I woud love an RPG-7 inspired weapon.

Make it a makeshift post-apocalypse creation with creatable ammo.

Also it could launch rocket spears. Dynamite+throwing spears= Rocket Propelled Javelin.

RPJ is born.

i thought the javlin was the most famous one

mine too

Personally There's a lot I'd like to see changed in the series. Granted some things are acceptable as is (such as radiation still present, even though its only supposed to last about 100 yrs and its been about 200) because the entire universe is based on the 50's ideas of radiation and nukes. I'd like to see other things changed in future dlc/fallout 4
1. All pre-war weapons/food/items/buildings in general should be LONG gone. There's no way any of it would still be around after 250+ yrs. This isn't too big a deal to me. I actually think taking these away would ruin the series. I personally love exploring all the old buildings and finding neat stuff (one reason I preferred 3 over NV-not as much to explore in the desert and it felt much more linear)

2. Even if we do keep the old war weapons, we should be finding working, operational factories where shiny NEW (not just copies of the same stuff) weapons, armor, and items are being made. We should be seeing thriving communities (not unlike in the original FO games). It's been over 200 yrs, are you seriously telling me that theres still only a handful of small communities? I could kind of see NV because its a desert and has a lot of dangerous monsters (cadazors, death claws), but the capital wasteland should be WAY more populated (though the small population might have been due to the outdated engines limitations-not sure).

3. More plants. Again, its been 200+ yrs. SOMETHING must have started to grow. Im not saying the whole place should be filled with them (that would ruin the post-apocalyptic atmosphere), but I'd like more areas like the Oasis in FO3.

4. Make Harder difficulties- FO3 wasn't too difficult on the hardest setting, and NV on hardcoe mode didn't work too well (or maybe it was just really glitched for me. I only once had to sleep). I like games to be moderately easy (like both games on normal), but I'd also like to have a second difficulty where I really have to struggle to survive. The dead money DLC (most of the DLC for both games actually) were much better. At the climix of dead money I remembered being up in the tower with little to know ammo and having to desperatly sneak, run, and fight my way through hordes of enemies! I'd like the harder difficulties to have more moments like that!

I'd like to see a faster, smaller, weaker rocket launcher. The RPG sounds good.

I only agree on food. Weapons and a lot of items are built to last a long time and take a lot of abuse. Most buildings in NV are in bad shape. And why do people keep saying NV is more linear than 3?


Haven't played the first two Fallouts have we? Tsk tsk. In NV's context of size, you don't have more than one big city in that given area. Fallout 1 had 13 and Fallout 2 had 17, but they each covered a half of California. Besides, F3 was pretty continuity and stylistically broken.



Haven't stopped and smelled the cactus flowers in NV have we? Haven't you noticed the farming communities in NV? Canonically speaking a vast of the world's plant population died after a week-long radioactive global rainstorm.



I agree. NV and 3 have been piss easy compared to 1 and 2.

I did actually play the first two games (only after playing 3). I never beat 1 cuz every time I killed the master/tried to kill him, the game crashed. I started two but have yet to finish it. I didn't realize/forgot that 1 was all/most of california. I still think the towns should have bigger populations. If megatons been around since within 100 yrs after the war (which I think an old lady in the town says), the population should be MUCH bigger. Also, when i say more areas like oasis, i mean LOTS of plants, like a forest. Not the trpe NV had (unless you count outside that one vault). also, Have you ever watched discovery channels (or maybe its history channel) show "Life After People). It said that it would take 250yrs till buildings started to collapse, and thats if people just disappeared, not it the world was nuked. though I supposed over the yrs some people would come along and do some minor work to keep the buildings standing, so I guess its not that big a stretch. But thats buildings, not weapons. I find it hard to believe that weapons would survive longer than buildings, but then again with people finding and using them, and making more (as the gun runners do) i suppose I didn't think it through too well. Still, I would like to see full factories running and new types of weapons being developed. I'd also like to see vehicles (if im not mistaken FO2 had a car that was a pretty big part of the game. Personally I never go that far). Also, I didn't think about the fact that for plants to grow, there have to be other plants near by...

NV linearity: Its more linear because pretty much up until you reach NV, you practically HAVE to follow the main quest because any other path is either blocked or has enemies too strong to fight and too fast to run past (I.E. deathclaws and cadazzors). In fallout 3, as soon as you left the vault you usually would head to megaton to get some better equipment/quests, then you could go anywhere and explore. you could go any direction and find something of interest w/ out worrying about getting killed. The only no-no area was the DC ruins, George town and its surrounding areas, and old town. Just about anywhere else was okay as long as you were fairly well equipped. Plus there was just more incentive to explore. The Mohave was cool ONLY to see vegas. Other than that, most of the secondary locations were pretty boring and usually just felt thrown in. One part of FO3 I loved was wondering around the wasteland and finding a little strip mall that wasn't a location, wandering into a building, and finding the a whole shelf of boxes lined up as part of a big chain reaction trap! I loved finding little easter egg type things like that and NV completely lacked that (aside from the handful of little references wild wasteland added). Overall, all the non-story missions/areas just didn't seem compelling enough to make me want to do them/explore. It all just felt thrown in and a lot of the side missions were just "go here. Get me this. Now go back and fourth so many times that you see loading screens for far longer than the actual mission takes you". Even some of the story missions were pretty boring and it felt like the main mission was all there really was to do. Personally I think all future fallouts should stay away from deserts and stick with places like DC, new york, or LA. Las Vegas is cool, but not the way it was done. it would have been better if they had just built it like it is now, and not like it "should be" in the FO universe (I put that in quotes cuz for all we know, the vegas of fallout could have become just about exactly the same as our vegas). Another favorite moment of mine was when i came out of the tunnels in FO3 and say the Washington mall. Even though I've Never been in DC, I loved seeing all the monuments, the fact that the pool/lake thing had been turned into trenches, and the very war like atmosphere (w/ all the mutants and tallon mercs fighting there). Maybe I just saw too many vids of NV before It came out, but seeing new vegas just didn't have the same kind of impact on me. I like and appriciate all the added features, but overall I just think 3 is a better game (plus I ran in to FAR less glitches in 3, even after I got all the DLC).

It dosent have to bee COD styled weapon. Bee creative.

no I think the missile launcher is more of a anti-Armour weapon since it fires MISSILES.
The RPG-7 only fires rockets, so it should rather be anti-personnel

it is one of the first things people think about when you say rocket launcher(outside of the bazooka ofcourse)
and doesn't have to look exactly like a real RPG, it just has to be inspired by it.