Honestly guys, just the fact that we're debating it proves that it's not post-nuclear enough.

Because its Feels Post Apocalyptic in terms of Fallout Universe,

Fallout 3 can have the Doomed ambient, but is so wrong to the original aspect of the games

You do not need radiated water, no countries, and a green tint for something to be called Post-Apocalyptic.

Fallout was never designed to be a "Post-Nuclear Simulation." It was meant to be about the world rebuilding after the nuking. I have played FO1 recently for the first time, and it feels MUCH more post-apocalyptic than FO3 is.

Ok! Because the world is logically laid out and the setting makes sense. The world is rebuilding itself, and it's interesting to see how the individual places are doing and how they are going about them. Each of the factions have ideas on how it should be done, and the game presents them effectively. I like the way the plot works, and how it builds up to the climix at Vegas. The premise of the game is brilliant, your shot in the head and you're trying to find out why.

Fallout 3 was dull. The characters didn't present anything and the writing overall was bad. Plot holes infest the game as a whole, and there's a lot of things that don't add up (why are the Enclave there? They were supposed to have been all but eradicated. Why are the BoS there?). The game takes 200 years after the war yet the game feels way too much like the war was maybe a decade ago. The premise of the game is kind of dumb, you leave the vault in search of dear old dad, despite that your character was a 19 year old advlt (where's the angst?). The game tries way too hard to be epic with the Super Mutant Behemoths, the Fat Man, and with the knights in shining armor.

Need more?

It's too much post-nuclear, in that the major effects have waned and the rebuilding is going.
The fact remains that it not being post-nuclear enough is more an effect of Bethesda not willing to go back in the time-line. We'd be happy with a more Fallout 1(or even 3) atmosphere if we weren't more than 200 years past the War.
I'd hate for it to move ever forward in time and yet nothing significant ever changed.

I also don't understand why Bethesda chose to jump the timeline forward 200 years. It (among other things) made the setting in FO3 a little hard to swallow for me. Given that they did that, though, and given that they told Obsidian that all future Fallout games must move the timeline forward, what this topic is asking is to trade plausibility of the setting for a setting that falls in line with a pre-conceived notion about what a post-apoc setting is supposed to be like.

honestly? either we need to take a huge leap foreward (the NCR/Legion meeting east coast/mid-country BOS), or a HUGE leap back.

personally, i loved metro 2033, it was and always will be my favorite post apocolyptic game

Like I keep saying, I want to watch the NCR grow and hit road bumps like Caesar's Legion. What would be cool is if they were to meet an opposing faction that found out how to manufacture power armor and energy weapons. Not quite like the BoS, but something more empirical.

I can think of many movies or tv, books even urban legends that have gone into these games.
So settling on one idea of post apocalyptica would only narrow the rich flavours to choose from.

IMHO the next Fallout should be a remake of F1 with additions.

lolno

It's way more enjoyable than FO3 and NV as it is.

I'm thinking this will be locked considering how it's just a fan fight thread now.

On topic:I voted post-nuke America, cause that's what it is. :shrug:

I hope it doesn't get locked. And I hope the devs are reading this.

If this game continues on this linear path through time, in F4 You'll be able to go to college, get married, kill mutants on the weekend and spend the rest of your time playing the "pencil-pusher" mini game, which allows you to earn printed NCR dollars! Oh, and in your free time you can watch news reports on TV about how evil caesar's legion is.

It would take a direct hit from a nuke to breach that dam....a few incendiary bombs won't do anything but scorch the surface.

*spartakick*

:swear:

No need to ruin FO1 or FO2. Beth can set FO4 at the same time just in a different part of the country. Just means no BoS :violin:

Personally, I think both the DC and NV worlds are plausable for the timeline. The DC area was devastated by many nukes, had a larger population which had been used to an urban, inter-connected, lifestyle. There probably weren't a lot of folks living in that area that were used to huntin' up their own vittles - for at least 150 years before the bombs dropped. I think that in both in the amount of damage taken to that region, and the sociological/psychological impact that that kind of massive cataclysm would have on the population, it's entirely reasonable that things would take much longer to rebuild. The area surrounding Vegas is much more rural, has a much smaller population which is probably more self-reliant to begin with. Couple that with the fact that nukes didn't fall there, and it makes sense that they should be a lot further along in their development.

Of course you realize that it's hard to keep a straight face talking realism when you're dealing with giant fire-breathing ants and green (or blue) mutants with miniguns.

As for what atmosphere I LIKE better, well, I've always been more of a fan of horror movies than westerns, so I prefer the Fallout 3 world. I like the creepy feel of that game better, personally. I did play Fallout 1 back in the day, but frankly have forgotten most of it - I do remember that it was a great game, and I still have it on my shelf. I doubt that my Vista rig can handle it now.

the post apocalyptic thing is overdone? the name of the game is Fallout, thats the premise for the entire franchise, so no post apocalyptic no fallout, and i agree with the op, new vegas is a good game but it doesn't exactly feel post apocalyptic to me either and the whole "cowboy" thing is kinda stupid, especially that johhny guitar song, FO3 had a way better music, fortunately bethesda is making FO4 so we'll prob get back to the post apocalyptic feel a little bit at least, but yeah new vegas doesn't have nearly enough "post apocalyptic" feel to it.

It seems like you never have played the first two games rockies, the game's name IS fallout, but it doesn't need to have the [censored] [censored] every three meters like in that damn game..

i agree, the name of the franchise is Fallout not leave it to beaver, new vegas unforutnately doesn't have a lot of post apocalyptic feel to it and if they move the time along any more its gonna have to have a different name for the franchise instead of fallout.

Wasn't Van Buren going to end in a way that it'd sort of revert everything back into a nuclear wastland? IIRC, the bad guy would launch some nukes from an orbital station, and after defeating him you'd be able to recall some, but not all of the missiles, resulting in several places being nuked again, restoring the status quo.

Now I'm not exactly condoning the 'status quo is god' angle, but I'd much prefer for there to be a logical reason for regression rather than Bethesda making everything look wrecked with no explanation whatsoever. They could have some more nukes set off, a horrible disease killing a large portion of the population, or just complete societal breakdown after an old fashioned war. All are preferable to Bethesda [censored] logic just to make everything look 'Fallouty' again.

The whole point of the franchise is not everything being irradiated. If you think that, then you have not played FO1 and 2. Taking that into consideration, you are missing out on half of the entire universe. Now, if you follow every Fallout game, the REAL point of the game is 'WAR NEVER CHANGES'. So let me break this down for you, the Fallout franchise is MEANT to go forward in time to show that even when humanity rebuilds after nearly killing itself, it CONTINUES to war with each other. I'm sorry if F3 got your hopes up, but Bethesda dropped the ball on that one. There shouldn't have been so much irradiated environment on the east coast. If you want a game like F3, then the Fallout series is not for you.

The title only reflects that this is a world that is the result of nuclear holocaust. The Great War is a huge moment in history and all Fallout games will become more and more about rebuilding (and having to rebuild after that, because we all know WAR NEVER CHANGES)

No. If they didn't rebuild at least some manner of wildlife hunting plants foraging society, they'd have died of once the food stores were emptied (one to three years after the war at most). It wasn't like there was no rebuilding, there's a few towns here and there, they just don't make any sense. The only food producing place (Rivet City) started like 20-30 years prior. It wasn't as hard hit as say LA as there are still a lot of buildings standing and even if it was hit hard, that still doesn't explain half of it.
It's kind of sad that they went the practically no bombs route with New Vegas, because it would have been a nice way to show that not everything is a radiated wasteland 200 years after the bombs drop on it with little to no people.

All I know is that I played Fallout 3, I played New Vegas, and I like the poetical "dying world" atmosphere of Fallout 3 a lot more than the wacky pseudopolitical antics of New Vegas.

So if Fallout 1 and 2 still were about wacky pseudopolitical antics, then Bethesda just did something I like more with the franchise. I don't care if it's a true Fallout or not; I care that it's a game I like more.