous mutations and what not. But when the Fallout series comes to a close with America, should there be some end slide telling what the fate of the rest of the world will be, or should there be splinter games where the new U.S. possibly moves to other countries and hostility is met such as a developed major faction, or mutant armies?

Am I missing something here?

I was always of the mind to hold off on the time jumps for now keeping it as 200 years post war, but move around the US more so we can build up a nice picture of whats going in over the whole country up to that point. After that we can progress and see how it effects all those powers built up all over.

I hope for a more feudal like system similar to the medieval times.

Not exactly the modern world but has potential for constant war thanks to bickering leaders and low resources.

I hope civilization continues on like it did in New Vegas. Right now it's only a few factions that go to war. I'm waiting to see more factions and more civil unrest. I think it's time to get rid of post-apocalypse and go towards post-post-apocalypse.

I said pretty much the exact same thing in another thread, there are too many similar topics in these threads popping up to have a cohesive discussion about them. I really hope this happens...have things happen simultaneously, or maybe just a few years ahead of previous games. It is at a good point in time after the war, and going further right now without developing the story over the rest of the country would seem like a waste, and would change the environment and feeling of the game too soon.

I've always kind of wondered about why Bethesda decided to push the timeline so far forward, with Fallout 3. I mean, I don't usually go in for overthinking too much of the "logic" behind Fallout. It's never been intended as "hard science fiction," in the first place. It's wasn't meant to be a scientifically and heavily-researched extrapolation of what would actually happen after a nuclear war. I've always viewed it as a "style of substance" setting - even Fallout 1 was designed with a concept in place first, with backstory added to support an already-decided end result.

So I don't expect too from a Fallout game in terms of "realism," when it comes to things like this. But even so - I think we're starting to push things a bit far - even for someone like me.

Because yeah - at some point, someone's going to have to scavenge a broom out of the rubble, and least sweep out the hut that their family's been living in for the past century.

I feel like New Vegas had a lot of this thought-out more. You get a sense that you're more in the post-apocalyptic equivalent of the Wild West, there - places that you'd expect to be a bit more rebuilt generally are, etc.

Wherever Bethesda takes things with Fallout 4, I do hope they're at least putting some thought into things like this. On the other hand, though - I can kind of understand where they were coming from, with Fallout 3. We're talking about a company that's been making a very specific fantasy game for a very long time. If you jump the game forward a couple hundred years with each installment of the series, people don't generally start to question why everyone's still running around with swords and such - it's a fantasy realm, that's just how things work in those worlds.

It likely just didn't seem like a big deal to them, at the time.

Anyway - I wouldn't turn my nose up at a Fallout 4 that's actually set in the "past," in relation to Fallout 3 and New Vegas, myself. I look at it this way:

With Fallout, you decide on the setting and circumstances first: Are you making a game that you want to feel like people are just starting to climb out of the rubble and beginning to organize, or do you want things a bit more progressed than that? Start out with the setting and tone first, and worry about adding in supporting backstory after the fact.

That's what I'd do anyway.

Well there was a much bigger jump from fallout 1 to 2, but your right, 150 years makes you think it's still bad and trying to survive. 200 years makes me think "Are you guys lazy or something? Get off *sses and rebuild!"

Dont worry, i dont really get what he meant either


I do have to wonder about that. The 200 year gap was just a bit implausible for me, when there was still food on the shelves in the supermarket, and as nu_clear_day said, people had decided to just put off housework when theyre living in established, relatively safe communities. Things like that never made sense to me, due to such a large time passing since the war.

I want a more post-apocalyptic game, however i dont think that attainable within the current setting without a new form of disaster hitting. It wouldnt make sense for more civilisation to not have formed after 200+ years
That, or the next game needs to be set at around the time of F1, which would work well also.

Thing is, Bethesda said they ain't moving backwards in the timeline, only forward.

Maybe they can just do things simultaneously across the world or just 1 or 2 years later if they need to fit the story together of the previous Fallout game with the new one.