:rolleyes: *sigh*

I liked the wasteland more than the city in FO3. The city was just too like "Too bad this way is blocked because we didn't feel like making that part of the city. Use the metro station!"

Wasn't 500 , it was around 200.

Just letting you know.

I actually live in Vegas and yeah, our storm drain system is massive. There's no part of the city (in real life anyway) that you can't get to via the storm drains. Also we don't have a metro in real life, but many of the casinos have subfloors that they could put into the game, and I know for a fact that (again, in real life), there are tunnels under the Strip to transport anything from millions of dollars in cash to criminals (not in the same tunnels...or so they insist.)

I have to admit, being from Vegas, I'll be dissapointed if they don't do the setting justice. Roaming around DC was my favorite part of FO3. I just wonder if they'll bother to include some very famous areas around Vegas in the game, like Area 51 or the Nevada Test Site.

Uhh...Las Vegas? Isn't that big enough for you? It is the biggest city in the game. the rest are just small settlements or towns.

i agree with the OP, i actually would like a fallout game entirely in a city, kinda GTA type city but obviously more detailed, with apartments, neighborhoods, industrial areas, an airport, donwtown and outskirt areas etc, slums, all of that, FO3 city was dissapointing actually, the only settlement was underworld and most of it was all blocked off and it had some promise but could of been better, todd howard said originally it was gonna be mostly city but they made the wasteland bigger because the city was too complex so i agree with the op here and the wasteland area, desert etc will prob be ok but a future game needs to be entrely in a city but with the same size area as FO3/NV etc. so it would take just as long traversing across it as going form one side of the map to the other in lets say FO3. i'm not too into wastleand areas without lots of buildings and structures. and also most of the rows of apartments and buildings in the downtown area in FO3 you could not go in, so that was a big dissapointment, there we no airports or industrial type complexes to exlplore, not nearly enough small aprtments and houses to go in and on and on, so the city was just too destroyed to feel like a city, mostly just rubble really.

I think (not positive) he was referring to the actual nuclear fallout, thus mentioning iwo jima. However, in the Fallout universe, the global nuclear war created enough radiation in the atmosphere that it's still either coming down, or has saturated the earth so much that it's a constant and will be for a good 300 years (at least thats what the vault PA system says).

500 years is a stretch.

Anyway, thats a topic for another thread.

Back on topic, I didn't like the DC ruins (hate is a bit too strong of word). I really hated the metro tunnels after my first or second time having to go through them. I am really hoping we will never HAVE to go underground in New Vegas. What I expect from FO:NV is a lot of desert wasteland, but also a good amount of settlements (possibly even more than in FO3) scattered around, ranging from settlements the size of the republic of dave/arefu, to ones the size of Paradise falls/megaton/rivet city. I'm sure there will be old ruins to explore, but honestly, I don't think we'll be seeing anything like the ruins north, northwest of DC, where the bethesda buildings are, or the corvega factory, etc.

I want an entirely open wasteland, with a good number of settlements, and the giant jewel of the desert in the distance, New Vegas. I am really excited to play this game!

<_< It doesn't fit in the lore or even realistically. A massive city, after a nuclear war? Even 200 years after it? My answer: NO.

fallout 3 was gonna be mostly all city originally, so the developers comprimised and kept making the wasteland bigger so not sure what you're talking about, but there are cites not just wasteland outdoor type areas, the pitt could of been a lot bigger, so there does need to be a large central city in each fallout game taking up a large portion of the map, fallout 3 had it but it was just too destroyed, not all the cites would be that destroyed. the city area i fallout 3 too k up 1/4 of the map area so you saying its not part of the lore, thats baloney, you're saying there aren't any cities left? only small towns ? that doens't make sense so they do need to make a main large area city with an airport, neighborhoods, industrial areas, commerce areas etc. not just everything rubble like in FO3.

Uhh, Rivet City x 7 or 8 would be Washington DC.

I liked wandering around the D.C. ruins, and the sense of desolation they evoked was one of my favourite things about Fallout 3. What disappointed me was that (as with a lot of Fallout 3) there wasn't really that much to find there. The location was great, but to me it was lacking in characters and quests, which is what I really play Fallout games for. While I don't think NV will include a city that comprises as much of the map as the D.C. ruins, I think the city of New Vegas will be far larger and more detailed in terms of characters, quests, and generally things to do.

The main thing that worries me from preview shots and videos I've seen so far is that while the background seems to say that the city is less devastated/regenerating etc., it seems like the engine can't really handle the number of NPCs I'd expect from a "thriving city" in one place at a time. Most of the pictures I've seen of The Strip or the casinos look pretty empty - I think that's fine when you're depicting a desolate ruin like D.C., but I think for a basically intact Vegas it might feel a bit off.