(I dunno if the title is correctly written)

In Fallout 1, there was a dark and harsh ambiance, with death everywhere, and no room for kindness, people are making new towns from the burnt ones.
In Fallout 2, there was a dark but a bit humoristic ambiance. The world is fine compare to Fallout 1.
I didn't played enough to Fallout Tactics to talk about it.
In Fallout 3, it's dark, but not too dark, you can see that raiders did torture people, but you never see them in action. 200 years after the bombs, people are still surviving like the year after nuclear war.
In New Vegas, the world is up again, there is a real big town, real villages, real businesses, 3 great factions, factories are mentioned... The world raise from his ashes.
In Fallout 4, it's the same than in Fallout 3, but with synth.

According to me, the best Fallout to describe the post-apocalypse world are Fallout 1, 2 and New vegas, because you really see people rebuilding the world, trying to do more than surviving and eating dog food and crying. Shady sands and Vaul City are the best exemple : when vault dwellers quit their vault, they immediatly build settlements, that grown in villages, then cities, then capital.

And you, what do you tink about it ?

For me it is Fallout 3 and Fallout 4.

When I think of "Post-Apocalyptic" the last thing to come to mind is "entire cities rebuilt". I think of towns such as Megaton, Diamond City, Rivet City or even player made settlements (so scavenged/made out of what they have). I think of raiders doing unspeakable things to people in old locations that are dark - like Super Duper Mart or even inside a Vault. I think of human trafficking ala Paradise Falls. I think of running through the streets of a town or city with cars littering the roads or houses completely devastated by the bombs (like Springfield in Fallout 3 or Concord in Fallout 4).  

Fallout: NV will always be a good RPG game to me as will the rest of the Fallout titles, but it was a HORRIBLE choice to make Las Vegas so damn populated (only searchlight and Nipton are unpopulated). I wanted to explore fallen sky scrapers, I wanted to roam through ruined casinos finding hundreds of thousands of old war money. Not get to every damn town only to met with 15 NPCs that have your typical quests or are there for filler. That is only a few complaints about the game though.. other things are things like the damn invisible walls EVERYWHERE, the fact that the map is more or less tiny open regions with lanes that lead to new zones making it not nearly as open as Fallout 4 or even Fallout 3.

@Fury
But there it seem like there is no progress between Fallout 1 and 3&4, but it's 200 years later. Bethesda fucked up about the lore when they didn't show any progress in Fallout 4. It was a big disappointment to me. In 100 years, we invented plane and we went to the moon. In Fallout, 200 years and it's still like year after the nuclear war. Fallout is a post-apocalypse universe, not a "apocalyse" universe.

Fallout 2 has the best nuclear story as far as people living in the apocalypse as that game dealt rebuilding after the world was destroyed more so than any of the sequels all the other fallout games are living in the world fallout 2 made fallout 1 was a template fallout 2 was the sculptor fallout 3 is looking at the work

For me it would be Fallout 2 and New Vegas, as far as post-post-apocalypse goes. I mean, that's the entire theme of the series anyway... Bethesda for whatever reason seems to think the world is forever stuck like two weeks after the nukes went off.

We see hints of mankind rebuilding in Fallout 1, and by the second game a nation such as the NCR exists. And finally come New Vegas there's factions that control entire states going to war over land and resources.

"War never changes" after all.

@Garska You can say that but look at humanity as a whole in Fallout, it is very split and most towns are actually rather primitive.

A lot of settlements rely off of car batteries for power (how the hell the Lone Survivor in F4 can make a fusion generator is beyond me), any places that have generators are so jury rigged that it looks like a kid's technic set or even lego set for that matter (with the acception of the Hoover Dam).

Only places that are more developed are those not hit too hard or actually have people that can be classified as scientists. Rivet City is in all essence falling apart despite having some of the best scientists on the East Coast (minus the Institute), Megaton has Moira who doesn't know shit and makes you a test subject to "find out what happens", The Strip is run by the various gangs that were ONCE TRIBES, the Great Khans live in trailers or old ass houses (potential lack of building skill) and then there is the natives in Zion park who are as intelligent as the Native Americans yielding next to no progress in advancing as a civilization.

The icing on the cake however is the BoS, they sure as hell aren't helping and are honestly doing way more harm than good.  It is one thing to protect people, but to take any and all tech you can find seriously hurts humanity in trying to get us back to being more civilized.

@"Fury"

Well to be fair, car batteries in the Fallout world are helluva lot more powerful than the ones we have in real life given they are fusion powered. Take T-51b power armor for an example, it has a fusion battery inside of the suit to keep it running and delivers over 60k wattz of energy. That's more than enough to power one house.

I disagree on primitive settlements to an extent. The ones in Fallout 1 and 2 weren't people just living in old pre-war buildings that were falling apart, some of these communities were living in new architecture they've built from scratch. It's what the GECKs were for, to rebuild the world. Places such as Vault-City did just that.

But I do agree about the BoS, they offer no future and hold humanity back when it comes to progress. Their policy regarding technology and outsiders is the exact reason they are doomed to fail, just like the Enclave. The East Coast is marginally better, but with Maxson in charge and steering the organization back to their roots, I'm not so sure they'll last.

@Garska ,@Chinpoko117 , and @Fury. I originally just thought FO3 and that was it but after reading through the discussion, I'm sort of changing my mind on the whole matter. FO3 for me seemed to be the most dark and somber of all the games( besides the first two) which really fits into the post apocalypse genre. Death, pain, strife; these things could be seen anywhere you went in the Capital Wasteland. All the decayed ruins of DC seemed so enthralling and made the exploration so fun. But after reading the above mentioned posts, I feel kinda stumped. In 200 years, the most people could do was create scrap metal shanty towns or living in the ruined pre war buildings. Now I'm saying it would be easy, but I'd think after that much time, the wastelanders could at least repair the old buildings.

Interesting discussion

I only voted for Fallout 3. Fallout 4 is a great game but it's rather joyous and lacks depressing atmospheric post-apocalyptic elements 3 had. The colors and the storyline is rather happy and heroic and it never puts you into a position where you think about how f*cked up the world is. You rebuild the world and all, but it's almost like you're ignorant to everything around you while you do it. The worldspace is full of colour and it lacks the bleak outlook on Fallout that 3 took.

Now for all the other Fallout games they're pretty much deserts that could've been there before the war anyway. There's no visual reminders of the war, only rarely do you see anything pointing to it or so. Many old-school fans of the series criticize the newer games by how much they highlight the Great War and the aftermath of it, and I think this is subjective as I personally like it, but you have to admit, Fallout 3 did a way better job of it than the classics New Vegas, and 4.

Now I'm probably going to have the old Fallout codgers and the newer younger generation of gamers disagreeing with me and trying to make up excuses for their hate of the newer/older titles, but anybody who played Fallout 3 back in it's prime would have to agree with me that it's dark, dreary, depressing, and it's emotional. The Keller family transcripts highlight this perfectly. It tells the tales of those before the war, their struggles, and then points to the wasteland before the player. How all those people, disappeared off the face of the earth. Carol even tells you about her Father's nuclear shadow burned into the wall, a permanent reminder of the events that transpired.

Fallout 3 balances apocalyptic with post-apocalyptic perfectly. The storyline and project purity, Three Dog's "good fight", the various town and cities and the Lyons' BoS exist to represent change, recovery and rebuilding after the war. These people are trying to rebuild civiliization, in a world that is a stark reminder of the fall of civilization. The purity of water in the Capital Wasteland, the whole goal of the main game, is the first step to rebuilding society.

Fallout New Vegas doesn't do this. New Vegas makes the NCR repeat the mistakes the world made before the war. The NCR aren't trying to prevent a next Great War, they are repeating what led up to it, most of the reason why they are so despised among the Mojave by many factions and why the eventually lead up to being bullied into submission by a pushover like the Legion. The NCR is belligerent, selfish and is not something that will rebuild the world.

@Corvo
I like Fallout 3 too, last time I played it was yesterday. But no, Fallout 3 didn't do a better job than the classics (But they did a better job than Fallout 4, for sure).

This is the biggest city in Fallout 3:

This is one of the biggest in Fallout 2 (Vault City):

Which one represent better the rebuilding of humanity ? The one made with plane scraps, or the one handmade with sandcrete, real police officers, a council, etc...

Garska wrote:

real police officers

You could've used Rivet City, or Tenpenny Tower instead of Megaton, seeing as it actually does have security and police officers, but you used Megaton to further your point. Megaton isn't a huge or as raided by the outside world as Tenpenny Tower or Rivet City is, so it doesn't exactly need it. The Republic Of Dave is secluded from the outside world in the North East of the map so it doesn't need many police officers too. Plus, there is Lucas Simms, the town Sheriff to uphold the law, and given that Megaton isn't a huge settlement, I'm going to say it doesn't need a huge police force at all. Rivet City however...

Garska wrote:

a council, etc...

Rivet City has a council, we can assume The Republic Of Dave does too although it is highly dictated by Dave, Tenpenny Tower is a dictatorship. Megaton is a one-man led (or two man before Lucas Simms gets iced) anarchist society pretty much. You can see that in Craterside Supply that Moira has to hire mercenaries to stop her shop from being robbed.

Now this makes sense because 200 years after the war nobody is going to have the slightest clue about how to run a society being many of the books were destroyed after the bombs fell. It makes perfect sense why people would be less intelligent, and by you comparing an ordinary wastelander's settlement to a city that sprang from a Vault (being Vault Dwellers are more intelligent than wastelanders) it isn't a fair comparison to say the least.

Corvo wrote:

You could've used Rivet City

That's right, so i use Rivet City.

This is Rivet city, one of the biggest and the safest city in Fallout 3:

And now, Vaukt city, one of the biggest and safest too in Fallout 2:

One is located in a cuted in half boat (I don't now if the right word is Aircraft-Carrier, I'm not sure) without pure water (except after the Project Purity), in 2260+ and the other one is a city made with a GECK (that's an advantage, they had a GECK, not fair, ok) with both a council, police officer. But Rivet City doesn't have indivudual habitation (except the 9m² room where the luckiest people can live). It's still the apocalypse in the DC, but both had to deal with Super Mutants, raiders and harsh wastelands.

And Madison Li, James, Ana Holt, clothes vendor, Pinkerman... they aren't idiot, neither the other people on the boat. If they knew how to survive, they aren't stupid. They're not like Big Town citizen, they know how to build a city but they don't build any city.

I've choose Megaton because it's the only place (except Dave's one) that is made by people, and not an old building.

Garska wrote:

But Rivet City doesn't have indivudual habitation (except the 9m² room where the luckiest people can live).

False. Many NPCs have their individual quarters with the exception of the few who aren't as important or as wealthy as the others. On top of that, Rivet City has the Weatherly Hotel that wanderers can pay to stay in, and a Church, and a market.

Garska wrote:

And Madison Li, James, Ana Holt, clothes vendor, Pinkerman... they aren't idiot, neither the other people on the boat. If they knew how to survive, they aren't stupid. They're not like Big Town citizen, they know how to build a city but they don't build any city.

Not all intelligent people can build a society out of nothing. Sometimes those who can are not the brightest people around, and even if they are somewhat intelligent, what makes you think they know how to run a society? Assuming Vault Dwellers are educated in politics, many different areas that come in handy when running a society, just like Overseers are, that makes them a much more viable candidate to run a society, and in turn, much more easy for them to do so.

@Corvo
They live in a 9m² room, like I said. Megaton also have a church, way bigger than the Rivet City's one

And if Vault City isn't a good exemple, what do you think about Shady Sands, so ? The vault dwellers who built the village died before it became a huge city, and the new inhabitants make Shady Sands what it is now. the east Cost people really forgotten how to make cities ? They live in junkyards, boat, pre-war towers and stadium, but nothing new except Dave's three houses Republic and Megaton. Even the settlements you can build in Fallout 4 are made of scavenged things.

@Garska well the East, most specifically DC, being the Capital, was bombed harder than nearly anything on the West Coast, and it is ravaged by war all the time, take the BoS V Enclave war for example, but the people are recovering from it, one step at a time.

Also, New Vegas never really had that many (none at all IIRC) sandcrete houses in the actual game, so I guess it isn't just the East Coast that is apocalyptic lmao. New Vegas was protected protected by Mr House when the bombs hit New Vegas, so it's not much they could really rebuild from.

Vault City had a GECK, and you can see how a GECK could provide a better foundation for building upon than currently what any ordinary wastelander has.

Also by the logic that rebuilding = post-apocalyptic, you can see that Fallout 4 would hold this title be it that the Sole Survivor can rebuild entire civilisations that aren't exactly scrapyards now are they? He/she can rebuild entire separate cities enough to form a huge government across Boston, enough to rival possibly the NCR.

In the end, I think you're making vast exceptions for the classic games. If you're going to talk about how much people are recovering from the war, then Fallout 4 would surely be the best game to highlight that, but like I said, if you're looking for a balance between society rebuilding while being reminded by the tragedies of the past, then Fallout 3 would take the cake.

My problem with Fallout 4 is the date. It's a good game if there is not all these centuries between the nuclear war and Fallout 4. It would make more sense. The same about Fallout 3, it's a great game, but the date isn't lore friendly. I know, I'm stubborn.

And you're right about NV, the bombs didn't falls here, so why rebuilding something that isn't broken ?

It's good to debate with you

I think that most games did describe it quite well all though some should be if thinking about time and lore be describing post post nuclear live as there has passed enough time ( but bethesda really fucked that up for the most part) but in their defense society should grow more then rebuild , because of the mentality people grow up with and the division between them ( clans , tribes , factions , gangs) and the hostility between those is really stop major rebuilding.

What also is not helping is how for the more advanced technologies of rebuilding you need mechanics and scientists in quite great quantities , which seem to be missing from most settlements or taken away by certain factions like the Enclave and the Institute.
Without those rebuilding would mostly be done with human labor ( and maybe somtimes some minor mutant and robot labor) , which would make it a huge undertaking for smaller groups and therefore only the necessities are often rebuild.

Personally I had to vote for Fallout 3. 

Fallout 3 in my opinion had the perfect mix of post apocalyptic with civilization. It showed people trying to rebuild from what was left and make something out of it while others kill, steal, murder, etc...

For the post-apocalypse my heart sticks with the original Fallout. The world is completely barren, desolate, lonely. Nothing was more terrifying for me than crossing the mountains towards the irradiated northern desert near the Military Base, or just walking into a non-settlement city landscape, where you would be met with nothing but rubble and this ambience:



The world of Fallout is a dead world of mutated monsters and demons, where the "knights in shining armour" are cowering in a hole completely isolated from the world. Terrifying.

For the post-post-apocalypse I'm gonna stick with Fallout: New Vegas. The game presents us with a world that has evolved and moved on from the desolation of Fallout, with the still-isolationist Brotherhood of Steel's methods of survival appearing quaint and ridiculous when civilisations like the NCR and Caesar's Legion are rising and falling around them. Fallout 2 brought us cities but New Vegas (thanks in no small part to the First-Person perspective) really feels like a living, breathing metropolis filled with history and character. In the post-post-apocalypse, survivalism should just be second-nature to the third or fourth generations of wastelanders. Where the deathclaw was once a fearsome legend in Fallout, it is now a hazard that, though still dangerous, can be dealt with. I like details like this, as post-post-apocalypses need to show that progress has been made, otherwise they can't be post-post-apocalypses and simply remain post-apocalypse.

Many of the old games such as fallout 1 and fallout 2 were in a post apocalyptic desert full of raiders and mutants, with very distinct towns and settlements. Many of the old games also made references to post apocalyptic literature and film, such as A Boy and His Dog or Mad Max. Fallout 3 also had very simular themes in the game. Such as tight knit city states such as Rivet City and Megaton, much like Junktown or Dayglow. The games overall felt that the wasteland population was much smaller and no real nation had been rebuilt, and various factions were fighting and surviving in a harsh world. Fallout New Vegas had a good feel, but the addition of an entire nation like the NCR or a massive state like the Legion sort of took away from that. Fallout 4 (for better or worse) made Boston feel a little more end of the world than New Vegas on the surface. Until you see that somehow an entire clean city is right under the earth around Boston.