Just a thought...

Literacy_Hooligan

First time out of the vault
I just watched the US populiation density map and noticed an interesting thing...

The setting of both fallouts is set in the least populated zones of United States. Therefore there are many vaults in the fallout universe. Is it just me, or the fallout universe said, that the zones where fallout 1/2 are set in had most vaults, and there were no more of them.

Safety? (Nobody would nuke a desert :D , especially zones with little population. It's not effective)
Goof? (can't make anything of it)

Any ideas?

Here's the link to the population density map:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_population_map.png
 
Least populated? Yeah, right. You may want to try a little more north of Reno (as in, around 100 miles) for the term 'least populated', well, at least for the lower 48.

Edit: Sorry, not trying to be an ass, I just got back from a sorta rough day at school.
 
Literacy_Hooligan said:
The setting of both fallouts is set in the least populated zones of United States.

Reno? San Francisco? Los Angeles?

What? LA is the second most populated city in the US. California, the place where both Fallouts are set, is THE most populated state in the US.

So the hell?

Is it just me, or the fallout universe said, that the zones where fallout 1/2 are set in had most vaults

That's just you, no such statement has ever been made ever.
 
I still think it's the least populated areas. Even though Los Angeles is the second biggest city in US, but it's not included in the game. Both San francisco and Reno aren't that big as other large cities. I'm not saying that US is little populated (except for Alaska).
 
Literacy_Hooligan said:
I still think it's the least populated areas. Even though Los Angeles is the second biggest city in US, but it's not included in the game.
LA is included in F1
 
LA is included in Fallout 1 as THE BONEYARD (aka L.A. Boneyard).

That leads to the conclusion that maybe most of L.A. is too fucked up to even try to live there.
 
Literacy_Hooligan said:
I still think it's the least populated areas.

That's an odd thought considering the state both Fallouts are set in or around (California) is simply the most populated state in the US. Nevada, the other state Fallout is set in is ranked 35th, not the most populated area, but not the lowest either. In population densite, California and Nevada rank 12th and Nevada 43rd. Again, not least populated by a long shot. San Fran is the 14th-most populated city in the US, LA the 2nd-most populated.

So you're simply wrong about Fallout being set in the least-populated area of the US. Sorry.
 
I see what LH is trying to say, but it did come out kind of wrong...

Looking at that map from wiki, there are much more dense areas of the US that would have needed a hell of a lot of vaults more than the area covered in Fallout 1 and 2. California is dense, but not as dense, or the same level of densities, as the north east is, around New York etc. But, yes, you are wrong, if it was to be placed in the least dense of areas, other than Alaska, it would be the northern rim of the border of the US and Canada.
 
duckman said:
I see what LH is trying to say, but it did come out kind of wrong...

Looking at that map from wiki, there are much more dense areas of the US that would have needed a hell of a lot of vaults more than the area covered in Fallout 1 and 2. California is dense, but not as dense, or the same level of densities, as the north east is, around New York etc. But, yes, you are wrong, if it was to be placed in the least dense of areas, other than Alaska, it would be the northern rim of the border of the US and Canada.

That explains alot, thanks...
 
Well, that's ok mate.

I knew where you were trying to go with your argument, but the California region is one of the most dense in the country. Whilst dense, it doesn't have too many dense areas.

But glad I could clear that up.
 
Literacy_Hooligan said:
Safety? (Nobody would nuke a desert :D , especially zones with little population. It's not effective)

Actually, there are a lot of military installations in Southwest deserts (California, Nevada, New Mexico) and most of the US nuclear missile silos can be found on relatively unpopulated lands in Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska, so in the event of a nuclear exchange, these seemingly barren, unworthy targets would be among the hardest hit regions in the US.
 
duckman said:
Well, that is unless the "terrorists" want to wipe out civilian targets...

You will need a lot of terrorists to wipe out a place like LA, not likely.

The reason why the creators of Fallout took California would most probably be because it is so dense. Otherwise the damage would be rather small and that would then be a waste of nukes.
 
Back
Top