Fallout 3 Location

Specialist said:
I feel that moving out of the general area wouldn't really make it fallout. There'd be no more super mutants, no more Brotherhood of Steel really (something which has been in both games and the other two travesties). Probably no deathclaws, talking or otherwise. A lot of the back story to the other two games would be kind of useless if it wasn't in the same general area.

Well, at least the super mutants are known to having traveled East...
 
why not something like a souvenior from the east coast or some tape recording of the east coast. And then the player can travel across to reach the east coast to probably find like a Nuke York which would be probably like the Necropolis that we see.
 
What about having the game set in Alaska? It would be interesting to see how the nuclear war affected the polar areas. It could be the entire Alaskan land mass and most of the Aleutian chain.
 
During Fallout 2 Cassidy kept saying "Wonder if
Texas survived the war." So why not add the Southwest to the map and check out what happened there? After all, it would fit the storyline just fine.
 
No, let's go to Chicago and find out about hairy death claws.

Or not.

In all seriousness, I'd prefer the wastelands around New California. There's something about the nature of the Fallout series that is very "isolated": You feel it in the music, in the size of the towns, the long journeys between civilizations, and the inherent fear that prevades the deserts.

Keeping the game in the same "general" area would just reinforce this: you have no idea what going on elsewhere in the world and you may never find out. That's certainly the feeling I get when playing Fallout 1/2. I think it should continue in the next.
 
Yea, I definitely think that it should be kept near, or include the FO1 and 2 locations, especially if the FO3 game was a sequel, to see how these towns have grown, if at all.
 
My suggestion was to add the southwest to the map area. Not to just the southwest, but California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, etc. Afterall New Reno is in Nevada. I don't think California should ever be taken out of the Fallout theme. I just think it would be nice to see a little futher into the mainland, as well. Oh yeah, and hopefully New York is gone for good.
 
Do I sense a person who had a bad experience in New York or with New Yorkers? :wink:


Well then, on that note, I hope Salem, Oregon is a crater on the map in Fallout 3.
 
TakLoufer said:
Yeah, but I consider that a bad thing. IMO, FO2 had too much technology and civilization. If we get to the point where the people are manufacturing automobiles and laying down railroads, the game would lose much of it's post-apocalyptic feel.

I think FO3 should take place sometime before FO1 and FO2, or maybe before FO1.

Unfortunally, I have a feeling Bethesda is going to set it even father in the future, and high tech will be even more common than it was in FO2 :?

What's so bad with the level of tech. in FO2? I felt that, and it seemed like the tech was limited to small areas/groups......maybe around 10-15% of the population had such tech(Vault City, that ghoul town, etc.) AND knew how to use it fully, after all.

I think it'd be funny to see how tribals, villagers, etc would be when getting acclimated to even rudmientary tech...... :wink:

(Thinks of tribal scouts trying to learn to use military crossbows, with exploding tips.)
 
Traejan said:
Do I sense a person who had a bad experience in New York or with New Yorkers?

I have never been to New York, and i have never seen anything about that place that suggests to me that it should be allowed to exist. Well unless the story of Snake Plisken does in fact come true.
 
East coast was probably so destroyed in the war, that theres no humans there. Maybe muties and other creatures 8)

It would be the most logical and natural thing for F3 to be on the same areas as F2, but with a little expanded to west and south (I want to see Junktown 100 years later :)
 
Back
Top