My Landscape Idea

[Richoid]

Yes as someone said above a small island of Hawaiian place?

 

[Ratty Sr.]

I see no problem with having an island or two in the game as long as there is something interesting and relevant to be found there, like a Navy base or a secret government facility of some sort. However, to have the entire game take place off-shore would go against the very setting of Fallout. Wasteland, dude!

 

[Richoid]

But thats my point, you know the whole desert isalnd thing? The two are actually one and the same.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

So should swimming become a skill?

No really there are two ways the island can fit...

1. A secret government lab where pre-war stuff was stashed to be used after the war, like seeds and equipment to restarte civilazation or even a military base that would be off the radar and not get nuked.

2. A small band of people that were stranded here when they left the depravity of the mainland and though they barely survive on the island they live in peace.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Duckman]

So should swimming become a skill?

Oh God no!!!

1. A secret government lab where pre-war stuff was stashed to be used after the war, like seeds and equipment to restarte civilazation or even a military base that would be off the radar and not get nuked.

2. A small band of people that were stranded here when they left the depravity of the mainland and though they barely survive on the island they live in peace.

Either way these concepts don't really sound like the basis of an entire FO game. Not denying what you are saying, but there wouldn't be much of a game if there were only a few islands in existence to go to... IMO, there should be side quests, which delve deeper into the Vault-Tec side of things, but not the main story.

Islands would be a good addition, to see what another part of the world may look like and function, if there was any difference however, and special items that could be acquired through unique quests on this island.

 

[Richoid]

2. A small band of people that were stranded here when they left the depravity of the mainland and though they barely survive on the island they live in peace.

Yeah that could be the tanker vagrants and that would explain how you could get a ship, because they lost it.

Either way these concepts don't really sound like the basis of an entire FO game. Not denying what you are saying, but there wouldn't be much of a game if there were only a few islands in existence to go to... IMO, there should be side quests, which delve deeper into the Vault-Tec side of things, but not the main story.

Well obviously the game would not resolve around the stranded tanker vagrants but it could still be of some relevance like in Fallout 2.

 

[Richoid]

Not that I see a reason why it would be imperative to have FO3 take place elsewhere, especially not in the middle of the fucking Pacific.

Well if you think about it, the only place that it is logical to set it is the Pacific ocean, no?

Lets look at possible locations:-

1) West Coast
Cannot be set here as the last two were set here, story lines are exhausted within reason.

2) East Coat
This is a vague possibility, however it seems likely that most of the built up east coast would have sunk after global warming, plus there is not much interesting here anyway and no reason why the story line would travel such.

3) Central/South America
Had nothing directly to do with the fallout hence it cannot be set here.

4) Antarctica
Well no one live here plus it would have melted.

5) Africa
As there is no developed civilisation here there is nothing to condense to wasteland.

6) Europe
Most of Europe would be under water, most of Europe was previously destroyed in the middle east- EU conflict prior to the fallout.

7) Asia
Western culture simply would not accept a game set in Asia, plus Asia would mostly be under water.

So the only viable option is the Pacific ocean, plus think of all the potential.

 

[Sander]

Goddamnit, what did I just say about *not in this topic*. That's right, don't continue this in this topic. Split and merged with the right topic.

Also, you're dead wrong on the East Coast would not have sunken because of global warming at all, since that didn't happen with west coast either.
And there not being anything interesting is moronic. New York, Washington DC, those cities were the centres of power in the USA, and hence they would be quite interesting to visit.

 

[Hotel California]

6) Europe
Most of Europe would be under water, most of Europe was previously destroyed in the middle east- EU conflict prior to the fallout.

7) Asia
Western culture simply would not accept a game set in Asia, plus Asia would mostly be under water.

Look, I really, REALLY have to stop you there. I don't know what backwater town or village you come from or whether you're as dumm as Bush but look on an Atlas with heights on. Seriously!

Ok, Europe; yes Belgium would be flooded, so probably would parts of France and Germany maybe. But consider that an awful lot of Europe is hilly, mountainous, and generally above 50m above sea level (cause thats about as high as its ever going to rise.) Have you ever visited Britain? Maybe the south coast would flood and bits of London too, but you've got to be joking when you say it'll all be underwater.

Asia speaks for itself. I doubt you've every looked but Asia has the tallest mountain ranges in the WORLD and a damn huge portion of China, Russia and Japan is totally hilly. Maybe Indonisia and some of the other little islands might have problems but they're also really hilly. Parts of India (stop me if i'm talking about places you've never heard of), like Bombay might get a little flooded but a lot will remain.

To Flood Europe (even a small part of it) would require the seas to rise a good 50m or more, which, if you've ever even seen the pacific as well would sink EVERY single island except for the tallest volcanic peaks. All it is is reefs and atolls out there with big sandy beachs and a smattering of volcanic archipegios. You're reasoning is totally flawed.

Consider the FO 1 world map. The Boneyard and the Cathederal are both on a really large seaside city, (Los Angles i think.) Which hasn't sunk into the sea. So therefore we can imply that there hasn't even been much rising of the seas, so again your logic is totally flawed.

 

[Richoid]

Ok, Europe; yes Belgium would be flooded, so probably would parts of France and Germany maybe. But consider that an awful lot of Europe is hilly, mountainous, and generally above 50m above sea level (cause thats about as high as its ever going to rise.)

True but it would not be a very inspiring game set in hills and mountains, I doubt there would be much to do .

Have you ever visited Britain? Maybe the south coast would flood and bits of London too, but you've got to be joking when you say it'll all be underwater.

I live in Britain . Where I live in the east would be hit harder than all the places you have listed, have you ever visited any where in East Anglia?

Yeah, obviously some places will not be flooded but these places would tend to lack the requirements for a post nuclear role-playing game

Asia speaks for itself. I doubt you've every looked but Asia has the tallest mountain ranges in the WORLD

And the relevance of this is? Unless you are suggesting that Fallout 3 be set in the Himalayas...

and a damn huge portion of China, Russia and Japan is totally hilly.

True, and China is a possibility for a setting, however its also true to say that most parts of China which would have interesting things relating to the whole China vs. US story line would either be flooded or split up from other relevant areas by water, mountains and huge distances.

As for Russia you are exaggerating in altitude considerably, also there the problem see that Russia did not have anything directly to do with the Fallout plot line in any way shape or form so setting the next game in the series there is not really a viable option.

Parts of India (stop me if i'm talking about places you've never heard of), like Bombay might get a little flooded but a lot will remain.

Parts of India? Very vast parts of India and the whole of Bangladesh...

To Flood Europe (even a small part of it) would require the seas to rise a good 50m or more

Yes...

which, if you've ever even seen the pacific as well would sink EVERY single island except for the tallest volcanic peaks. All it is is reefs and atolls out there with big sandy beachs and a smattering of volcanic archipegios. You're reasoning is totally flawed.

If you've ever even seen the Pacific, the islands are volcanic, hence the reason they exist, no?

Consider the FO 1 world map. The Boneyard and the Cathederal are both on a really large seaside city, (Los Angles i think.) Which hasn't sunk into the sea. So therefore we can imply that there hasn't even been much rising of the seas, so again your logic is totally flawed.

How can you say again my logic is totally flawed when you are addressing exactly the same point .

Yeah, that’s Fallout 1 this is Fallout 2 a considerable amount of time has past, global warming is not instantaneous, LA was probably wiped out by Fallout 2 let alone Fallout 3.

Oh and nice signature by the way.

 

[Sander]

True but it would not be a very inspiring game set in hills and mountains, I doubt there would be much to do .

I'd say there's more to do than in a bloody deserted sandbox. Sheesh.

I live in Britain . Where I live in the east would be hit harder than all the places you have listed, have you ever visited any where in East Anglia?

Yeah, obviously some places will not be flooded but these places would tend to lack the requirements for a post nuclear role-playing game

No it wouldnt, both Belgium and the Netherlands would be hit harder.
Also, why would they lack the requirements for a post-nuke game? What requirements does a post-nuke game need other than be set in a post-nuke environment?

And the relevance of this is? Unless you are suggesting that Fallout 3 be set in the Himalayas...

The relevance was that you said China would be flooded. He's confronting you with your own flaws, and you try to weasel out of it by saying 'not relevant' while you brought the subject up in the first place.

True, and China is a possibility for a setting, however its also true to say that most parts of China which would have interesting things relating to the whole China vs. US story line would either be flooded or split up from other relevant areas by water, mountains and huge distances.

Ah yes, because the entire world is flooded, except of course California because California is a magical country safe from flooding by a large energy shield.
Get this: there was no huge flooding in Fallout's universe. No flooding. Understand?

As for Russia you are exaggerating in altitude considerably, also there the problem see that Russia did not have anything directly to do with the Fallout plot line in any way shape or form so setting the next game in the series there is not really a viable option.

Stop weaseling out of this. You brought up Russia as an unviable option because it would be flooded, you just got that disproven and then you try to twist it by saying 'It wouldn't be relevant anyway'.
So? That wasn't the point. The point was your reasoning being faulty.

Parts of India? Very vast parts of India and the whole of Bangladesh...

Because everything that's not California gets flooded. Of course.

If you've ever even seen the Pacific, the islands are volcanic, hence the reason they exist, no?

Which wasn't the point at all. The point was that only the tops of the largest volcanoes would still be there if the rest of the world (except California) gets flooded, as you posit. Which makes for negligibly small islands, since the tops of Volcanoes don't amount to much.

How can you say again my logic is totally flawed when you are addressing exactly the same point .

Yeah, that’s Fallout 1 this is Fallout 2 a considerable amount of time has past, global warming is not instantaneous, LA was probably wiped out by Fallout 2 let alone Fallout 3.

Oh and nice signature by the way.

Ehe. Sure, LA got wiped out because we don't see it anymore, then why is there still a certain San Francisco and a coast-line without any sign of rising waters at all after several hundred of years?
That's right, because there is no global warming melting the ice caps and rising the waters in the alternate universe that is Fallout.

 

[Hotel California]

I live in Britain Rolling Eyes . Where I live in the east would be hit harder than all the places you have listed, have you ever visited any where in East Anglia?

Hey, i live up near Manchester, and just about most of the north is a great deal above the rise global warming would create. I'm just saying that unfortunatly all of the lowlands in the south and east (where incidently there are so many uninsurable housing estates) would be flooded but a vast majority of the country would be pretty much out of the way. 50m isn't very much when you think about it. Sure almost all the larger seaside towns like Brighton or Liverpool might get a few feet of water swishing around their ankles but you've still got a large playing field.


Ok, the bombs fell in 2077 and FO 1 starts at the end of 2161, thats what, 84-85 years between them. Global warming would happen in a much shorter time than that if you're implying that it is caused by the bombs (including the great winter of 2130). I
Really, its all pointless to speculate on because this

shows conclusivly that no rise in sea level has taken place in the 165 odd years between the Bombs and FO 2.

BTW, thanks for your first civilised post. I was kind of irritated by your behavior before, as you were just gravedigging, not quantifying your arguments and generally acting like a silly noob. Glad you like the signature, check out the longer animation in the Fan art section.

 

[Richoid]

I'd say there's more to do than in a bloody deserted sandbox. Sheesh.

I never said the island had to be deserted.

No it wouldnt, both Belgium and the Netherlands would be hit harder.

Sorry for not being clear I mean places listed in Britain.

The relevance was that you said China would be flooded. He's confronting you with your own flaws, and you try to weasel out of it by saying 'not relevant' while you brought the subject up in the first place.

That’s my point, im saying that relevant parts of China would be flooded leaving a mountain range which would be removed from the count.

Ah yes, because the entire world is flooded, except of course California because California is a magical country safe from flooding by a large energy shield.
Get this: there was no huge flooding in Fallout's universe. No flooding. Understand?

But there was, just compare the world maps to real maps of California. And I explained this at the end of my post.

Because everything that's not California gets flooded. Of course.

No but areas with another relevant locations in to justify making Fallout 3 there do.

Which wasn't the point at all. The point was that only the tops of the largest volcanoes would still be there if the rest of the world (except California) gets flooded, as you posit. Which makes for negligibly small islands, since the tops of Volcanoes don't amount to much.

Exactly! I tried to explain this right from the start, that’s what makes the location feasible, small isolated communities will have developed on these volcanoes, you can find the tanker and travel to them, this keeps to the feeling of desolation but provides a change of scenery.

Ehe. Sure, LA got wiped out because we don't see it anymore, then why is there still a certain San Francisco and a coast-line without any sign of rising waters at all after several hundred of years?
That's right, because there is no global warming melting the ice caps and rising the waters in the alternate universe that is Fallout.

I’m fairly certain there is even a holodisk in the Army Depot that talks about global warming. If you compare the maps then you will find that the coast line has actually receded, plus San Fran has very advanced flood defences, with the centres of technology that are there (Shi, Hubologists, Enclave) it stands to reason that they could have created advanced flood defences, you can even see what appears to be flood defences on the dock map.

Oh and sorry HC we posted at the same time, firstly you are assuming that the rise is only 50m, secondly your argument for taht being little applies equally to Pacific islands and finnaly that nice map DOES show the coast line receding, plus you can only partly tell with thos big innacurate lines.

 

[Hotel California]

NO, its really doesn't show it is recceding. If anything its advancing (Yellow line is further back than blue) but that'd mainly be bad developers.

San fransico having flood defences, all i see on the dock map is a raised pontoon and a sandy beach so thats a lot of bollocks (i've checked on the mapper, not from memory). Whilst they may have them now we've seen what happens when a big rise comes in new orleans. They had wonderful defences but nothing happened. SF probably degraded an awful lot in those 165 years and so those flood defences would be useless.

Neither the military base nor the sierra depot disks talk about anything remotely resembling rising sea levels. Find proof before posting bollocks like this.

End of story: NO RISING SEA LEVELS IN FO

 

[Sander]

I never said the island had to be deserted.

Sandbox. Desert. You know, Fallout 1 and 2.

That’s my point, im saying that relevant parts of China would be flooded leaving a mountain range which would be removed from the count.

Which is untrue since almost all of China is basically mountainous, and as we can see from the nice diagram Hotel California drew up so you might understand: there was no global warming causing a rise in sea level. None. Nill Zero. Zilch.

But there was, just compare the world maps to real maps of California. And I explained this at the end of my post.

No, no you didn't. You said 'It rised latorrrrrzzzz!' which isn't any kind of explanation.

Exactly! I tried to explain this right from the start, that’s what makes the location feasible, small isolated communities will have developed on these volcanoes, you can find the tanker and travel to them, this keeps to the feeling of desolation but provides a change of scenery.

Wait, a flooded island with only the top of a mountain with about 3 square kilometres of space is a good environment?

I’m fairly certain there is even a holodisk in the Army Depot that talks about global warming. If you compare the maps then you will find that the coast line has actually receded, plus San Fran has very advanced flood defences, with the centres of technology that are there (Shi, Hubologists, Enclave) it stands to reason that they could have created advanced flood defences, you can even see what appears to be flood defences on the dock map.

First, there is no such holodisk at all. Second, the afsluitdijk and the huge flood defenses the Netherlands have in place are advanced, a bit of sand isn't.

Oh and sorry HC we posted at the same time, firstly you are assuming that the rise is only 50m, secondly your argument for taht being little applies equally to Pacific islands and finnaly that nice map DOES show the coast line receding, plus you can only partly tell with thos big innacurate lines.

Oh, for god's sake. The line in Fallout 2 is actually farther *into* the ocean than in the real world right now. Hence, the coast could not possibly have receded. Jesus Christ, stop being so bullheaded and just look at the bleeding pictures. Hell, download the map and do the math yourself.

AS Hotel California just said again, there were no rising sea levels. None. None whatsoever. Now, come back when you have some kind of proof other than 'But I want there to be rising sea levels so you have to put it on my islands!'

 

[Richoid]

I’m sorry but your map clearly shows the coast has been pushed in, the area where it has moved out is actually proving my point as it land around the estuary and hence silt deposits, which is a clear sign of global warming and also would account for the fact that mountains will have shrunk (hence China maybe underwater).

No, however many islands are.

Sandbox. Desert. You know, Fallout 1 and 2.

My point is that although it is not a desert it gives a feel of desertion which fits the fallout tone, so the islands provide the correct atmosphere, plots and are the only viable locations i can think of, i see no reason why Fallout 3 should not be set on an island.

AS Hotel California just said again, there were no rising sea levels. None. None whatsoever.

This is untrue and i have marked it on the map above.
[/list]

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Here's something that should help you, Richoid.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

The indent could of been caused by earthquakes or just the sheer lack of quality in the FO2 world map (as compared to Fallout's worldmap).

Stop reading/watching the Fallout Bible and Waterworld, neither are known for their accuracy.

Basically a group of islands just wouldn't have the epic scope that mainland USA gives to the game.

 

[Sander]

I’m sorry but your map clearly shows the coast has been pushed in, the area where it has moved out is actually proving my point as it land around the estuary and hence silt deposits, which is a clear sign of global warming and also would account for the fact that mountains will have shrunk (hence China maybe underwater).

Are you blind? The coast has, on average, easily expanded into the sea. There are only a few small places where the coast is a bit receded, but this is nothing compared to the huge gain in the Fallout 2 territory.

Wait, a flooded island with only the top of a mountain with about 3 square kilometres of space is a good environment?

No, however many islands are.

Because a whole of four people could live on such a space. Especially since they're volcanoes, and those tend to be extremely hot and have a tendency to erupt every once in a while.

Sandbox. Desert. You know, Fallout 1 and 2.

My point is that although it is not a desert it gives a feel of desertion which fits the fallout tone, so the islands provide the correct atmosphere, plots and are the only viable locations i can think of, i see no reason why Fallout 3 should not be set on an island.

That wasn't the point, sheesh. The point was that by saying Sandbox I meant desert, as in: Fallout 1 and 2 were also placed in a deserted area, since you claimed that a game being 'set in hills and mountains' would have very little to do.

This is untrue and i have marked it on the map above.

No, it's very true, and what have you marked on that map? I don't see any of your markings at all.

 

[Richoid]

Hmm it did not post very big, i marked a red circle and labeled it.

Are you blind? The coast has, on average, easily expanded into the sea. There are only a few small places where the coast is a bit receded, but this is nothing compared to the huge gain in the Fallout 2 territory.

I already explained this.

Because a whole of four people could live on such a space. Especially since they're volcanoes, and those tend to be extremely hot and have a tendency to erupt every once in a while.

Not many people would need to live there, there could be numerous archepelgoes each holding dozens of small communities.

That wasn't the point, sheesh. The point was that by saying Sandbox I meant desert, as in: Fallout 1 and 2 were also placed in a deserted area, since you claimed that a game being 'set in hills and mountains' would have very little to do.

Yeah but islands are too!