Actually tech of dc Bos is better and it has most powerfgull squad in all bos lyons one. Weapons are better

The West Coast had access to far more technology and supplies thanks to all the pre-war military installations (Mariposa, West Tek, Navarro). Probably there was a lot more fertile (or rather more less-fertile) land to go around, thanks to the open, sprawling terrain.

I would assume that the East Coast was nuked heavier as well, being home to the larger and more populous American cities (along with government/military facilities such as West Point).

Oh, and the West Coast didn't have a crappy storyline. That is key to one's survival in the wasteland.

As for the Soviets, the Fallout timeline diverges from ours shortly after the end of World War II. Whereas our U.S. entered into conflict with the Soviet Union, in the Fallout universe, the major tensions were with the Chinese. I believe the only real mention of the Soviet union is Natasha, the premade character in FO1.

They're also mentioned in the Museum of Technology in FO3.

Lack of influence from the enclave im guessing, or that they came out of their vaults earlier?

Rivet City really didn't seem to build much new, they just took an old aircraft carrier and convert it into a living space. And Liberty Prime was, as I recall, a prewar project, just one that was never finished in time for the war, the Brotherhood of Steel just got the robot working.



Given that on the West Coast, they had T51B, whereas in Fallout 3, the only set available is not in the hands of the Brotherhood of Steel, I'd be inclined to argue that point.

All things said, though, the real reason the East Coast seems less advanced than the West is quite probably simply a matter of feel. Bethesda wanted to create more of a "scavenger" sort of feel, so they made the game the way it was, whether there's a logical in-world explanation or not comes second. Really, aside from matters of design, I see little justification for the East Coast looking like it does, considering the point the West Coast is on in Fallout 2.



Which leads one to wonder, how are so many iconic landmarks still so intact?

And after 200 years, I doubt how many bombs were dropped would make much difference.

Yeah, the DC should look like the LA Boneyard in Fallout 1.



The West Coast wasn't influenced by the Enclave until around Fallout 2 either.

1. It does seem odd that the East coast is less tech-filled
2. Again, it is odd that the major landmarks are still standing
3. I doubt that China would have oh so many nukes. I think the west coast got the worst of it.
4. D.C population was able to retreat into their pre-paid vaults due to an early warning system that gave them the know-how that the west coast was nuked, giving the East coast population an easier way to retreat into shelters
5. The east coast population might as well be considered completely ghoulified, in vaults, or inside of a bunker hiding. The rest are raiders, BOS, Outcasts, Rivet city, Tenpenny Tower, Megaton, Big town, and so on. Then you have your casual wastelander, who is a remnant of a probable metro settlement.

The answer probally is that most towns house the living population of the wasteland. The rest of the D.C pop is either Raiders or wastelanders. And then again, there are few of those. Thing is, radiation killed most of the people, the ones we see are just remnants, not even worth creating a town for.

For dramatic reasons, to make the contrast with the real-life DC even more telling. And gameplaly reasons - it would be boring if the entire city is just levelled with no telling landmarks around. Seeing for instance the Washington Monument rising up in the middle of the ruins is pretty impressive.

That said, it's hard to argue about realism in a game with giant ants & super mutants, anyway.

It is possible that other vaults were build in secret.

I beg to differ, I find traveling through bland subways to get between districts more boring than a Boneyard-like D.C. would be. Seeing monuments in a ruined state doesn't really contribute anything useful to the game.



Your point being what, exactly? Fallout is a game, of course it's not realistic. However cities being leveled is a part of the Fallout universe, and the fact that D.C. isn't leveled like the cities in Fallout and Fallout 2 is what I believe could be referred to as a "lore inconsistency".

sorry mis read

I disagree, it actually sets the mood quite well with seeing the remains of important landmarks.

And if we went with ''realism'' , the fact that there still is air to breath is unrealistic in itself, considering most plant life being dead or irradiated.

It's ironic, really. I originally was expecting the East Coast to be more developed - the existence of more government/military installations being a sufficient tradeoff for the additional amount of nukes that may have hit the region. Apparently not.

I think there was more of a design motive for the East Coast being developmentally inferior to the West Coast, too. By the end of Fallout 2, the game didn't feel post-apocalyptic at all. Society had moved on so much that all its ills (prostitutions, drugs) were back and it was starting to feel like some generic lawless wasteland. That's one reason I preferred Fallout 1. I only assume Bethesda kept it in the future (and on the other side of the country) to avoid utterly retconning and shoving plot holes through Black Isles' saga like swiss cheese.

Which is why Black Isle introduced the NCR-BoS war in Van Buren, so that the society established in FO2 would be destroyed.



It's not about realism, it's about consistency with established lore.

I believe Bethesda has even stated that they wanted a feel more like FO1 than FO2, in interviews around the launch of FO3. It, like a lot of their decisions, was mostly based on FO3 being the first Fallout game 85% of its audience would play.