assuming there is some kind of normality and stability in those areas now (the NCR are expanding, so you would assume so) then those FO1 places would have expanded and been rebuilt. Re-visiting them for FO4 or such, you would find them different places to how they were back then. For them NOT to be so doesn't make sense, and would be unrealistic.

Frankly, I don't care about the series timeline, and I don't care about the continuity between games. I'm more interested in how each game plays. And yes, I was one of those who disliked FO2 when it came out, and I still dislike it.

For FO3, it makes no difference to me if the game is supposed to take place 200 years or 20 years after the war. I prefer the vibe over FO2, and I'd prefer to have the same FO3 vibe in NV, as opposed to the too civilized vibe of FO2.

In the end, it's a matter of gameplay taste, as it is for just about every discussion we have here.

I have noticed from some of the videos that some things look kind of... clean. Like some of the outfits and the player's hands, and what is it with super mutants teeth, they're pure white? They look like they have these huge cheesy grins!

That's the impression I got from the vids anyway. It might look different in the finished product.

The Master was probably a very hygenic person.
I bet he killed a cat for every time one of his minions scratched their ass and sniffed the hand.
Maybe that's why cat's went extinct?

All I can say is I don't know. The videos show a small percentage of the game I'll reserve my judgment for after I've played the game for a few days.

So "continuity & story" is moot, and "atmosphere" is acceptable if its changed... Gameplay must revolve around the simulation of an eternally post Apocalyptic world on the verge of collapse.

Is this right, or am I misunderstanding you?

I am the other way (myself), I would prefer a modernized approximation of Fallout 2 with a new location and new story (built accurately on top of past events); so 'story & continuity' are paramount, and the atmosphere of the series was fine [for me that is], as I liked the designer's intended vision of their game. I liked their game play as well ~that is what kept me with the series long enough to learn the story and bother caring about the continuity... with that now gone from the series, the only thing left IS the "continuity & story", and so now it is "doubly paramount". :laugh:

I can do entirely without the first person viewport, so the simulation aspect is "showing off to the unconcerned". That would seem to be how it is with you and their attempt to fashion a fleshed out timeline and have the story not rely on events that contradict it. (they are going for realism, so they pretty much have to)

My guess is that we will both like the outskirts of New Vegas a lot, and we both might have peeves about the walled city. (I already have a peeve about the aforementioned "Passing a Credit Check", to get into New Vegas), but I don't expect to be disappointed with this game. I plan to make the most of it, for what it is.

Agree 100% - Many here are claiming that because it has gone 200 years, civilization must be rebuild etc. etc.
But then - why to speak about post apocalyptic game at all ? Make no sense to get an "Western" when You buy an post apocalyptic game.

What comes to progression after total nuclear war :
Level of technology is highly dependent of possibility to import raw materials, education systems etc. AND for production You need machines, computers etc,etc. Lets say people in NV spent first 20 years to rebuild their food production (farming) - in that time all factories will be nothing but scrap - Or You really believe a today manufactured computer still works after 200 years ?

In 40 years all specialist will be died - there will not be some high tech guys hanging around and telling people how to produce new technology ( without needed machines and raw materials ). Nope - after 200 years there will not be computers, energy weapons or casinos.

Still - I hope NV is an enjoyable game.

Oh my lord. Why is this thing not dead. THeres roughly 2-3 different debates in this accursed thread. :brokencomputer:

I have to say this...

I come from German Heritage, so with that said here is all i have to say to this...

"The Teutonic reputation for brutality is well founded. Their operas last for 3 or 4 days and they have no word for 'fluffy'."

You might be right. Now you mention it I'm not all that excited about The Strip. I'm more a wastelander. But I don't want the emptiness of the wasteland in terms of content and things to do. I want quests. That's more important to me than anything else. I want quests. F3 may have got the post apocalyptic, wasteland thing down, but there's just not enough to do. So if I have to have things more build up, more a feeling of civilisation but have more to do and more quests to do then that's fine.

And I'm sure there will still be something out there to give us our wasteland fix. If not in the main game maybe there will be DLC that gives us a more run down, baren area to run around in, but hopefully still have quests to do.

Preserved? Why not? A styro-foam cup can last 500 years and still work.

**As for tech... as far as FO3 is concerned it has enough scientists already in DC to have rebuilt parts of society decades before.
Seriously... What king of tech did the Romans have that someone that can repair a generator can't figure out... and yet the Romans had a vast empire of cities and were enablers of commercial trade. :shrug:


**FO3 is littered with working computers that are presented as being over 200 years old.

The East Coast might just as well be in a worse state than the West Coast for whatever reason, but people sure shouldn't be living in shacks and such 200 years after the war.

Do you honestly think the people of the east coast wouldn't have built proper towns like the Fallout 1 and 2 towns after such a long time?

Perhaps if they'd set Fallout 3 to 10 years after the war it would have made much more sense. 200 years, though? Really?

The West Coast looking THAT much better simply doesn't make sense, and thus, Fallout 3 is inaccurate.



Many here are claiming that civilization must be rebuilt after 200 years, because that's what makes sense. That's what would naturally happen. Post apocalyptic is not just "everything is destroyed lol!!". The point of Fallout was to explore ethics and what shape civilization would take after such a major event took place. So, it's a world that humanity is rebuilding that Fallout explores. Not just a destroyed world.
Also, the game takes place in a post apocalyptic world no matter how many years have passed since said apocalypse took place.

Maybe I'm just finding evidence to make the whole thing work better in my mind, but my sense of DC was that there had been some recovery and then a collapse of sorts. Daring Dashwood's computer entries in particular seem to suggest that things were different forty or fifty years earlier. So that's how I justified the relative state of the area in my mind.

It's easy to criticize Fallout 3, but Bethesda faced a tough situation when they took over the franchise. They had several competing elements to consider. First, they wanted to honor the first two games and not just "reboot" the franchise. Second, they wanted to recreate specifically the atmosphere of the first game, which is clearly more of a "immediate aftermath, things still chaotic" period even though it is 90 years after the nukes fell. Third, they had to make sure the new game used key elements of Fallout franchise, like super mutants and the BoS. Trying to make all those things come together was going to be hard. To achieve #1 and #3, you need to set the game after the events of the first two games. To achieve #2 you have to significantly outside the geographical area defined by those games.

I'm excited about NV, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried that 200+ years after on the west coast isn't going to end up feeling very apocalyptic. Having seen All Roads isn't helping either.

Are we really having a conversation about how much collateral damage to the infrastructure there should be 200 years after a Nuclear War in a game that allows you to walk through the wake of your own recently launched mini nuke? This is not our type of nuclear power this is the utopianized 50's world of tommorow nuke power.

Apocalypse is a collapse with a new beginning, how many centuries of doom and gloom do you want before the people remaining try to make a world of it. Vegas didn't get hit directly, there is water and power, it could have as easily been Branson, but I don't think that game would be near as fun. I am willing to bet people view New Vegas alot like the California Gold rush or Manifest destiny, Vegas is the future. I for one am glad that they are taking it in a sociopolitical direction, it's a part of post apocalyptia you don't often get to see.

On a side note anyone else contemplating a Buddy from "Six String Samurai" build? I mean come on.... it's Vegas.

You know, to support Bethesda in it's decision to make the East Coast so ruined I want throw this in there. First, I don't think Bethesda cared that it was 200 years after the war; they just wanted that destroyed and hopeless theme, period. Second, it kinda works because even though people would try to rebuild immediately after the chaos like everyone keeps saying, there would be massive amounts of radiation in the environment that would kill off a vast amount of the able-bodied population to add on to the already large number of immediate casualties. With the government having run off into hiding, there'd be no one to organize distribution of supplies such as food and "RadAway". So the descendants of that surviving population would either die of mutations and complications due to radiation exposure, become the unproductive and hostile raider, or a heartless mercenary/survivor who only looks out for his/herself and does nothing to aid the progress of humanity as a whole.

Just something I thought of. Feel free to argue with my point of view.

Why on Earth would they want to do that? The majority of players have not played FO1 (or FO2), so they cannot spot the original atmosphere; They don't know it. :shrug:
The only players that do know it are the ones that would expect it to change after 90 years.

When were the BOS ever a key element? In FO1 they were an optional alliance with a cult holed up in a bunker, and in FO2 they were barely existent at all.
(I only recall one BOS agent (not counting Aurthur and his merry men), and he could have been lying )

There were folks looking forward to an Enclave free, and BOSless Fallout 3, and had no qualms or misgivings about it. (and they would not have minded a few of either in the game ~or even a bunker of them if it made sense, but they could easily be left behind).

As a tribute to the originals, and because people didn't have to play FO1+2 to enjoy the setting/theme I'd assume.

Then why not a series reboot (and take the hassle that would come from a few). Honestly... it is the "3" in Fallout three that often annoys, among those that are. If it had been Fallout:Episode 1, or Fallout: a New Waste (:laugh:), no one could complain about it...That makes it unrelated to the first series (and what new fan would care about that?).
Because its a "3" (that being the third), many series fans expected to be "the next in a set".

Your point make perfect sense. Guess they just figured they didn't want to do it that way.

According to Bethesda themselves, they wanted to continue the series because they were fans, not reboot it. And while I agree that a lot of Fallout 3 fans probably could not care less about the earlier games (though GoG seems to be doing a nice business selling them), they still were trying to attract the older fanbase of the series. We're into a totally different debate, though.

My point is that having made that decision, their options were limited. Hence the admitted issues with the DC time setting decision. And seriously, the BoS is pretty much one of the defining things about Fallout. Why do you think Interplay made the two other games (Fallout Tactics, Fallout Brotherhood of Steel) specifically about that group? Not to mention two other cancelled projects (Fallout Tactics 2, Fallout Extreme) that were also BoS centered. And you are ignoring the super mutants, who also had to be explained/justified into the DC area somehow. Finally, the Fallout 1 vs Fallout 2 debate has raged among fans for a long time, partly because over the question of whether Fallout 2 took place too far after the nukes fell.

According to Bethesda themselves, very few had played Fallout prior to starting work on it.

DC is home turf and you do what you know... I understand that; this also applies to game design though, and I understand that too... but I wish it were otherwise.

Desperate.

The mutant army was disbanded, and a few were left in FO2. (the Enclave were disbanded in FO2 and only a few should have been left in Fallout 3). The BOS were insignificant in FO2.

And when you are desperate you choose the game topics that you think will attract the most attention. Supermutants and the BoS were popular elements of the franchise and so they wanted to cash in. Just proves my point about popularity.



Meaning what? That there was no way they could be significant again in the future? Or in another location?

It's pointless to debate this further if your position is that where Black Isle left things at the end of Fallout 2 is the only true way to look at things. That ship sailed a long time ago and the success of Fallout 3 just reinforces that.

I like how you speak as i you KNOW what would happen after the world was destroyed by nuclear war. Seeing as how this has never happend before, I dont know how you can speak with such concidience about this topic. I couldn't dissagree with you more, and if you dont want to play as a cowboy..... dont, thats why its an RPG.... you can play as whatever you want to be. And what abandond cities are you talking about? Its a desert......there's not alot of cities in the desert to BE abandoned. I think you are just criticising something too much especially when you havent even played it yet.... :facepalm:

BOS is _loathed and Tactics (though I liked it) is largely ignored as far as canon goes. Tactics was a Brotherhood-centric game, because it was a squad based combat game. The Brotherhood in FO1 was a large, but optional side quest.

First tell me if you completed Fallout 1?

The Master's army was under his direction ~and he's dead. The mutant army scattered; their leadership killed, and their purpose for being an army... disproven as a false hope.

So yeah, I'd say they were gone for good; and in Fallout 2 there were only a few militant supermutants in the game. (the rest got jobs and settled down ~and Marcus was made the Sheriff). When the Chosen one mentions mutant animosity, Marcus shows distaste and ask what hole he crawled out of, and that mutants and humans made peace a long time ago.

Ahem, there are released screenshots of PA, even the Enclave APA MkII just so you know.
Also, ever wondered why they kept reusing footages in those trailers/teasers?

I think it's simply because they don't want to show you everything yet in the game. It's like expecting the entire story of a film to be in a single 2 minute trailer.

Also, if you had a better eye for detail, you'd notice that there are broken down roads and alot of other things that have been destroyed due to decay and neglect.