@Visible Earth


I totally agree with you. The most terrifing thing must be discovering Necropolis and the empties streets. I once saw a great fan art about Natalia (the stealth pre-made character) alone and terryfied in Necropolis, I can't find it anymore...

@Garska That sounds really cool. Let me know if you ever find it (and I'll do vice versa)

Fallout does generally a bad job in showing how post nuclear life would be like.
First of all, there would be a nuclear winter that lasts for several years before normal climate would be there again. There would be plant life that might be extinct in that procces, but a lot of plants, especcially trees and waterplants, stay alive during winter by going dormant. There is no reason to believe no trees or waterplants would survive. In fact, it is very, very likely that the vegetation would be very lush and green, 200 years after a nuclear war. Take a look at modern day chernobyl or hiroshima.
It is unlikely the old cities would be rebuilt. People would use the old, pre-war buildings and items before building new stuff from the ground up, but that would last only a few years, decades at most. So even 100 years after the bombs dropped, there would be cities, tools, wheapons, clothing and technology built from scratch instead of out of rubble and junk from the old world. And it would work. There would probably be mutants and such, but since there is no real life FEV, there would be no supermutants or deathclaws. The mutations that are beneficial to an organism would be extreamly rare, and therefore animals and humans how we know them would still be more common than mutants being able to survive on their own.
200 years after the bombs dropped, the ruins of the old world would be overgrown by plantlife, includeing trees, and serve as a home to wildlife. Some villages or small cities would have developped into larger, post-war cities that dont look like random junk thrown together.
There is no way to predict the post nuclear society or technology level.
I would guess it varying greatly between regions.
Some regions would be technologically developped to the point that pre-war technology would be manufactured and used simmilar to how it is here, without the need to be anywhere near any pre-war city or anything, includeing reaserach and developpement, while others would have a level of technology like in the middle ages, or anything in between the two.
While I dont expect it to be very common to take on ideologies and social structures of any nation that either caused or was destroyed in the war, I do believe that there would be a large amount of variety otherwise.
Therefore I expect Democracy, abrahamic religions and Capitalism etc. being rare in the post nuclear world. Communism too, if a communist nation was the great opponent against the US like in Fallout lore. But I do think that everything else would return or be tried for the first time one way or another, at some point or another and at some region or another.
I would even expect Fashist nations to be more common than people that believe Democracy is a good thing. But I could be wrong, since that is impossible to predict.
And since the radioactive material in Nukes decays relatively quickly, some within secons after the explosion, all the radioactive material that would still be poisonous after hundreds of years would be inside nuclear power plants. And the People would know (at least the first few generations) to avoid a several miles radius arround those.
I also expect high rates of cencer and child mortality because of the radiation that is there, but other than that, I do think that there would be a lot of people that would be perfectly healthy.

For me, Fallout 1 did the job of portraiting the inmediate post-apocalypse, with small groups of people struggling to survive, within the remmants of the old world. The whole athmosphere of the game has this charm. FNV and Fallout 2 are better described as "late post-apocalypse", presenting the world as a place that is starting to be rebuilt from ashes. With nations and bigger factions appearing.

I'll not talk about Fallout 3 tho, as I consider it a lore breaking aberration . The name is the only thing that FO3 has from Fallout. It should'be been placed BEFORE the events of Fallout1 so the world could make sense to be as it is, despite the goodie-two-shoes BoS bs and other horrible mistakes.

FO4 on the other side, is a mixed bag on the way it portraits the world regarding the topic, so I'll just leave it be.

Fallout 1 and Fallout 3 does it the best, but Fallout 3 does it better. Fallout 1 problem was that there was little to none places you can find outside the cites/towns, so the lack of detail made it it fell less believable. Outside the cities/towns is just majority empty land and a group of enemies attacking you without their living areas in the distance. Fallout 2 represented technology and civilations being the most advanced, where major privileged factions are fighting with their ego's and trying to rule like Vault City/NCR. A true post apocalypse place would have a whole bunch of people who couldn't live or didn't want to live in more privileged large society, so instead live in broken down destroyed area's scattered around the world like Fallout 3 did. Fallout New Vegas focused more on specific factions being the problems of the wasteland rather than the conditions of the actual wasteland. They focused more on the Wild West theme than the "toxic wasteland" theme. It seems like Fallout 3 did enough Post apocalypse for every Fallout game after it.

@Modbrah
As @nimlouth said, if Fallout 3 were before Fallout 1, we won't see any difference with the existing Fallout 3. In Fallout 2, people were intelligent enough to build new societies, so why after around 200 years later, on the East coast, they're still living like the apocalypse was yesterday ?

@Garska like I said, DC was bombed harder than anything on the West Coast and New Vegas was barely post-apocalyptic being Mr. House protected it.

If anything, Fallout 3 is more post-apocalyptic just due to that fact, but if you were to talk about humanity reviving itself afterwards, Fallout 4 would take the cake for presenting that being the Sole Survivor can rebuild entire settlements, cities, all while using not an army or technological military like the BoS, but a militia like the Minutemen.

And surely if the apocalypse was yesterday, there would be a lot less human NPCs apart from surviving ghouls and ferals than represented in the game surely.

Keep in mind I'm not hating on the classics and New Vegas for trying to keep the Post-Apocalyptic vibe more subtle, I'm pointing out that it's kind of hypocritical to start a topic based on highlighting the post-apocalyptic themes of a game, and then deliberately try to twist the point of the topic to fit your argument and claim that the classics are better. At this point, the topic is just arguing over semantics.

@Corvo
Like I said, I played Fallout 3 because I like it, this week and the week before, and I truly love New Vegas. I started this topic to see what people thinks. Don't say I'm hypocritical. I'm not the type of guy who start a topic without posting in it after.

Garska wrote:

@Modbrah
As @nimlouth said, if Fallout 3 were before Fallout 1, we won't see any difference with the existing Fallout 3. In Fallout 2, people were intelligent enough to build new societies, so why after around 200 years later, on the East coast, they're still living like the apocalypse was yesterday ?

That's a reach just like Fallout 3 being heavily lorebreaking like the guy you referred to claimed. Fallout 3 is set on a different coast and worked good with the lore since they stayed in their own lane, which is why sequels like New Vegas was able to pull off its Cowboy theme, because the "Purify water" project of Fallout 3 helped set it up for other Fallout games after it not to have the whole "We're thirsty and low on clean resources" theme. If Fallout 3 was the first one then the enclave would've been introduced and set up in future games to being what Fallout 3 did to Fallout 2. There's plenty of "society" in the Fallout 3 that's treated as being privileged major cities that alot of people want to get it(there's guards for a reason), so idk where you're getting that new societies weren't built if you played Fallout 3. Fallout 3 brought a more post Apocalypse theme to the table than the games before it.

The whole 200 year period was probably exaggerated, so Bethesda could put extra emphasis on the change in the series they were bringing from an 2d isometric turnbased RPG game to an First Person shooter 3d RPG games set on another coast and how different they were. They most likely added that big gap to get less people to try to compare the lore/story from Fallout 1/2 and think Fallout 3 was directly gonna be based off them and that's probably why they also put it on a different coast, but alot of Fallout 1/2 fans look at there reasons for the 200 year gap deeper than what it is. The theme of Fallout 3 was supposed to be an Toxic Wasteland, where the bombs hit hard and caused the mutations, radiated resources harder than previous games.

@Modbrah
I understand, I won't criticize Fallout 3 anymore. Fallout 3 described well the post-apocalypse, in a different way than the originals ones and New Vegas.

JJHughes wrote:

fallout 3 (despite hardware limitations) did an amazing job of making you feel like a foreigner and selling you on the idea that there had been a nuclear fallout and you were standing in the remains of what was left

You're right about the feeling of being a stranger. And I never though about the fact that you see a ton of monument standing over the apocalypse.


@Corvo
That's made me think about the fact that the Lone Wanderer is a stranger in wastelands, so the player too; and maybe people don't really want to change their way of live, that they're good like they are and they don't want to fit "my" vision of post-post-apocalyspe.

@Modbrah let me (hardly) disagree with you:

Fallout 3 IS lorebreaking just from the get go when we have the BoS on the DC for unknown reasons, being that they where located on the west coast. Almost every single faction or element taken from previous games was thrown on the waste and changed in ways that broke the immersion in the world for people that actually played the previous games...

Now for "portraiting the post-apocalypse", FO3 focuses WAY too hard on the desolated and destroyed world after the war... You can make the argument that the DC was bombed/nuked to the ground and that's why 200 years later it still remmains as a completely burned down place, but that just brings me to my point of why FO3 doesn't portraits a "post-apocalypse".

"Post" means "after"... FO3 is too apocalyptic, you get the feeling that the whole world is completely destroyed, that it remmains on that "destroyed" state and there is no progression... no progression means that you don't get to see what happens "after" the apocalypse on that what if scenario which is the point(and the charm) of the post-apocalyptic game.

I'll say again, FO1 is the best game to present the idea of post-apocalypse, from the way the settlements/factions are portrayed, the asthetics and the athmosphere of the game. Also FO3 having "more places" is just not right sorry . FO3 is repetitive and bland, every place is the same and you (pay attetntion to this) never get the feeling that the world is actually alive and moving, that there's people on it. Fallout 1's intro video (the one with the TV) shows way better the game world and the post-apocalypse than Fallout 3.

I've played from head to toe all of the Fallout games, and when someone says "post-apocalyptic" scenario, I instantly recall the old Fallout's places and asthetics, not FO3's.

For the ones that didn't played Tactics, it actually felt (at least for me) strangely enough, a lot like Fallout 4 on asthetics regards, which is a good thing for both games :d.

nimlouth wrote:

Fallout 3 IS lorebreaking just from the get go when we have the BoS on the DC for unknown reasons, being that they where located on the west coast. Almost every single faction or element taken from previous games was thrown on the waste and changed in ways that broke the immersion in the world for people that actually played the previous games...

False. The East Coast BoS were sent by the West Coast BoS to reconnect with the Midwestern BoS from Tactics, secondly to kill any super mutants and find any valuable technology. Also, being the first Fallout game created by Bethesda I take it they didn't want to stray too far from the original factions and add their own being that the game has to bring back original fans of the franchise too and at the same time it would be a little bit immersion breaking anyway for a force as large as the Enclave to fall only within one game. The Enclave are a fan favourite and it was a smart choice to bring them back, albeit in a completely different way. They don't use their traditional X01 APA armor but instead use the Hellfire APA and X-02 power armor, and they're run by seemingly two leaders, one being their actual president and the other being a Colonel. That doesn't really sound much at all like the Fallout 2 Enclave to me.

nimlouth wrote:

Now for "portraiting the post-apocalypse", FO3 focuses WAY too hard on the desolated and destroyed world after the war... You can make the argument that the DC was bombed/nuked to the ground and that's why 200 years later it still remmains as a completely burned down place, but that just brings me to my point of why FO3 doesn't portraits a "post-apocalypse".

How so? After all the very definition of post-apocalypse is relating to the destruction of society and the aftermath of that destruction. Going by the textbook definition Fallout 3 surely highlights that more, being there's more reminders of the past world and an aura/atmosphere that oozes nuclear wasteland. If not a nuclear wasteland, what does it portray, a fantasy alien planet? I don't understand your train of thought here.

nimlouth wrote:

"Post" means "after"... FO3 is too apocalyptic, you get the feeling that the whole world is completely destroyed, that it remmains on that "destroyed" state and there is no progression... no progression means that you don't get to see what happens "after" the apocalypse on that what if scenario which is the point(and the charm) of the post-apocalyptic game.

Once again, how is Fallout 3 not post-apocalyptic? That's a key part of the game. Even the songs on the radio are supposed to highlight the irony of the past United States and what has become of it after the Great War. The world is completely destroyed, but it's moving forward, and Fallout 3 highlights that perfectly with the story. If everybody was so depressed and nihilistic after the war why would they be working towards purifying the water for all of the wasteland and saving one another instead of just caring for themselves? The BoS are goody-two-shoes like you said, so why isn't that a sign of a bright future for the wasteland, being the BoS are knights in shining armor for it?

nimlouth wrote:

I'll say again, FO1 is the best game to present the idea of post-apocalypse, from the way the settlements/factions are portrayed, the asthetics and the athmosphere of the game. Also FO3 having "more places" is just not right sorry closed eyes smile. FO3 is repetitive and bland, every place is the same and you (pay attetntion to this) never get the feeling that the world is actually alive and moving, that there's people on it. Fallout 1's intro video (the one with the TV) shows way better the game world and the post-apocalypse than Fallout 3.

I'll say again, this is subjective. The poll shows that it's subjective. I personally thought that Fallout 3 had great locations and I had fun exploring them, like with the Dunwich Building, The National Archives and the tunnels underneath DC. I got more of an "alive and moving" vibe from Fallout 3 than I did New Vegas, being that there's civilization like Tenpenny Tower and Rivet City, and that there's many NPCs that I found on my travels. There's one NPC that complimented me on the Wasteland Survival Guide I created with Moira Brown in Megaton, which gave me the feeling that my actions actually have weight, and that there's many people out in the wastes that appreciate my help.

nimlouth wrote:

I've played from head to toe all of the Fallout games, and when someone says "post-apocalyptic" scenario, I instantly recall the old Fallout's places and asthetics, not FO3's.

This is also subjective. I personally can recall a lot of Fallout 3's places and it's aesthetics, and a lot of them I find quite interesting. There's locations in NV and 4 I can remember, but less so than Fallout 3's. I played the classic games but grew bored of them after an hour or two and I even tried continuing my playthrough on separate occasions and getting into the Van Buren demo but I found it hard to do so. Maybe it's just because my first Fallout was FO3, but I know for certain that it didn't have forgettable locations and atmosphere, but maybe that's just me.

Corvo wrote:

I'll say again, this is subjective. The poll shows that it's subjective.

You're godamn right. There is no absolute best one. If a game is the best according to you, it can't be the best according to everybody. There is no ultimate truth. It's subjective.


And, after thinking, Fallout 3 metro tunnels we're absolutly good at portraying a survival-post-apocalypse.

@"Corvo" Yep, it is subjective, like every point of view, but we are trying to answer a non-subjective question here so a middle ground must be found in facts.

Nope, the BoS from tactics is not cannon (the whole game is not cannon) and the BoS doesn't have ANY reason to be in DC, specially if you played Fallout 2 and FNV and realised the late state of the faction. Moreso, they act totally different to what the BoS truly is.

I'll put it simple, the world of Fallout 3 is not believable, it breaks the immersion and thus the illusion of a post-apocalyptic world.

I see an old pattern here, those who played FO3 first are always biased towards it as a better experience than the other games. You admitted that you got bored with the older games, (not a bad thing tho, I respect they aren't your cup of tea) so you don't experienced the vibe of the earlier Fallout games as other people did.

Ultimately you can say that FO3 shows a diferent interpretation of the post-apocalyptic Fallout universe. Thise leads us to subjetivity again so I'll just leave it be...

I don't think that Fallout 3 portraits a beliavable post-apocalyptic world, based on my experience with the games of the Fallout franchise and other post-apocalyptic themed pieces of entertainment, like Mad Max or Wasteland.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

nimlouth wrote:

Yep, it is subjective, like every point of view, but we are trying to answer a non-subjective question here so a middle ground must be found in facts.

An objective question is one that has an definite answer backed up by clear facts everybody can mostly agree on. This one doesn't have an answer, meaning it is subjective, and the polls reflect that. A common consensus will eventually be found, but that doesn't mean others can't hold their opinions for good reason. That's what makes it subjective and not objective. It's open for debate, though a "true" answer to the question will definitely never be found. We're just debating this for fun really, some want to shift opinions and others want to defend their point of view, after all.

nimlouth wrote:

Nope, the BoS from tactics is not cannon (the whole game is not cannon) and the BoS doesn't have ANY reason to be in DC, specially if you played Fallout 2 and FNV and realised the late state of the faction. Moreso, they act totally different to what the BoS truly is.

Tactics is canon but not as canon as all of the other games. The Midwestern BoS exist as they are mentioned by Scribe Rothchild, Caesar and Lancer Captain Kells in the modern Fallout games, but you're partly right being a lot of Tactics is noncanon. The Eastern BoS are different to what the Western BoS is because Lyons' changed the Eastern chapter's goals a lot which caused the rise splinter groups like the Outcasts, which by 2287 had been reunited into the Eastern chapter to turn the BoS into a more powerful force than they originally were. In short, the Eastern Chapter was more successful while the Western BoS sunk into obscurity after being defeated by the NCR at Helios One.

nimlouth wrote:

I don't think that Fallout 3 portraits a beliavable post-apocalyptic world, based on my experience with the games of the Fallout franchise and other post-apocalyptic themed pieces of entertainment, like Mad Max or Wasteland.

Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion but I must say, is belief really a factor in a game as outlandish as Fallout? After all, we did have the introduction of Aliens into the lore, fusion cores running on nuclear power from 200 years ago that power mech suits, DLCs like Old World Blues and teleportation devices and human like robots from Fallout 4. On that note, I'd like to think that realism isn't a huge aspect of Fallout at all, but each to their own.

Corvo wrote:

Is belief really a factor in a game as outlandish as Fallout? After all, we did have the introduction of Aliens into the lore, fusion cores running on nuclear power from 200 years ago that power mech suits, DLCs like Old World Blues and teleportation devices and human like robots from Fallout 4. On that note, I'd like to think that realism isn't a huge aspect of Fallout at all, but each to their own.

Let's discuss this, as I find it really interesting and it has A LOT to do with the topic of this thread.

I'll say that it is not a matter of realism, but more of concistency and immersion. The Fallout franchise always had a humoristic tone, not taking the itself too seriously and bringing lots of references and easter eggs, but maintaining a solid core explanation to why things are the way they are. This leads to immersion, when you start to feel part of it.

I've never reached immersion on Fallout 3, the whole world building for the title makes zero sense in my eyes and mind, specially knowing that it is supposed to be a Fallout game. The wasteland is completely dead after hundreds of years, for no reason, showing no progression from the survivors, and on top of that the lore clashes hardly with the other titles of the series. Even if you strip away the Fallout title and set it on a different/pararel universe, it is just meh. There is no depth and no reason to why the wasteland is as it is.

"Okay, so... the world was nuked and now, hundreds of years and generations later, people's mindset hasn't changed at all and we have this good guys from a totally different part of the world, fighting against these bad guys who where just made up also" /._./ wtf?

In other Fallout titles, there's a reason to why things are. New Vegas and the dam is the reason why the NCR fights the Legion. The mutants where made by the master for a reason too. The brotherhood of steel's only goal was to collect and preserve technology on their archaic view of the world...

From the get go, Fallout 3 proposes us a world that doesn't have a reason to be as it is, more than a bad implemented reference to past titles.

I.e: When you read Lovecraft's works, all the things it says are outlandish, unrealistic, but beliavable... You actually analyze it and realise that in that "what if" scenario it makes sense.

I voted for 3 and 4. To me FO3 was the perfect wasteland for it`s time. It was dark, sad, and I could relate to the story. Megaton was a ramshackle town struggling to get by and that is just what I would expect from a town in that setting. The devastation of the buildings and lanscape told a story of how the area was once full of life and now just an empty shell. I think they really nailed it with FO3.

NV didn`t really feel like a wasteland. Felt like a desert and nothing more to me. Not enough ruins or wreckage to remind you that it would have been a nuclear wasteland.

FO4 I think had a good balance of wreckage and functional remains to remind me I was in a post bomb setting. Not quite as much as I would have liked but still a better reminder then what NV created.