Potential for Fallout: New York

Greentoast11

Greentoast11

First time out of the vault
I can imagine a completely destroyed dystopia with collapsed buildings everywhere and shantily put together cities and towns.

For example their could be a settlement of Chinese ghouls and people in China town with markets and interesting quests.

Brooklyn could be a raider paradise full of raiders and tough gangs all having turf wars, Of course you could choose to join them too.

Central Park could have Mutated Animals roaming around and be the sort of Jungle of the city.

And of course The Bronx could be a more sophisticated gangland than Brooklyn and have the Italian Mafia in gangwars with the Irish.


Obviously New York would of been fairly badly hit , But they could keep a few iconic buildings such as the Empire State standing and make cities in side in the rubble of the skyscrapers, And plus Long Island and many other boroughs perhaps wouldn't of been as targeted.

Opinions?
 
Because I don't want another Fallout: Conspicuously Intact Buildings.
Fallout shouldn't need to depend on the superficial features of the Old World, because that Old World is really closer to a dystopian cyberpunk after the promise of a retro-50's future fell apart -- most of which was vaporized anyway in the Great War. And it ought to believably have its own setting well after 200+ years after the bombs dropped. Places like Los Angeles (Boneyard) or Necropolis (Bakersfield) do not have anything recognizable that connects its culture directly to its past.

At that point, people don't care about the past nuclear war or survival so much, but more about their day-to-day lives.
 
Last edited:
DVL said:
snip
Click to expand...

That's not entirely 100% true. In the background ending slide for the Boneyard as well as one of the endings/descriptions for the Boneyard, it talks about skyscrapers still standing and/or toppled over like boney skeletal fingers rising up to the sky. So there's still SOME cultural stuff if you consider skyscrapers cultural.
 
DouglasAdams said:
Because in the lore New York does not exist its gone ,its just a crater nothing more nothing less
Click to expand...
Yeah there is no proof it's a crater , People say this yet there is no lore documentation or mention that suggests never mind proves its a crater.

DVL said:
Because I don't want another Fallout: Conspicuously Intact Buildings.
Fallout shouldn't need to depend on the superficial features of the Old World, because that Old World is really closer to a dystopian cyberpunk after the promise of a retro-50's future fell apart -- most of which was vaporized anyway in the Great War. And it ought to believably have its own setting well after 200+ years after the bombs dropped. Places like Los Angeles (Boneyard) or Necropolis (Bakersfield) do not have anything recognizable that connects its culture directly to its past.

At that point, people don't care about the past nuclear war or survival so much, but more about their day-to-day lives.
Click to expand...
One building standing like the Empire State Building in the midst of many destroyed buildings could be brushed off as a co-incidence. It could be like seen as a sign of the prosperity of the old world.

Heck a group of Iron or Steel Merchants might even have you demolish it for their scavenging needs.(Maybe too much of Todd howard Themepark Esque)
 
Last edited:
I'm going to assume this hypothetical doesn't involve BGS, because if it does then no don't want it.
That said there is a lot of potential for an urban environment to be done well. If you ever watched Thundarr the Barbarian as a kid, something like that with settlements built in spite of the ruin not necessarily out of it.

gyOlVxm.jpg
 
ws
Greentoast11 said:
Yeah there is no proof it's a crater , People say this yet there is no lore documentation or mention that suggests never mind proves its a crater.


One building standing like the Empire State Building in the midst of many destroyed buildings could be brushed off as a co-incidence. It could be like seen as a sign of the prosperity of the old world.

Heck someone could even have you demolish the building and let you watch it crash down. (Maybe too much of Todd howard Themepark Esque)
Click to expand...
sorry got lore mixed up with other lore
 
I'd prefer to see the next Fallout take place somewhere that isn't a huge city with recognizable landmarks. Have it be somewhere out of the way where they most likely got less nuked so there's more stuff standing and more post-war development.

A real problem with the "setting Fallout in the ruins of big cities" is that Bethesda's engines cannot possibly do justice to those cities, so why not set the game somewhere they can do justice to?

That being said, I expect Bethesda to set a game in New York since what they want appears to be the opposite of what I want.
 
Last edited:
Ragemage said:
Fallout: Wyoming anyone? The main enemy is irradiated tornados!
Click to expand...

Wyoming would be really interesting, but for a different reason than "it's relatively untouched" since Wyoming and Montana would have been hit *really* hard since that's where most of the land-based missiles were stored (because they're largely empty).

When I ran a Fallout tabletop game in college, it was based in and around Fargo, ND, because I thought it would be a great setting as it would be comparatively lightly targeted.
 
Not that it would happen seeing how BGS has a raging boner for 50's Americana, but I want something outside North America or at least set in Mexico or something. Mexico City wasn't hit as hard according to Raul.
 
I'd be more interested in a Fallout game based in Texas, Illinois or even Kansas.

The Midwest isn't touched on in the main series, and aside from Washington DC in Fallout 3 and the two BoS games, the southern USA hasn't had a lot of love either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top