Did you guys even look at the pictures of ground zero? I'm sorry but I think you are giving too much praise to human ingenuity. Someplace that small being hit that hard is not going to fair very well. If you are struggling to stablilize yourself and find food you aren't going to worry about rebuilding around you especially if so many things and people are trying to kill you.

megaton could probably not expand that much because of the way it was built and if you get too big it goes to anarchy (NCR).

@ Talonfire- We know that everyone who lives in DC itself moved there because the only two settlements in the city proper are the Citadel and Rivet City. Rivet City is 40 years old, and the Citadel is only a couple of decades old also. Megaton is a ways out in the wastes and was made by people who came into the area trying to get into the Vault, and were unable to.
Also, there are signs Megaton is having difficulty surviving; Walter, the guy at the water purifying plant, talks about how the town's water purifier is on the verge of breaking down. Several Megaton Settlers, when approached, will also comment on how "this place svcks" or something to that effect. It's clearly far from an ideal place to live.

And again, people ARE rebuilding, they just haven't had either much time or motivation to do so. In Megaton's case, why would you want to expose yourself to Raider, Slaver or Super Mutant attacks outside the town walls to rebuild a city when you already live in a relatively safe area?

Why is everyone still defending this with the 200 year argument?

Why does it have to be 200 years after the bombs fell?

They could've made the decision to go BACK in time or something. Why does it HAVE to progress chronologically?

Hell at this rate Fallout 4 is going to have suburban neighborhoods and the hardest thing about surviving will be mowing the lawn.

Maybe I wish it wasn't 200 years after. The point is I don't want a post-nuclear simulation to have a rebuilt world. What's the point of that?


And for those wondering I did make a similar thread about 2 weeks ago but I got over it.

Then I saw this video:
http://g4tv.com/videos/49184/Fallout-New-Vegas---Beyond-the-Beef-Quest-Exclusive/

And I got riled up again. Nothing in that video looks right to me. It's not so much the vegas as the characters. They all seem like characters taken from other times and just planted in this universe. You've got a rich rancher, a ranchers bratty son, a monkey suit-top hat wearing slickster, and robocop. THAT DOES NOT SEEM POST APOCALYPTIC TO ME.

My thought of post apocalyptic:
Mad Max, Book of Eli, The Road, Fallout 1, Fallout 3, Metro 2033, Doomsday and the like.

Compare those characters and atmospheres to the ones we've been exposed to in Fallout: NV.

As a big fan of first two classic games, all I have to say is simple: Play the first two original games.

You talked a lot about the 'Fallout feel' and 'Fallout style' etc, but I am making the assumption that you haven't played or read about the first two games. Even the first Fallout which is set just a few decades after the Great War, the cities and towns are in much better shape compared to the ones in Fallout 3. And by the time of Fallout 2, highly developed cities and even nation-states such as NCR, The Shi Town, and Vault City has been established. The Capital Wasteland is the one that loss the 'Fallout feel' and 'Fallout style' that is what the series is all about, not the other way around. Fallout is about how people re-build civization years after the end, not the survival right afterwards.

I am not trying to sound like one of the hardcoe [censored] of the originals, but if you are really going to comment and criticize a game that is being designed by the people that created the series in the first place, you should at lease have a basic understanding of the series beyond just the newest game that came out.

If anything, I'm sorry to say, but Fallout 3 was utterly inaccurate in it's depiction of the world. It looked as if the war had happened a mere 30 years before.

I am not trying to sound like one of the hardcoe [censored] of the originals, but if you are really going to comment and criticize a game that is being designed by the people that created the series in the first place, you should at lease have a basic understanding of the series beyond just the newest game that came out.

You seem to have the misconception that if we all played the first two games, we will somehow automatically prefer them to FO3.

I prefer the less civilized feel of FO3. I think it feels more PA to pick through ruins then to walk down the street of NCR. I want to feel like I'm surviving a disaster, not that I'm dealing with petty political problems. If anything, the game that's out of step here is FO2, which, to my liking, was too civilized.

I don't worry about "civilisation" much. It's like the old Judge Dredd comicbook - that was post-apocalyptic, and you had the wasteland complete with people living in tin shacks and mutants. BUT the rest of humanity had built a big city with a big wall around it, and inside the city was all futuristic and space-age. I grew up with that, and didn't once worry that "omg this is after a nuclear war, they should be living in rubble eating molerats". Actually, what does surprise me in Fallout is that, 200 years after a war, there isn't MORE civilisation, more government. I understand the storyline reasons for it not being so, the Enclave, the NCR etc. But finally getting to a place where there is some kind of normality (however dark, seedy and twisted) doesn't bother me.

In the immediate aftermath of a war like that, food and water and medicine would be the priorities. But then would come rebuilding, shelter, power, all the things that existed before the war. and security of those things would be a priority too. Like Rivet City - it only had one guard outside. It should have an army defending it, since it was way too easy for a lone gunwoman to walk in and kill everyone, take everything.

New Vegas is kind of following that pattern, from what I can see. They rebuilt it (after it was looted post-war), put a wall around it, and defend it. Makes perfect sense.

One thing is for sure - if there is war tommorow, and you survive, you won't be living in tin lean-tos, or rubble/trash filled houses. That isn't human nature. You will clean up, rebuild. (someone stop me, taking this FAR too seriously lol)

According to who?

I liked FO3's vibe. Destroyed, dangerous, mankind LOSING. I fear that FO:NV will not be desperate enough...will be too built up...too civilized, too under control. I hope there will be more FO3-esque settlements in the wastes, because the strip looks too unfallout like for me. We really can't tell until we play, though.