Don't forget that Mojave wasn't hit as hard as the rest of the country. There are no huge radiation pockets, there's clean water in Lake Mead, there's also two working power plants. East coast was flattened after the war so it makes sense that there's a huge difference between Mojave and Capital Wasteland.

Oh and, before you start using the "200 years excuse", I advise you do some research about the Chernobyl Incident and the town of Pripyat. It takes a lot more time for radiation to simply disappear. It's predicted that Pripyat will be irradiated for at least 600 years, for instance.

Well, then I'll explain my point more in-depth.

Fallout 3 is actually the game that did it wrong, because 200 years after the bomb, I'd expect the world to be much more in the semi-civilized but poor and dusty setting of New Vegas.
But! The point is that Fallout 3 really felt postapocalyptic. Fallout 3's only mistake was that it unnecessarily claims "200 years have passed after the nukes", but you know what? When I was playing that game, I always pretended that the bomb fell not long before the birth of the main character, the Vault 101 dweller. And if you think that, then it all makes sense perfectly.... and the setting of Fallout 3 is much more charismatic and emotional.

New Vegas is the opposite: it doesn't feel post apocalyptic at all, but then again, if things are 200 years after the bombs, then it can make sense. As much as it's definitely less interesting than Fallout 3's atmosphere.

So, as I said in my previous post: just pretend that Fallout 3 is set only a few years after the bomb, while instead New Vegas is set a good 200 years after the nukes, and then all seems more logical.

And yet New Vegas stays in line with Fallout 1 and 2, whereas Fallout 3 is the odd man out. Interesting. Very, very interesting.

This discussion says a lot about who has played the first two games and who hasn't since it's pretty much the defining feature of what makes Fallout different from say...a Mad Max or a Book of Eli.



I can see that, if one ignores the Brotherhood of Steel and the Enclave (and really...let's be honest, you're probably better off that way anyway since neither of them really has a great reason for being on the East Coast in the first place)

:banghead: :brokencomputer:

Yes the Mojave was not hit as bad, 77 nukes stopped by M.House but the West (core region) was nuked to hell, cities wiped off the map and yet people figured out how to farm, make an economy and build with new materical as well as mine. NCR was nothing but shady sands once.

It is 200 years after the bombs fell October 23, 2077 in just two hours the world was nuked to hell.

Yes, I noticed that people like me, who just like Fallout 3 better, are people who didn't play Fallout 1 and 2.
For me, Fallout 3 was the first game of the series I've ever played, so I think it pretty much defined the way I imagine that setting. I suppose New Vegas is more similar to how Fallout 1 and 2 were, but since to me Fallout 3 was the first, then it's New Vegas the game that seems oddly different.

I just love both games, despite my initial disappointment in the atmosphere of New Vegas ("why is everything so... so... civilized??"), and even though I hope that Fallout 4 will feel more like atmosphere in Fallout 3, I can't say that I'm not enjoying my time in New Vegas.










It's a sandbox rpg! The whole point is filling in the blanks as you please! There's even some people who modded the game into something completely different. Me I'm just inventing a reason as to why Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas feel so not alike.

Lun-Sei Sleidee I Highly Recommended getting the Fallout Trilogy (FO1, FO2 and Tactics).

Is the Mojave a third world?
Maybe in parts.
Most places it's a civil war in unclaimed neutral lands at best, in others it's that and more.

Is the Mojave post apocalytic.
Not in scenery or even themes at times, but in mood it is.
Reclaiming tech and items of worth to alter the future from places set still in the past.

I understand the so called "logic" of it, YES it IS set 200 years AFTER the bombs. Well established fact. Makes sense that people we return to civilization. YES F:NV follows the story of F1-F2 better than F3, but... but where's the fallout in Fallout:NV?

The thing is, I DO NOT WANT CIVILIZATION! I'ts post-nuclear America, I want to eek out an existence - NOT forge political alliances. That's the adventure of Fallout - experience life after nukes. Look I like fallout: NV as a game - I like it alot, but I don't think it properly represents a post-nuclear america. They've gone too far into the future. I just don't get the same feel as picking through the ruins of DC in F3, or digging through totally run-down vault 15 in F1.

When I play F1, F3, or Metro 2033 it's like "ok, the world has ended these are probably the last generations, who are barely surviving"
When I play F:NV it's like "oh, this is interesting I can be a cowboy, wear power armor, and play blackjack and kill mutants every now and then"

There's no edginess to F:NV. Most of the people/characters that are in this game could exist in our world today - save the mutants and a few others. There's too much communication, too many people know about eachother - about mutations and things. Deathclaws used to have a mistique about them - now it's just some attraction down at the quarry. In F1 most people barely knew what settlements/threats lay around them. Now some jerk in californa knows whats happening in arizona. Ya, it's logical after 200 years, but no1 asked them to put it 200 years after the bombs fell.

I've made up my mind:
Broken 3rd world country.


This doesn't mean I don't like F:NV but when I need my post-apoc fix, I"m digging out F1 or F3 or Metro 2033. Or popping in a mad max film.

"My idea is explore more of the world and more of the ethics of a postnuclear world, not to make a better plasma gun."
-Tim Cain

I'm kind of tired of throwing this quote around.

If you haven't seen this yet you should take a look.

The Chernobyl region, specifically the town of Pripyat, has become a Fallout-style ghost town after 25 years of abandonment. I looked through these pics, half expecting to find a bobblehead or nuka cola somewhere in the rubble. No. 9 could be a travel photo from Point Lookout.

http://totallycoolpix.com/2011/01/chernobyl-25-years-later/

Looks like a certain game company of a certain famous FPS game needs some originality. Anybody else spotted it?

Fallout: NV is my first Fallout game so I have little to compare it to. But I never got the sense that I was in America. No stars and stripes in sight, no Uncle Sam, no nothing. Although I was heavily reminded of the book "The Road" and the Fiends weren't unlike the cannibals in the book.

My 2 cents.

Isn't that how America will likely feel centuries after a nuclear holocaust? America as it is defined will no longer exist and I imagine most of the territory within will be likely random tribes and small local social groups struggling to survive.

War...War never changes, Whether you're in a third world country or post apocalyptic America.

Besides, its just a game with different meanings to everyone. For me, I like to kill stuff with out all the negative consequences like going to prison or damning my soul. So I play this game to release my frustrations along with several other FPS games I have for the very same reason. OH and a great storyline sometimes helps (Dead Space, Mass Efffect 1&2, BioShock, etc.) but not really needed for me. Other games I own are Hellgate London, Auto Assault, and Tabula Rasa. :tops:

This is a great topic of discussion though cause it does bring out opinions and thoughts about the game.

:gun:

It could've been fixed if it broke the map up and had a map node system instead.
That way if we went to a more civilized part then there wouldn't be much signs of the Great War.
But if we go to a node set in a more chaotic area we'll get a much more improved version of FO3's setting.

So I blame the "one big sandbox map" for it.
In "one big map" we can't have a bunch of different "feels" which Fallout is all about. (Imagine if FO2 was set completely in Shady Sands with a sandbox map, it would be a horrible game.)


Signature it.

This.
The biggest mistake was going so far into the future. Maybe in some sort of "reboot" they won't make the same mistake.

What Obisidian should've done in NV was to improvise on the fact that there was a warfare between the major factons as well as a war that had just finished between the B.O.S & NCR to create more of an apocalyptic world. I can't believe these factions who control Massive Power Generators & Flying Choppers don't use any form of explosives to destroy built structures. & how disapointing was the final battle. It was almost an exact copy of the ending for undlced FO3 understated to the minimum. I can't believe the dam was still standing after the Boomers bombed the hell out of it.

Fallout 1 had a modicum of civilization. Sure it wasn't as much as 2 or NV, but it was a lot further (and logical) than say Fallout 3. They had wasteland troubles, like mutants and raiders, but were otherwise pretty settled.
I just don't think Fallout is the game you should be looking at for the eek out an existence feeling. It never was all about that.

Metro 2033 is what you are looking for. Though if you want it bleak, you might want to read the book.


I believe that it was a must for them to set it after Fallout 3. So yeah it was.
It would be nice for them to take a new location and go back shorter after the war.

Well put, well put indeed!!
I agree 100% with everything you wrote here. Now THAT is my issue with New Vegas. Of course, if it really was a post-apocalyptic setting (akin to how Fallout 3 feels), then the plot of Fallout: New Vegas simply couldn't exist.

I'm taking New Vegas for what it is, and I love it, but I want Fallout 4 to bring back the post nuclear in "post nuclear simulation". Hear ye, hear ye!!

It's realistic post-apocalypse, you know 204 years after the bombs dropped?

Two hundred years after the bombs, it's no longer post-apocalyptic.

If I want to make a videogame about life in the 1800, I don't ambient it two hundred years after, in the 20th century, and still pretend to call it a Victorian videogame.

Look, play Fallout 1 and 2. You'll see what we've been arguing about. Fallout isn't a post-apocalyptic sim, it's about the world rebuilding itself after complete destruction. It's about ethics, about how war never changes.

Dude..

Oh my god there is so much fail in what you want.

No just no,

Just because FO3 made the so called apocalyptic feeling doesnt that they did it right

Dear god, the game came in 2008 and now that game "is the true apocalyptic style of Fallout" Even FO1 have some kind of civilization. traders, farms, and even more concrete structures. AND THE WAR HAPPENED A FEW YEARS AGO!!, Look Fallout 3, what happened, looks like that the bombs dropped few years ago...

Its not a mistake, its the real style and ambience of Fallout



You people really likes to compare Fallout with others Apocalyptics game huh??

Metro 2033 is not Fallout
Fallout is not Metro 2033

Fallout doesnt need to take inspiration of other games, Fallout is original in their own purposes, Like Stalker, Killzone and Borderlands does not copy another features of other apocalyptic games



This isn a Post-Apocalyptic Nuclear Simulation like Bethesda Claims, its about live after the end, moral decisions and reconstuction of the civilization in the Post Apocalyptic Era.