I did not like fallout new vegas atmosphere the blue sky lack of high amounts of radiation and destruction like fallout 3 and then they release honest hearts.Wich inraged me further NO RADIATION WTF i regret buying it .I recall there was a nuclear war and there is no radiation.Why is their a bright blue sky in F.NV to, you dont have to worry about radiation like you did in fallout 3 wich is dum.fallout 3 was much more chalenging than F.NV in my oppinion

What do you prefer a destroyed hell on earth or a easy cake walk?I think F,NV should have taken place way before than it does wich would make things a little more challenging because of more rads and civilization also they should have removed the nice blue sky it sickens me.

You seem to forget over 200 years have passed since nuclear war. All radiation (at least in a little place called reality) is gone.

D.C. shouldn't be an exception. The original Fallouts had very small pockets of radiation scattered around everywhere; Fallout 3 is the only game that had more than that.

And NV is actually more difficult than F3. Play F3 for thirty hours you get top tier weapons, sweet armor, and more caps than you will ever need. In NV you play for thirty hours you have decent weapons, nice armor, and a couple of thousand caps (but since things cost so much more it balances out better than F3).

Oh and play Very Hard in F3 then play Normal in NV. You will find that normal is more difficult than F3's Very Hard.

I used to be just like you until I played the originals, realized F3 is the odd one out with the series and gradually I came to respect, like, and then love NV.

Well said Sebor

Also OP if you want to debate what wasteland is better there is already an on going topic ==> http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1357964-do-you-prefer-a-destroyed-dangerous-wastelandas-seen-in-fo3-or-a-more-civilized-wasteland-thats-rebuilding-itself-as-seen-in-fonv-thread-2/

We already have a thread on this but Fallout 3 was the weird one as it had too much radiation.
To say that New Vegas did something "wrong" would be incorrect, Fallout 3 was the game that portrayed the setting wrong.
Remember the 3 on the end of Fallout 3, there were 3 games prior to it, look 'em up, research, then come back before you ask questions you know nothing about.

I played fallout 1 and 2 by the way beat them to good games.

This x1000.

Fallout 3 is the black sheep of the herd, plain and simple.

And yet you think New Vegas was done wrong? If you have played the originals and you say you liked them, how could you think New Vegas was the one that screwed up?

Fallout 3 was the odd game out. It isn't challenging and the game world is very inconsistent with the series (which you should know cause apparently you played the games) and Fallout 3 is full of plot holes and inconsistencies and the writing is just crap across the board and it isn't much of an RPG.

Then you should know how wrong you are.

These.

And just to reiterate: If you have, as you say you have, played FO1 & 2, then why would you say FO3 was superior to FO:NV?

Fallout New vegas is more in favor for people who played the origional games,fallout 3 is more for people who are new to the seris and who have not played the origionals.

What does that matter to you, though, if you've played the originals? You're right FO3 was meant to introduce a new generation/crowd, to the Fallout series, but it was still wrong of Bethesda to set it 200 years after the bombs, and make D.C./Capital Wasteland look as it did. New Vegas and the Mojave, were better looking for 200+ years after bombs, not D.C.

Based on what?

From my time on the forum, alot of people on here started with Fallout 3. They went out and played the Originals and then they came to see the flaws in Fallout 3. Some people started with New Vegas and couldn't get into Fallout 3. There is a far amount that like both games and want Fallout 4 to be a mix.

This is based on my observation from my time well wasted lurking around this forum.

There was a time on this forum were if you dared to say the originals were better than Fallout 3 you would be laughed out of here, but times have changed. Alot of people on here started with Fallout 3 and are now fans of the Originals.

Fallout 3 did a good job getting people into the Fallout Universe, but there is more to that Universe than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 screwed things up in pretty much every way possible. New Vegas is a return to the orginals.

Does anyone on here really know, how long it would take for the radiation to clear up after a massive nuclear war?
How is it possible to find out?

America and other countries have set off alot of nukes. The radiation goes away pretty fast. Something like 60 miles north of Vegas, America used to test alot of bombs.

yes a lot smaller bombs though. Im also sure those areas are still affected by radiation in some way.
How many bombs were dropped on the capitol wasteland? I would also assume that there would be nuclear power stations and other things that could leak radiation for years? Show me evidence that the radiation would be gone after 200 years. Im just curious

Radiation does go away after a short time. America and other countries were testing H-Bombs that would level a city like LA and yet the radiation goes away. The radiation becomes Fallout and Fallout gets washed away into the soil.

Radiation also doesn't effect plants life.

The Capital City (DC) wasn't hit that had give the fact everything is still standing. You can't have the city still intact and then turn around and say it was nuked so bad that not even plants will grow. You can't have both.

Radiation coming from a power plant is different, there is a large amounts of Radioactive fuel giving off the radiation and radioactive metals, that is why chernobyl is still radioactive. It didn't go boom, the radioactive fuel just got thrown out and went all over the place. When a nuclear bomb goes off the weapons grade fuel, Uranium or Plutonium is atomised, less then atomised because the atoms split which causes the big BOOM!

Also Fallout and Fallout 2 don't have radiation all over the place and they were far more damaged than DC.

Was watching a show on what would happen if there was a nuclear war (End of the world) and the people were saying that the Bunkers built for the government were only stocked for about two months, because after that the radiation would be gone.

Fallout lore and canon says the Vaults were to open after about 10 years, so I guess they were playing it safe with that. Either way the radiation lasting 200 years is just stupid.

All those people would be walking tumors and again radiation doesn't effect plant life.

You can visit the Trinity Site, the place where the first A-bombs, and those after (including H-bombs), were tested, without worry of radiation. And I'm not talking about just going up to the edge, you can go to ground zero, of where these bombs were set off. There are tons of craters where these were set off, not far from each other either, and the radiation is hardly to levels that are threatening, if at all there anymore. Even if a place like D.C. got hit with as many nukes as it probably would have, the radiation would mostly be gone 200 years after the fact.

Chernobyl, most of the radiation is gone, besides the radioactive goo that is still inside the building, but that isn't the same. I'm pretty sure most of the radiation at the Japanese nuclear plant is gone too. Wildlife can live there, but they don't let humans live there.

Also fallout typically burns itself out (you could say) in a few days, withing a few weeks most radiation levels would be back to normal. There are people who speculate that fallout wouldn't even be the biggest problem to surviving, but nuclear winter would be.

Oh, and also, people could/were visiting and living in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, in 1945, just months after the bombs went off.

Not true. watched a documentary about chernobyl recently and there are still levels of radiation around the area

Its also interesting that the topic is about Honest Hearts because in Honest Hearts it tells us how long the radiation lasted:

Randall Clark Notes:

Oct 31, 2077: "Black rain falling outside. http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Geiger_counter jumping. Should let it kill me but bottling water from back of cave all the same."

Nov 2, 2077: "Sounds dead outside, but can't look. Geiger goes crazy 15 feet from cave mouth. Do the math. Radiation goes down before water runs out or I never leave this cave."

Jan 1, 2078: "Two months in cave. Still lethal outside. Don't get it. In army they said 2-4 weeks cleared fallout.

Jan 10, 2078: "Sounded like windstorm out there for 2 days. Radiation down 500. What happened?"

Jan 15, 2078: "Took a peek. Snow. It glows green."

Jan 28, 2078: "Radiation low enough I could risk short exposure outside. More important, cave stream now drinkable if I use Rad drugs."

Jan 30, 2078: "There is nothing alive out there."

So lets do the math. October 23, 2077 was the nuclear war. Jan 28, 2078 is when it was finally safe enough, so that's 97 days. Far short of 200 years.



Yeah I explained that. Chernobyl wasn't like an A-bomb going off. There was an explosion that tossed a crap load of radioactive nuclear fuel and material around. That is why its radioactive and even then alot of it is buried in the ground now and the plant life is uneffected.

When a nuclear bomb goes off the radioactive fuels gets used up to make the big Boom! and is then destroyed forever, it is transformed into verious radiations which then go away (become none lethal) after a couple months.

Just read a little bit about the trinity site. Its said there was still residual radiation there more than 60 years after the blast. It also said spending an hour there counts as half the exposure to radiation your body normally takes in one day

That doesn't mean there would be no radiation at all though

If it went down to none lethal levels after 97 days, it would be pretty much gone scratch that. It would be gone after 200 years that is my point.

Also you keep forgetting or just avoiding the fact that radiation doesn't stop plants from growing.

I also explained the difference between Chernobyl and a nuclear bomb going off.

That residual radiation at Trinity is very low in the first place, and if it was much of a danger, I doubt people would be going there like they do every year and standing on ground zero. You're not going to get cancer standing around there for two or three hours. The type of radiation it is, is obviously not like x-ray radiation where it hits and just goes away, it does last a time, but over time it will go away. And 200 years into the future, it would be gone. Hell, even a week after a bomb explosion, military types were standing right where a bomb went off to survey the damage. And I'm talking Generals, not just some lowly grunt.

And like I said, there were people visiting and living in Nagasaki and Hiroshima just months after the bombs dropped on them. People have been living there since, and don't have any higher amounts of cancer cases, as anywhere else in the world. Same goes for Chernobyl, it's just people have a high stigma obviously, with radiation, so don't move as close to a leaking power plant.