Next Fallout 3 Location

[Triangulon]

Birmingham or Norwich. I'm there at the moment. It's grim up north.

 

[Dexiro]

I'd like to see Fallout pull a Stalker or Metro, only open world.

The first two were darker than they appeared, 3 and Vegas were all smiles and sunshine man.

No, they really weren't

Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas joked about with their theme a lot, but had a few subtle emotional/serious moments. Fallout 3 was no jokes and all emotion, that game was just plain depressing.

 

[lack of self CTRL]

it would be cool if they went to New York, and while your there, theres a mission to blow up, or save the Statue of Liberty

Hey yeah, they could call it Fallout 4: The Manhattan Project

 

[Trolldor]

I'd like to see Fallout pull a Stalker or Metro, only open world.

The first two were darker than they appeared, 3 and Vegas were all smiles and sunshine man.

No, they really weren't

Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas joked about with their theme a lot, but had a few subtle emotional/serious moments. Fallout 3 was no jokes and all emotion, that game was just plain depressing.

Depressing? I found it a hell of a lot happier than Fallout 2.

 

[Dexiro]

I'd like to see Fallout pull a Stalker or Metro, only open world.

The first two were darker than they appeared, 3 and Vegas were all smiles and sunshine man.

No, they really weren't

Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas joked about with their theme a lot, but had a few subtle emotional/serious moments. Fallout 3 was no jokes and all emotion, that game was just plain depressing.

Depressing? I found it a hell of a lot happier than Fallout 2.

If that because of the actual events in Fallout 3, or just the fact that it has a cheery soundtrack?

Personally I found F3 to just be a constant reel of melancholic or depressing moments, and even the supposedly jokey parts seemed somewhat downbeat.
While Fallout 2 did have similar moments I thought it seemed a bit more light-hearted most of the time.

 

[Trolldor]

The atmosphere is a big contributor Dexiro, but also the fact that Fallout 2's "negative consequences" seemed a little more negative. In Fallout 3 the choices were almost always the right thing or murder. It loses impact very quickly.

 

[Nickolai77]

You do realize that they spent that money on a product that mostly failed right? Most vaults that actually survived were on the west coast with the second version of the vault door (fallout 3 and New Vegas had the old version which failed much more frequently). This is the chief reason that the west coast is so advanced compared to the east. The west coast had the newer and more recent vault versions. Considering this, it would be impossible to have vaults (that were effective) anywhere else as they only popped up in California (the only ones we know with the seal-n-safe door).

The reason why so many of the vaults failed was because their purpose was experimentation. For instance, Vault 27 was deliberately over crowded, 34 over-stocked with weapons and the inhabitants of vault 106 were subject to Psychoactive drugs. Other vaults such as vault 76 and vault 8 were control vaults, designed to open after 20 years and were successful. Because the controls vaults were only meant to be inhabited for a short space of time and didn't have the additional costs of experimentation, they would have been more affordable.

Theoretically, China or Europe could have constructed vaults designed to protect maybe less than a hundred inhabitants for a space of about six months- these vaults would have come at a fraction of the cost of the Vaultec Vaults.

The fallout bible may be a developer commentary, but it contained a lot of the lore that we wouldn't have known otherwise. Avellone may have made mistakes here and there (it was corrected later) but overall it was answered by the entire team, only written by Chris Avellone. Latin America is possible, yet according to the lore most of the mutations were done by FEV. A chemical only America had.

The Fallout bible has gone through nine, perhaps 10 volumes, and isn't to be considered gospel. As Avellone writes in Fallout Bible 0: Ideally, the information contained in these updates will be revised in the future based on your comments and possible evidence gathered from within the game. So, this does leave room for alternations to allow for human survivors outside of America if the Fallout fan's want it to be.

What you're thinking of is regular fallout shelters. If you actually read the lore the moment the bombs hit all the design flaws came out like the cave leading to the vault door collapsing, entire vaults being caved in, etc.

If America's vaults were so faulty in its regular design, what makes you so sure the Europeans would have gotten it for cheaper? Hell the enclave alone would have made sure no other vaults would have been constructed. In Europe, after the mini great war, people would have left Europe to join America, China, etc leaving Europe to be picked over by scavengers long before the great war destroyed Europe and the rest of the world.

No one had the resources or materials to make vaults but America. Hell America was the most advanced nation on earth which left other nations in the dust with vaults, power armor, FEV, etc. As i said, if China can't build vaults, no one can. Fallout shelters (the kind you describe with 6 month rations) fail 100% of the time (look at all the non vault shelters in DC which all failed), but vaults have an actual chance.

Europe is populated, but barely. Trying to copy paste American lore all over the world is just bad writing.

Fallout is probably a bit inconsistent with the devastation that the bombs caused versus their power. According to Wikia, most of the ( There are a couple of exceptions such as the one which landed on DC) of the nuclear bombs used in the Great War where equivalent to that of those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, about 10-20 kilatons, which have a blast radius of no more than 3000 yards (about 1 and 3/4 of a mile- but for i'll round it up to 2 miles.) Unless every 2 square miles of US, Russian, Chinese and European soil took a direct hit from one of these weapons it's hard to believe that an ordinary nuclear bunker would have been damaged by the blast when most such bunkers would have been outside the blast radius.

Europe alone is 3,837,000 Sq. Miles, if you wanted to wipe out Europe alone, and assuming that a nuclear bunker caught in the blast radius would be annihilated, you would need 1,918,500 nuclear bombs to wipe out that continent alone. Now, i doubt it says anywhere just how many nukes Europe, America, China and Russia shared between them in the fallout universe- but i don't think it comes to more than a million. Even if i bump it up to a generous estimate of five million, that won't be enough to coat the US, Europe, China and Russia with nuclear fires, assuming most of these nuclear weapons are 10-20 kilatons.

If you want to defend this plot hole then fine by me, but i contend that even by fictional standards it is unreasonable to suppose that there is no life whatsoever beyond American borders.

Disclaimer: If my maths is incorrect, my bad, for it was never my strongest subject.

So you're trying to defend the fallout shelter theory when fallout shelters FAIL every single time? America had enough nukes to not only take china out, but made it impossible for China to reform. Need i remind you China has more fortified bunkers than America? And China still fell? If china was crippled by American nukes, it goes to show how powerful these nukes are.

I think your going by a different definition of a "failed" fallout shelter than I am. If a fallout shelter can protect it's inhabitants from the nuclear fallout then i would deem it a success. Check the Fallout wikia, it lists a number of vaults which succeeded in protecting its inhabitants. The result of the social experiments going on inside is moot, even if the experiments killed everyone inside. What matters is that the vaults protected the inhabitants from the nuclear fallout, and many vaults succeeded in doing this.

Where did i say there are no survivors anywhere else? I said your attempts to copy-paste every single fucking unit of lore onto every other nation IS BAD STORY WRITING. Just because America has something DOESN'T MEAN EVERYONE ELSE COPIED IT. The lore states CLEARLY that America HAD THE MOST ADVANCED RESEARCH ON EARTH. Other nations do NOT have FEV, power armor, or vaults. Even the biggest fallout lore nerds state that commonplace nuclear power was only accessible to America. Europe relied solely on oil, which destroys any chance of vaults being there as vaults need nuclear reactors, something too expensive for Europe. Hell since FEV is American, the only mutants would be natural, which cuts most of the outlandish mutations out of the game.

Now your just attacking a strawman, and your use of capital letters doesn't lend you any further credibility. I am not trying to copy/paste the American fallout onto Europe, let me make that clear, i know that would not work. If you read my response to Salamander Joe (post 157) he paints a picture of a sort of steam punk post-apocalyptic London- this is quite different to the romanticised American 1950's esque feel that Fallout set in the former USA has.

Now, on post 157 i made the claim that there would be survivors in Europe:

In the Fallout universe, there would still be survivors in Europe.

You never read the canon did you? Europe was dead BEFORE the war.

Now your saying that there are actually survivors outside of America, and by implication then there could be survivors in Europe. Which would make sense because as my previous post illustrated, it's unlikely that the Great War literally wiped out all life on Earth not protected by a vault given that most nuclear warheads were only 10-20 KT.

So long as you accept that there are at least some survivors outside of America, including Europe, then i think we can leave the argument at that.

 

[lack of self CTRL]

To be honest game designers aren't interested in dogmatically adhering to canaon, they're interested in creating interesting and engaging experiences for the player. When a designer comes up with a new idea the first question they ask isn't "how can i make this fit with the canon" it's "how can i make this engaging for the player".
By saying that you can't use this or that idea because it doesn't 'fit' the established canon, you merely prohibit your own creativity and, ultimately, sound like a troll.
There's nothing wrong with experimenting with the Fallout gameplay and themes in a new setting, like a steampunk London, where knowlege of high technology has been lost leaving the survivors to depend on more low tech steam power. Or the ultra high tech Commonwealth where technology survives but nuclear devastation makes basic resources scarce. A change of scenery from the barren wasteland and ruined cities so familiar to this franchise would be a good thing, I feel.
Another thing we all must remember is that for games to be art we must give the designers artistic liscence to modify their creations as they see fit, and as far as canon goes I think only what we actually see in the game should be considered 'official' canon, though I use the word in the loosest possible sense.

For those of you who read this far, apologies for the Wall o' text.

 

[Nannernade]

Well we've been to the west coast basically and the east coast why not go to somewhere like Texas or the midwestern states like Iowa, maybe not Texas that'd probably be a lot like New Vegas. =S Just think about it Fallout Not So New Iowa =D

 

[Axolotl]

I'd like to see Fallout pull a Stalker or Metro, only open world.

The first two were darker than they appeared, 3 and Vegas were all smiles and sunshine man.

No, they really weren't

Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas joked about with their theme a lot, but had a few subtle emotional/serious moments. Fallout 3 was no jokes and all emotion, that game was just plain depressing.

Depressing? I found it a hell of a lot happier than Fallout 2.

Your a troll right? Otherwise you just plain didn't play fallout 2 any longer than the tutorial.

The main plot of Fallout 2 revolves around a group of psychopaths trying to start massive eugenics program wiping out everyopne they see as deviant. And major plotlines in the game revolve around a trade war between two totalitarian states, a group of ammoral gangsters killing hundreds of people to devlop a super-drug to basically enslave everybody in the wasteland. In addition to this most of the societies you meet a founded on racism and slavery. Hell one of the recruitable party members is a rapist.

Now Fallout 2 has a lot of jokes (and they seriously drag the game down) but it really isn't a happy game.

 

[WhatHityou]

Id say Toronto It's got a varied city environment, a subway(for creepy exploration of coarse), and there is some nice sprawling wilderness not to far away.

 

[Yureina]

The Northeast. The Commonwealth, but maybe also toss in New York as well. May be interesting to see that as a post-apocalypse.

 

[CRAVE CASE 55]

Europe. We never actually know what happened with it and have only met one European in the series who doesn't really say anything either.

Allister Tenpenny, Moriarity, and a few others.

 

[Nickolai77]

Basically my argument is "why would anyone stay in Europe when its destroyed? They would move somewhere else leaving Europe for the scavengers before the nukes hit again in 2077. You keep pushing fallout shelters when only VAULTS could surive a blast. China's fallout shelters (which were more fortified) failed, American hidden valley bunkers (built extra tough) collapsed, and even WEST TEK (fallout's area 51) was hit and fell apart. Only vaults could survive a nukes, and even then a lot of vaults practically collapsed from the force.

Well, by the looks of things America is pretty destroyed as well and people still live there. Unless you perhaps have a different subjective definition of what "destroyed" means... and i really don't want to get into that kind of argument.

 

[Haxxle]

I know the whole concept of Fallout is for the player to relish in the remains of the 'Old world', but is there a possibility for Fallout to go into a 'Before the bombs fell' approach?

 

[Nickolai77]

Basically my argument is "why would anyone stay in Europe when its destroyed? They would move somewhere else leaving Europe for the scavengers before the nukes hit again in 2077. You keep pushing fallout shelters when only VAULTS could surive a blast. China's fallout shelters (which were more fortified) failed, American hidden valley bunkers (built extra tough) collapsed, and even WEST TEK (fallout's area 51) was hit and fell apart. Only vaults could survive a nukes, and even then a lot of vaults practically collapsed from the force.

Well, by the looks of things America is pretty destroyed as well and people still live there. Unless you perhaps have a different subjective definition of what "destroyed" means... and i really don't want to get into that kind of argument.

"destroyed" means it partially or completely collapsed, making it useless and comprised its radiation shielding. All examples given collapsed, and where government or government funded sites. These are not the civilian funded sites that fail almost 99% of the time.

China was worse, and their anger toward America's fortune of having the Brotherhood of steel, and all of civilization's most advanced weapons and armor at their disposal to beat back the mutants while the Chinese lost all of their culture and their "unstoppable empire". In fact America was said to be THE most habitable place after the nukes dropped. It was so bad Tenpenny had to repair a boat to sail over the DC wasteland from Europe. Fixing old machines of transportation wasn't unheard of either. In fact NCR uses old pre-war trains to supply their troops. Since 50's California had the best railway system in the world (California tore it up later, now its a joke).

I'm fine with America being the most habitable place on Earth. Although, it does seem unlikely given that America would have been a primary target given it's super-power status. By the logic of nuclear warfare, one would expect places like Australia, New Zealand and parts of Africa to be most habitable given that the nuclear powers have no reason to nuke them into oblivion. So long as Europe, along with the other places outside of America are inhabited then i'm fine. Hell, if a European like Tenpenny can gather the resources to make a boat to sail across the Atlantic Ocean then that's pretty impressive, and is indicative of some civilisation surviving in Europe.