Fallout 3 - Realism, the world, and trees

If I remember correctly, wasn't the first place you visit after leaving the Vault in Fallout 1 a farming community? They had rows and rows of corn and wheat.

I still think a bit of encroachment from the west/nw/sw areas of the map, of vegitation, tendrils if you will, would not be out of place, nor would it ruin the Fallout theme.

I think with GECK, we'll start to see some really good progress towards that end.
 
Let's face it, the reason that they didn't make any vegetation through the bulk of the game was to speed it up. If they had tons of trees then it would have been more work and a bigger drag on any system playing the game. It was just easier not to do it.
 
chernobyl is not a valid example as all it provides is a world without man + a bit of radiation
hiroshima is not a valid example as it's mostly one time burn damage and short time radiation
neither have the entire world burnt down, neither have the global water supply poisoned by the war
this is also what the game's plot wraps around
harold's little garden strived because bob got also mutated by FEV like harold, making it immune to the messed up water supply
if we had a game that took place 50 years after fo3, we'd probably see fields of grass and plantations

but when i think fallout, i think of wasteland
but fo3 didn't really have that either, coming across ridiculous amounts of critters where ever i went, and every location being a foot from eachother
 
Bethesda has said the third DLC will cause the Wasteland to change according to decisions you made in the main game (ie oasis).
 
sonicmerlin said:
Bethesda has said the third DLC will cause the Wasteland to change according to decisions you made in the main game (ie oasis).
Click to expand...


Falout 3 third DLC - even more player houses! The theme you will choose will AFFECT THE WASTELAND!!!

Take THAT you Fallout fanbois.
 
You know, this whole time, I thought that the DLC was Bethesda's way of saying "Sorry, I guess we needed to add a few things to the game, but we had to meet deadlines". I was naive enough to think that this content was free and therefore a major patch of sorts. Now with what I'm realizing that they are charging for the DLC packs.
 
Ravager69 said:
sonicmerlin said:
Bethesda has said the third DLC will cause the Wasteland to change according to decisions you made in the main game (ie oasis).
Click to expand...


Falout 3 third DLC - even more player houses! The theme you will choose will AFFECT THE WASTELAND!!!

Take THAT you Fallout fanbois.
Click to expand...

Oof, my sides. They hurt.
 
pk1 said:
You know, this whole time, I thought that the DLC was Bethesda's way of saying "Sorry, I guess we needed to add a few things to the game, but we had to meet deadlines". I was naive enough to think that this content was free and therefore a major patch of sorts. Now with what I'm realizing that they are charging for the DLC packs.
Click to expand...

No no no, welcome to a Brave new world my friend. This is the way game companies make more money. They hold back things(usually) that should have gone into the original game so they can make $30-40 on expansions and DLCs. Such is life.

However, I have to say that I disagree with a former poster. If the ground, and subsequently, all the water were poisoned, then life would cease to exist. Radiation sickness is a quick killer, and 200+ years after the bombs, very very little life would exist.

My point was that, yes, I get the Fallout ethos and look/feel, but I don't see anything wrong with having some vegetation on the outskirts of bombed out areas. Without human interference, these outskirts will have thrived and become over grown.

Of course, you're not going to see ivy and pine trees growing at ground zero or along the Jefferson memorial, but out west of the city, you'd have at least, signs of life.
 
The Fallout universe is meant to be a burnt out wasteland.. Fallout 3, while it has a fuckload of problems, visually is what it should be.

A modern concept of "realism" is irrelevant because this is retro-50's future and it doesn't matter about chernobyl or any other stuff that we know about... radiation works differently in the Fallout setting because it is a retro-50's concept of radiation. Thats why it can cause drastic, species-changing mutations for example.
 
Yazman said:
The Fallout universe is meant to be a burnt out wasteland.. Fallout 3, while it has a fuckload of problems, visually is what it should be.

A modern concept of "realism" is irrelevant because this is retro-50's future and it doesn't matter about chernobyl or any other stuff that we know about... radiation works differently in the Fallout setting because it is a retro-50's concept of radiation. Thats why it can cause drastic, species-changing mutations for example.
Click to expand...

While they got the retro-50s future look correct, it still needs to have some greenery. Grass and trees will come back within 200 years. It wasn't like there was absolutely no vegetation in the previous games. If there had not been then I would say that it was consistent.
 
Why does it need to have greenery? Like I said, its based on the old 50's school of thought that envisioned radiation as ENTIRELY DIFFERENT and substantially stronger and more powerful in its effects on the environment.

All the Fallout games have had a few trees here and there but it's not common, and I think it needs to stay that way, whether its F1, 2, 3, or whatever spinoff. I like that its a burnt out wasteland fucked up by radiation and FEV, its exactly the way it needs to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top