Why are we going with what's scientifically supported in our universe as an example of what FO would be like again?


If we did decide to use some real world comparison, we would see average temps in Boston above freezing for the months of October and November- where the bulk of the game is supposed to be set.


But again, we can't go by any of that. The planet has been changed in FO.

Maybe this build will cheer you up.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BWmoxDJ9MEc

Hey, to be fair, Fallout 4's the closest they've ever gotten to an Arizona sunset. I still won't forgive New Vegas for that.

Problem is a real world nuclear exchange would go like this:


Every major city gets flattened, radiation and disease wipe out huge percentages of the population. During the lack of human activity nature reasserts her dominance and forests start to return.


50 years later humanity would be repopulated and almost entirely rebuilt. Unless you hit every square inch of the planet with specialized long halflife the hotspots would be avoidable.


Look at how advanced Japan got after it was given a "fresh start". Once free of established institutions humanity advances in leaps and bounds.

japan and even Chernobyl cannot be used as baselines as to what would happen in a global nuclear event.
They just cant. It's apples and oranges.

The reason Fallout 3, and to a slightly lesser extent Fallout 4, are sandy deserts, is because Fallout 1 and 2 took place in sandy deserts, because they were actually in the right part of the world for it.

Bethesda felt the need to maintain the same look for the landscape in fallout 3, even in a region that was once green. Hence all the trees are dead and the land is all dusty rocky sand. Whatever explanations they gave were clearly set up once they'd already decided on the look.

New Vegas had living plants and trees, and as mentioned, snow, because Obsidian apparently didn't feel the need to make it entirely dead, even if it was largely desert.

Bethesda have taken a bit of a step back from the dead everything approach in Fallout 4, where there is at least clean water, scrubby grass and blooming if mutated plant life, so that it feels a bit more like moorland than desert.

The thing is that FO4 is stuck with Fall weather since the game starts in October. It would be nice if the weather and lighting would be based on the season.

I love how people have yet commented on how new vegas was able to have snow but not the commonwealth. Just seems rather silly imo

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that altitude is the reason.
The Charleston peak outside of Las Vegas has snow on it for half of the year- this means that in our universe, there is more often snow in the mountains around las Vegas than there is in Boston.
August is the "monsoon" season in places like Vegas.
As an anecdote, I have been caught in hailstorms at the Gran Canyon in August.
So, if we factor this in, we could be seeing snow in higher elevevations- even in the desert- as soon as Ausust.
it doesn;t really get any warmer between August and spring, therefore any snow accumulated during the monsoon season will likely be there until the spring thaw.

But again.. We can't really compare anything in our universe, weather wise, to the FO universe.

That'd be Skyrim.

I'd agree. http://www.greenglobaltravel.com/wp-content/uploads/mount-kilimanjaro.jpg

Have to wonder if an all our nuclear war would change weather patterns especially the jet stream. Even now with the El Ni?o going on it effects the weather here in New England something fierce almost reverses it. It was snowing down south while it was almost 60 here in February. Even in December it was warm.


All it takes is a shift of the jet stream. After reading that the war was so powerful it changed landscapes forever. What would it do to weather patterns? Also when we get big earthquakes like the one in Japan they say it actually slows the earths rotation. Would a huge energy release like a nuclear war that cause landscapes to change possibly change the earths tilt?