They should add horses to Fallout!

The issue was never money. Bethesda has been swimming in cash for a long time now. They could have bank rolled a genuinely good Fallout game on the money made from their multiple Skyrim re-releases alone. But why would they spend the money and effort when the Fallout logo is all they need to move units?

 

Toront being fabulously optimistic of Bethesda updating their version of Shitbryo to do any actual cool shit.

 

Could just revive some megafauna from old times in a lab somewhere that were trying to bring back extinct species for various scientific purposes. These megafauna were able to survive the nuclear winter and since there were no predators sizable enough to eat them (yet, Deathclaws had yet to spread around enough) they could grow, the area they're in is far more lush than most places in the wastes but the reason why we haven't seen them outside of this area is because they would starve since nowhere else has this plentiful of flora for them to sustain themselves on. Now the sci-fi dudes who brought them back had to fill in gaps in the DNA or whatever with Horses and bla bla bla SCIENCE! And so they were easily tamed by the local townships, however, traveling with them outside of this region is a moneysink to be able to feed their mount which is why we wouldn't be likely to see this elsewhere.

 

Considering that we now have running ghouls, synths, 50 shades of super-mutants, 200 years kid in the fridge, and Gary, i don't think we need an explanation in order to have horses in the next game.

 

I'm surprised Bethesda didn't already make rideable Giddyup Buttercups:




Of course, modders have already made it years ago:

 

Arroyo is Fallout 2.

__________________

Reminds me of 'The Galaxy Rangers' series.

Spoiler

__________________

These seem sadly plausible.

... and they will drop the inclusion of hairy mole rats.

 

@Gizmojunk
Then it's a retcon of Fallout 2 that I am fine with. I don't think the wasteland should be as dead as it is. if anything I'd like to go over Fallout 1 and 2 and basically liven up the place a bit and add touches of life to places, not make it Wasteland 2 Los Angeles green or anything, but give it a bit more life.

 

That's what Bethesda did in FO4 & 76...

Ideally... Fallout's bleak (and ruined) setting is only tolerable because of the dark humor in it.

 

Fallout 76 did it too early and Fallout 4 didn't do it nearly enough.
Now the west coast and especially the arid areas we mostly visit should not be that lush but a place like DC? Boston? Those places should recover relatively well.

For FO1/2, like I said, I'd just put in a few more touches of life to them. For Fallout 1 I'd make the beige grass a bit denser and probably port some of the trees from Fallout 2 but make them very very limited, also add in that green bush but touch it up in a paint program and lower its contrast a bit and lay a brown colour layer of like 20% on top of it. Place a few of those around. And for Fallout 2 I'd honestly just rework a lot of the vegetation it already has to be a bit more colourful. Not splatoon colourful but yknow, instead of black leaves on teh trees they are brown with a tint of green.

Fallout 1 should be largely dead but not so much so that it makes me wonder how the hell anything survives because you need a logical ecosystem for decades of continued fauna's survival.
Fallout 2 on the other hand is not as bleak as Fallout 1 and so I think it follows with its tone to liven the place a up a little.

 

The foliage that I would tweak... is the removal of the talking flytraps.

 

Could just add in Wild Wasteland from FNV and move some of the ridiculous stuff to be hidden behind that trait. Meaning it is non-canon.

 

That's a problem all its own. The WW perk shouldn't exist; making inconvenient parts of the world simply not be there for some players, and making others waste a trait just to be normal.

 

Fallout 2 plot happens during a long drought, that has some huge consequences to some settlements. It makes sense in context to not have that much green, without the need to not be green in other games.

 

I thought it was just Arroyo that was drying up.

 

There is a lot to talk about here...

I also don't think horses should be extinct, nor cats for that matter, why are these specific creatures extinct? Cats are hunted to death, highly implausible, still an actual explanation, but hunted to death? Cats are nearly as numerous as rabbits, but they were hunted to death? Across all of America? And horses, donkeys, and mules, weren't given any explanation.

I think that equidae shouldn't be extinct, in-fact I really like the sleipnir concept from near the beginning of this thread. Although I don't think they should be the "default" mode of transportation, I don't think they should even be numerous. I'd be fine with them being localized to certain areas of America. I think Wyoming and it's surrounding states would be a great place for them. And while I'm at it, cats could just be really good at hiding in the Fallout universe, unless you want to retcon it and say they weren't hunted and make them just as abundant as dogs. "Why are cats good at hiding? That sounds stupid you rotten-looking child." There's a cat in the middle-east, I can't remember it's name and I don't know what to search, but it's so good at hiding that people didn't even know it existed until recently. And even then, studying them is really hard, we know barely anything about them. I don't see why cats couldn't act like that in Fallout, and if you hate the idea of horses and cats, then mutate them so they aren't just horses and cats.

Although, I wouldn't mind other mounts, and I certainly would not mind vehicles.

Giant birds are something I've wanted in Fallout for a long time, and I do like the idea of them being mounts.

And mole-rat mounts would be very cool. I also think that the 3/NV/4/76 mole-rats shouldn't be mole-rats. Those are pig-rats, except for 4/76, those are mutated naked mole-rats. And also why are pig-rats on the east coast? Maybe Fallout 3 mole-rats could be something else I don't know.

I've been thinking about giant snakes for a while, I even got my dad to paint my concept art for a giant bull-snake. They could be as tall as a sheep, and as long as a bus, and even have the occasional arm/giant claw growing from their side.

More ideas: Giant turtles, bigger goats, bison even, maybe a really fat pig. Also this isn't related but I thought of two more creatures, a rat with a trunk, and a giant butterfly. The butterfly is really rare, and it's body is about a foot long, and maybe it could be considered the "fairy" of Fallout. Cringe? Don't care, maybe a little.

And wind vehicles and energy vehicles are cool as fuck, I disagree with anything else. Energy vehicles should be the most numerous, but harder to maintain. Wind vehicles should be very rare, possibly only craftable, but very easy to maintain. Wind vehicles could also be a bit slower than energy vehicles to further balance it out. I would love a return of vehicles, especially the ones from tactics, the highwayman was okay, but I didn't think it was great. Vertibirds are cool, but depending on the location of the game, I wouldn't like those. I'd also really like the vehicles from Van Buren, and the Frontier, they look really cool.

Some people are saying that vehicles/mounts will ruin the scale of the games, I disagree. It still takes place across North America, which isn't a continent that's known to be very small. Yeah it only takes a half a day to drive from California to Utah, which is possibly a month-long journey on foot, but I don't see how that's a problem. Especially considering all of the wars, wildlife, warped terrain, etc. etc., that will be in your way. Maybe you try to drive from California to Utah, but you're stopped every couple dozen miles by border patrol, and there's no "safe" alternative then going through the border. I know difficulty in travel isn't what people are worried about, but after 43 difficulties, you realize just how far away Utah actually is from California.

I also see people saying this will make society become too developed or something. I personally am a very strong believer that post-post-nuclear is A-okay. It's still the rebuilding of society after a nuclear war. Plus look at Wasteland, post-nuclear still works even when the society is nearly modern. There's still mutants, there's still irradiated areas, there's still tribals/people just struggling, and there is still rebuilding, even after they're at the top. I don't see too big of a difference between Fallout 1's society and Fallout New Vegas', the only reason people point it out is because it's talked about more in-game. In-fact, Fallout 2 and New Vegas are on the same level of social development, but no one ever mentions it. If locations like Sloan, or the Mojave Outpost didn't exist in-game, but were mentioned, people wouldn't think that society has rebuilt too far. Example: by Fallout 2 all of the locations in Fallout 1 are acting like locations in New Vegas, all heavily regulated and contributing something to a larger cause, but we can't see it, and it's not mentioned as much, so people don't think of it that way. You could argue: "We don't see those locations, you are just guessing it's like that!" Which is true. However, I'm guessing it's like that based on how the NCR is depicted in Fallout 2, Van Buren, and New Vegas. And do you assume that those places aren't being treated like they're apart of the NCR? Your guess is just as good as mine is.

I'm probably making a bad argument, maybe the discussion isn't about societal development, but more so technological. Though, that would be a very bad argument, considering every Fallout game has weapons that are able to disintegrate people, armor that's basically just a mini-mech, goo that can alter DNA, and so on. Technologically, and socially, Fallout has been far ahead what would be realistic for a long time, and if it bothers you that much, why not harass Bethesda to make another prequel, or set it in a location that was hit hard, or maybe there's some other force that's caused a certain area to be closer to year zero, just don't re-nuke the wasteland, that's a really lazy, and really bad, idea.

 

You do not get it... Fallout's future is the future they assumed. So... Cats were hunted to death as easy prey after the atomic war—doesn't matter if they are not easy prey, they were assumed to be; they were.

This is why green nuclear radioactive goo makes mutants and other horrific deformities; why supermutants look like hulking B-movie monsters—with rotting (or false?) teeth.


*This simple [but easy to miss] premise can apply to everything. This is also why Bethesda got almost everything they did totally wrong. They needed to create a future as imagined in the 50's, but instead they made a future obsessed with the past.

Where they should have made this:



instead they made this:

But it wasn't the 1950's that got nuked in the war—it was 2077.

 

I already know that, I don't remember people in the 50's thinking cats were easy prey. Or that cats would be hunted to extinction after a nuclear war.