I tell you what i do like more in F3's wasteland. the only invisible walls are the boundaries of the maps.

I also do like the greyish green hue much better.. keep in mind I started playing th e game in the falltime, so it really fit the mood of what was going on outside for me

i wont really break it down with realism, because lets be honest, there are things about both games that dont really add up.

Well, yes and no. Though super high levels of radiation disipate quickly, lower levels of radiaiton can last for a very long time. Yes, 100 years is the far end of the spectrum, but nature moving it around would really just spread the material out, more than sweep it away. A small piece of radioactive material can produce enough radiation to kill a person. Eventually rain and wind, as well as plants absorbing it, would reduce the amount of material in a given area, but by the time it became sparse enough the isotopes would have become safe anyways.

The other issue that isn't really quantifiable is that physics in the Fallout world revolve around SCIENCE! According to Fallout rules something that is irradiated becomes radioactive. In reality this isn't true, only very few materials become radioactive through long term exposure to radiation. We also don't know how long the half lives of isotopes are in the Fallout universe.

I liked the openness and ease of New Vegas but the bleakness and radiation of the Capital Wastes.

Also remember it is cannon that the areas are farther apart so while we just walk into a store and it is like duh how did you not find this place, given the real distances and the dangers of traveling it becomes more obvious how some stores were missed. If the Capital Wastes were as big as they should be then there would be massive city to walk through, tons of small towns and so on all laid to ruins but yeah they could have put more food production in.

Also the Capital Wastes just wasn't a place conducive to life, if the giant ants and other mutants didn't kill you then you have to fight off the super mutants and given the real size of the area it isn't like you are going to be reaching help any time soon. Worst if you survive that then there are slavers and Raiders. and that is why I liked Capital wastelands a bit better because there was stuff to kill.

You ally with NCR like a friend of mine did there is just not a hell of a lot to kill since the engine is getting old.

That depends on what kind of small piece you are considering. The kind the elements throw around are likely dust size and though that might contain the stray emission that gives you cancer, spreading out lowers the total radiation accumulated and the overall chance of harmful mutation.
Diffusion by elements will not play such a small role as you suggest.


We also know from earlier Fallouts that only a places of impact remain radioactive over a long time. It's safe to say that in the Fallout world the biggest amount radiation would have dissipated after a few decades.

as for the whole radiation thing not being realistic. i would like to point out that NV wasnt really hit by a lot of nukes, like DC was
AFAIK, The Glow is pretty heavily irradiated for the same reason.

FO3'S SCENERY [censored]!!!!!

Actually, I'm currently replaying both Fallout 3 and New Vegas at the moment (I kind of trade off every couple of days - when I start getting a bit tired of one, I switch the other, and so on...)

Tonally, I'm much preferring Fallout 3's Wasteland, actually. From an art direction standpoint, it just feels a lot more... cohesive. You can tell that their primary objective with the game was to make vistas that were visually striking, and then tried to fit the logic to work with that. But really, even when I first played Fallout 3 (and coming to that came as a long-time fan of the original series,) I had some gripes about a lot of things, but I really can't say enough good stuff about their art direction in that game. For better or worse, accurate or not - Fallout 3 still looks more like a "Fallout" game than anything else I've ever played.

Fallout: New Vegas... art direction is just not Obsidian's strong suit. They don't have as much experience creating a gameworld of this kind. I'm not saying they're bad artists by any stretch, it's simply that (again, simply in terms of visual appeal) that creating a visually arresting world that's a joy to explore is kind of Bethesda's greatest strength.

Structurally, however - I liked the attention to detail that Obsidian gave the Mohave Wasteland. I like how there's a logic to how everything is laid out. You get a sense of how each settlement has managed to survive. You can tell that they really wanted to make sure that there were viable reasons that people would be living in each place - what they do, why they're there, and how it all connects to the larger picture.

So for me, it's a mixed bag. If I could get a game that looks as fabulous as Fallout 3 did, with as much attention to creating a believable infrastructure as New Vegas did - then I'd be a happy camper.

New Vegas. People seem to not undersand that Fallout 3 not the only Fallout before New Vegas came out. People don't understand that Fallout 3 is not "post apocalyptic" because the great war was 200 years ago at the time of Fallout 3. In all the Fallouts but of Fallout 3, there have been people rebuilding, forming new nations and ways of doing things. There are trees and plants, people farming animals and plants. They are building new towns out of new material. They are mining and manufacturing. They formed vase trading systems that goes with a real working economic system.

Fallout is about progression. Yeah there was a nuclear war, but that's not the point of Fallout. It's about human nature. People destroyed the world and now struggle to rebuild, and have to learn to deal with one another, hence the part of "war, war never changes."

Fallout 3, had people doing Jack Squat for 200 years. No trees or plants have grown other then Oasis. People can't figure out how to farm or rebuild.

I also find it funny that people call Fallout 3 a "post apocalyptic" game (for reasons other then it being 200 years later). There was a nuclear war. DC was the capital of America. It should have been nuked to hell, as in the whole of DC should have been gone, no standing building, no nothing, but a large radioactive crater miles across. Yet, it looks as if it wasn't even hit that bad. The only landmark not standing is the White House, everything else is still there and looks pretty good after going through a nuclear war and 200 years of neglect. Every major city in the west like LA, have been totally destroyed. Any buildings that still stand have been gutted by fire and looted. Las Vegas wasn't even hit that bad and most of the city, was destoyed by 200 years of neglect and taken back by the desert. The only reason why it looks like it does in New Vegas is because, Mr.House a couple decades ago decided to fix it up.

So if anything Fallout New Vegas is more "post apocalyptic" but the devs went with the point of Fallout (progression) and showed logical human behaviour/nature and that is to rebuild and thrive. Not sit in radioactive hole for 200 years and rot.

People complaining about the desert should look up America's geography and climate. The West Coast along the Ocean there is normally alot of life. Then there are mountains and it becomes mostly hot desert like areas if not desert. Then in the middle there is the Great Plains. There aren't that many trees there because there isn't enough rain. Historically it has been desert. Then we have the east which there is alot of forest and such. So when you add it all up most of America is desert to desert like.

Now through in a nuclear armageddon, that completely screwed the world. This would make two thirds of North America instant desert. The remaning third would be mostly desert like. Fallout Tactics shows most of its locations as desert. It talks about areas that haven't seen rain in decades!

I don't get how that works. I understand the desert part and nothing would grow for some time, but no rain. Am I supposed to expect that all water sources have dired up or something. There just has to be water and the sun for it to rain. And considering Tactics is in the Northwest you think rain wouldn't be a rare occurence especially the places next to the great lakes.

How it would become desert. Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl Historically the middle part of America has been desert to prairie, but mostly desert. There is not enough precipitation to have forests. Human activity (poor farming practices) combined with record droughts, stripped away much of the top soil. Turning most of the middle of North America into a "dust bowl." A nuclear war would destroy the top soil layers and burn away the vegetation, it would reduce the amount of precipitation even more. Yeah there would be natural water sources, they are what is known as Oasis.

The point is, the middle part of North America does not get alot of precipitation. If humans went away it would become prairie or desert. If humans nuked it, it would become desert.

The dust bowl was partially due to a drought (and it still rained occasionally which actually made things.worse most of the time), are such as Illinois and Wisconsin don't have droughts too often, so I still don't see how all rain just stopped, again especially with the great lakes right there.

Edit: Sure places like Missouri could be desert but areas around the great lakes shouldn't. Or other temperate areas with deciduous forests.

If people want Fallout to not be desert or desert like.. Then that means most of America would not make a good setting because most of North America, at least half of it to the 100th meridian would be desert. The Great Plains would be prairie or desert and east of it till around the great lakes area would be much the same. That only leaves the east cost to the great lakes for a setting of Fallout that would not be desert.

Today, there isn't much precipitation, to support anything more then prairie. In times of drought it will become desert. This is due to geography. A nuclear war would though the worlds climate completely out of whack and you would get even less rain. This is backed up by Tactics describing lands that haven't seen rain in decades. Tycho, describing Texas as desert.

A nuclear war would cause droughts, it would burn away vergitation and strip away the top soil. This means it would dwarf the Great Dust Bowl of the 1930s.

I think that after our 200 years a lot of land east of the Mississippi would start to be normal again as it is today. The south is always humid due to it being right next to an ocean and the temperature. I would also expect that Florida would never become a desert. Then I wouldn't expect new England states to be desert either. The other eastern states maybe for a while. Everything west of the Mississippi would most likely be dessert... except parts of Washington and Oregon.

Here is a pretty good idea of what things would be like ===> http://www.project610.com/files/states_imgmap.gif

My original point is most of America would be desert or desert like. So if people are sick of Fallout being in desert areas.. that only leaves about a 3rd of America to set a Fallout game.

Not including Alaska and Hawaii "the freak states"



We know that Oregon is desert as well. There are forests but large parts are desert. Arroyo was in southern Oregon and so is the Den and Klamath.

Even if 1/3 of the states are not desert I'd say maybe 1/2 to 2/3 of the interesting areas are in there.

We know of southern Oregon, not the parts close to Washington.

Even then though. People should be rebuilding, mining, farming, forming nations other then "the republic of Dave." There should be trees and plants but not really old growth forsts. Not just an Oasis created by a mutant named Harold. People should be making progress. Pre-war cities like DC should be nuked off the map or destroyed by 200+ years of looting and neglect. Not still standing but for some grime and dirt. Radiation gone but for areas one would think to find it, like a nuclear power plant or radioactive waste dump.

I... think there's some danger with Fallout of trying to take it too seriously. Going back all the way to Fallout 1 - it's soft science fiction. It wasn't meant to be held up too logically. Fallout 1 wasn't intended as a realistic portrayal of what life would be like after a nuclear war.

I've always seen Fallout as style over substance. Sure, I like it when the devs try to work in some psuedo-science and stuff, but it's always been about going for a certain tone, and then supplying supporting facts afterward.

The thing is a presidence had been set by Fallout, backed by Fallout 2 and even Tactics when it comes to setting. It isn't even that scientifically complicated to understand that most of North America would become desert after a nuclear war. Fallout also has little to no radiation around but for the Glow and some other areas. Fallout takes place just 84 years after the great war. Every city destoyed, and yet people managed to set up a working economic system and trade routes that expand hundreds of miles. They figured out how to farm, both plants and animals. There are trees and plants but alot of areas are desert. People managed to build settlements, with new material.

Fallout 3 had radiation all over the place, no progress at all. No farms and the only living trees was Oasis (until point lookout).

I have to politely disagree. It only takes the equivalent of one Joule of radiation (or a Gray) to cause serious harm. Even a dust sized particle could easily transmit a Gray of radiation into a person. Either way, the effectiveness of wind and rain on nuclear fallout is moot, becuase the majority of the radiation would be gone long before any of the protagnoists stepped out of their vaults. (I think the earliest was thirty years after the bombs fell?) By then, long term exposure might cause certain birth deffects and increase cancer rates, but would not be enough to contract radiation poisoning after only a few hours of contact.

Again, I'm talking about nuclear fallout from a nuclear bomb, not a fission reactor metl down, or the wastes left behind by said reactors.

Well seeing as Megaton was this 'Trade City' just after the war, the Capital Wasteland probably lived off that fact alone for awhile. Then you had few other settlements popping up in several places, all finding new things to loot and sell. One settlement may need a gun but have a load of food, and another has loads of guns but no food. What happens, trade?
The issue about there being loot still in certain locations is because wastelanders don't tend to go poking around in places marked with graffiti or a dead guy hanging from some chains. It's a symbol of Raiders, who might I add runs the Super Duper Mart near to Greysditch in the Capital Wasteland. The Raiders ain't stupid, they know that if they go eating into their supplies they will die so they save as much as they can and raid anything outside their 'home'.

The fact is, Fallout 3 had some good points but so did New Vegas. If Bethesda and Obsidian could sit down, create a Fallout game together.. well I think we all would agree that that would be pretty epic?

1) The chances of an emission hitting your DNA and then causing an irreparable mutations are lower when these sources are spread over a larger area, that's simple statistics. I never said that there would be no harm whatsoever.
2) I don't think we are talking about it only in terms of when the protagonist step out of the Vault. Because in the case of Fallout 3 only the elements with long half-lives would be around causing some trouble.
Diffusion would start quickly after detonation, while the biggest radiation would still take months to reduce to more acceptable levels through half-lives.

This. Simple way to not get into an argument.