Underpopulation of...pretty much everywhere?

[Bag of Water Chips]

I dunno about you guys but I feel New Vegas is sparsely underpopulated as far as actual people walking around go.

The strip itself is barren to an extent you wouldn't expect from it. The other towns and places home to no more than maybe 15 people at best.

How would you justify that in a story sense? Did everybody in the Mojave just die? Is it just me?

 

[Yamu]

No, I think we're all with you. It's not necessarily that the wasteland is underpopulated though, just that the population is underrepresented. They condense it for convenience. They've done it for every game in the series (and really, most roleplaying games ever made), both because of engine limitations and because no one wants to have to sift through a few hundred constantly moving and milling citizens in order to find Billy Questgiver.

They do the same thing with scale and distance; NCR, the largest settlement anywhere in the wastes, could handily be traversed in Fallout 2, on foot, in under 60 seconds, and each of those Vaults you find in 3 and NV with their two or three bunkrooms apiece are supposed to be able to accommodate up to 1,000 people. They give you just enough to simulate the experience of exploring a locale and to facilitate suspension of disbelief. In some cases (I.E. The Strip, the battle of Hoover Dam, the exterior of the Old Mormon Fort) the illusion is noticeably less well-realized than others.

On the plus side, we've definitely come a long way since Girdershade.

 

[Bag of Water Chips]

This is true;

I found the FO1 population size to be much more...realistic, and that game's the oldest of the lot. (haven't played FO2 yet, sadly. Not sure if the population stayed the same.)

Also I wouldn't mind sifting through a bunch of people if Billy Questgiver was more distinctly a questgiver. I do see your point though, I've considered it before.

Oh well, in Skyrim there was a bigger, more realistic population size per village. Maybe Bethesda will at least get that right with FO4. (if and when it ever comes out)

 

[woo1108]

you want another Daggerfall?
and for skyrim, they are just town but huge city.
and only less than 100 people to run the city? what a ridiculous.
and most of NPC are just wasted. they are just bunch of meaningless meatbag who increases bugs.
so I don't want more NPC per town.

 

[naossano]

Actually, i think that New Vegas & Fallout 3 had dealt with the space/population in a very opposite way.

- In Fallout 3, the actual city of Washington is pretty big, with a lot of locations to explore. Also, the city is conveniently in the corner of the map, so it implies that you only see a tiny part of the city. On the other hand, the game want you to believe that there are some travelers, caravans, patrols, (and 3dogs informants that run to him everytime you do something) while you barely meet someone outside. The settlement are scarce, tiny and doesn't seem to involve a logical way to replenish their food, water, children, and ressources. So, while the space is believable, the population isn't.

- In Fallout New Vegas, the actual city that is on the center of the map doesn't feel like a big city, or even a city. You can circumnavigate the whole city in less than an hour, the buildings are very low sized, and there are no landmark. It seems like a small or medium village that have some ressources that interests some factions, but not the biggest city in Nevada. The game would have been much more believable is it wasn't named New Vegas. Then, there are also Nipton, Goodsprings, Novac, that, according to external sources, are supposed to be cities on their own. Ingame, they feel like they are on the boundaries of Vegas, the first step of the travelers, that are hurry to sleep before reaching the Strip or Freeside. On the other hand, the way the Mojave is populated make sense. There are a whole lot of people in every settlement, factions headquarters, or even in the roads, with caravans (far more than Fallout 3), travelers (voiced by Mike Novick), factions patrols. Unfortunatly, most of them are generic, but they are here, and help feel like that the area is, in the same time, fairly populated with some hotspots that are constantly watched, AND also have areas where you get ends up alone, trapped and killed without anyone noticing. So while New Vegas deeply fail to show places that are supposed to be big, i think they succeed in making the area fairly populated.

 

[fred2]

No, I think we're all with you. It's not necessarily that the wasteland is underpopulated though, just that the population is underrepresented. They condense it for convenience. They've done it for every game in the series (and really, most roleplaying games ever made), both because of engine limitations and because no one wants to have to sift through a few hundred constantly moving and milling citizens in order to find Billy Questgiver.

They do the same thing with scale and distance; NCR, the largest settlement anywhere in the wastes, could handily be traversed in Fallout 2, on foot, in under 60 seconds, and each of those Vaults you find in 3 and NV with their two or three bunkrooms apiece are supposed to be able to accommodate up to 1,000 people. They give you just enough to simulate the experience of exploring a locale and to facilitate suspension of disbelief. In some cases (I.E. The Strip, the battle of Hoover Dam, the exterior of the Old Mormon Fort) the illusion is noticeably less well-realized than others.

On the plus side, we've definitely come a long way since Girdershade.

Pretty much this. I think it is silly to suggest anything else can be done to represent areas of similar scope in open world setting. Original FOs suspension of disbelief was easier to maintain because there was no continues world that you need to maintain, never the less they suffered from the same issues for example the vaults where completely unrealistic.

 

[lujo]

Fallout 2 sort of inflates the number of characters on the screen by using guards (not too bad), or in case of New Reno pimps, prostitutes and drug merchants. It really doesn't work for New Reno because it lacks a "productive" population to support all the whores and drug dealers

 

[naossano]

It doesn't prevent that New Reno could have a productive population, but the way i see it, the "services" provided by New Reno are mostly intended for travellers and tourists, (just like the real Vegas) as they are right in the middle of all travelling roads. It is a city you can only avoid if you purposly do it.

 

[fred2]

@lujo, You are opening a can of worms with talk of New Reno and suspension of disbelief here where ol' Fo1 fans are ready to pounce Anyway, I had no problem with new reno in terms of what you describe, it felt far more a live then anything in FO3/NV, which is the great things about 'non continues open world games'(there must be a shorter/better term for it) i.e. we don't need to be anal about realism leaving many thing to your imagination.

 

[lujo]

Yeah, srry. I actually started to write on but deleded it. Thoght that I did it on time, but sadly no. It was ment as a bit of fun.

 

[zegh8578]

I am impressed by the populating of Mojave. Sure, most actual locations have few civilians, but compared to FO3, there are a lot more people living in the city area and suburbs. If you also include raiders (who are presented as actual humans who joined a criminal gang, not some demon-spawn that pops out of nowhere) there's an even higher population density, and then remember the maximized level of NCR/Legion recruitment, which probably strives to recruit everyone who can stand and walk

 

[FOvet]

I feel quite the opposite. I liked the atmosphere of FO3 more than New Vegas (and again, I better get out the fire retardant here). To me, Fallout 3 felt far more post apocalyptic than New Vegas--and there was so much to explore. That, and add to the fact that there were *genuine* random encounters instead of set enemies at set locations, and FO3 managed a very wild feel to it--a feel that I loved and to this day, that is why FO3 remains my favorite of the console versions of the game (though FO2 is my favorite FO game overall).

In FO3 I could walk for an hour without running into a settlement if I wanted to do so, only seeing scattered merchants or travelers (this is reasonable for a POST APOCALYPTIC environment). In New Vegas, I swear to God, it felt like I couldn't take 2 steps without running into some sort of outpost or settlement. It felt too claustrophobic, too crowded. There wasn't nearly as much to explore, it seemed the populations of even small towns were bustling by comparison to FO3, and to me it just didn't capture the post apocalyptic feel that FO3 did.

This wasn't a problem in FO1 and FO2, even though there were more settlements and people, because there was much more distance between locales. There was a huge map to explore, lots of places that are "off the grid" and special encounters. They could get away with it and still feel post apocalyptic in nature, because there was a lot more space in comparison to the populations. It's just a preference thing I guess, but I liked the atmosphere and feel of FO3, and was disappointed when New Vegas felt a lot more "modern day."

 

[Languorous_Maiar]

I feel quite the opposite. I liked the atmosphere of FO3 more than New Vegas (and again, I better get out the fire retardant here). To me, Fallout 3 felt far more post apocalyptic than New Vegas--and there was so much to explore. That, and add to the fact that there were *genuine* random encounters instead of set enemies at set locations, and FO3 managed a very wild feel to it--a feel that I loved and to this day, that is why FO3 remains my favorite of the console versions of the game (though FO2 is my favorite FO game overall).

In FO3 I could walk for an hour without running into a settlement if I wanted to do so, only seeing scattered merchants or travelers (this is reasonable for a POST APOCALYPTIC environment). In New Vegas, I swear to God, it felt like I couldn't take 2 steps without running into some sort of outpost or settlement. It felt too claustrophobic, too crowded. There wasn't nearly as much to explore, it seemed the populations of even small towns were bustling by comparison to FO3, and to me it just didn't capture the post apocalyptic feel that FO3 did.

This wasn't a problem in FO1 and FO2, even though there were more settlements and people, because there was much more distance between locales. There was a huge map to explore, lots of places that are "off the grid" and special encounters. They could get away with it and still feel post apocalyptic in nature, because there was a lot more space in comparison to the populations. It's just a preference thing I guess, but I liked the atmosphere and feel of FO3, and was disappointed when New Vegas felt a lot more "modern day."

But that's the problem of FO3. After 200 years since Great War... Capital Wasteland shouldn't looks like bombed 2 decades ago.

 

[woo1108]

Although Daggerfall isn't bad game, I don't want another Daggerfall.
too many meaningless NPCs doesn't mean much if the space isn't big enough.

I don't know it's enough NPC to feel population, there's a mod that improve freeside.
it adds lots of NPCs, dialogs and emerging whole freeside into one field.
actually, it's just one of mods that recovering cut contents.
so, if Obsidian had enough time develop or the consoles were better(or beth's engine is better), that problem can be solved.

 

[FOvet]

I feel quite the opposite. I liked the atmosphere of FO3 more than New Vegas (and again, I better get out the fire retardant here). To me, Fallout 3 felt far more post apocalyptic than New Vegas--and there was so much to explore. That, and add to the fact that there were *genuine* random encounters instead of set enemies at set locations, and FO3 managed a very wild feel to it--a feel that I loved and to this day, that is why FO3 remains my favorite of the console versions of the game (though FO2 is my favorite FO game overall).

In FO3 I could walk for an hour without running into a settlement if I wanted to do so, only seeing scattered merchants or travelers (this is reasonable for a POST APOCALYPTIC environment). In New Vegas, I swear to God, it felt like I couldn't take 2 steps without running into some sort of outpost or settlement. It felt too claustrophobic, too crowded. There wasn't nearly as much to explore, it seemed the populations of even small towns were bustling by comparison to FO3, and to me it just didn't capture the post apocalyptic feel that FO3 did.

This wasn't a problem in FO1 and FO2, even though there were more settlements and people, because there was much more distance between locales. There was a huge map to explore, lots of places that are "off the grid" and special encounters. They could get away with it and still feel post apocalyptic in nature, because there was a lot more space in comparison to the populations. It's just a preference thing I guess, but I liked the atmosphere and feel of FO3, and was disappointed when New Vegas felt a lot more "modern day."

But that's the problem of FO3. After 200 years since Great War... Capital Wasteland shouldn't looks like bombed 2 decades ago.

Yeah but remember, DC would've been hit the hardest. More bombs, more nuclear radiation. Plus it's more wild then other places we've seen, survival is harsher. So, it stands to reason, that they would have a much harder time rebuilding. I thought, as someone else put it in a FO3 discussion, New Vegas felt too "civilized." Humanity is nowhere NEAR rebuilt in the FO universe, yet New Vegas had an almost modern day feel to it.

 

[woo1108]

remember, DC would've been hit the hardest. More bombs, more nuclear radiation.

if the bombs are too strong, than land ifself turn into big hollow not just radiation hell.
and if the radiation is too strong to live, then there is no reason to live there.
people live there because the radiation is weak enough to live.

Plus it's more wild then other places we've seen, survival is harsher.

Core region or Mojave's wilderness is more wilder than fo3's area.
There aren't much creature or plant at fo3.
it's just empty place not a wild place.

So, it stands to reason, that they would have a much harder time rebuilding.

the problem is, they did almost nothing to rebuild wasteland.
and if they try, they can make city like Necropolis at least.
but they didn't.

thought, as someone else put it in a FO3 discussion, New Vegas felt too "civilized." Humanity is nowhere NEAR rebuilt in the FO universe, yet New Vegas had an almost modern day feel to it.

actually, NV isn't civilized much compare to Vault city or NCR at Fo2.
even the most civilized place, the Vegas which is looks like civilized, is actually built not more than 20 years.
without House, it would be impossible.
and people there act like civilized but they are just raider with some manner.

I think before NCR comming, mojave is less civilized than Hub at Fo1.
and even after NCR and House, NV is less civilized than Reno.

 

[Atomkilla]

I honestly doubt DC was bombed the hardest. It may be the capital of USA (or whatever the actual nation is called in the FO world), but it is largely symbolic, more than posing a serious threat or a good target. It's geographically too far for China's bombers to fly to it, and ICBM are more likely to get shot down, given that they're travelling over a far greater distance than a projectile which is targeted to, say, LA.
West Coast was hit the hardest, the aforementioned LA and San Fran probably the most. Alaska probably, as well as Canada. The rest of the nation was probably hit real hard too, I'm not saying it wasn't, but I firmly doubt DC was hit the hardest, simply because it couldn't have been and there were far greater targets of interest.

And even if it had been hit the hardest, that only makes its design in FO3 even more ridiculous. I actually liked the overall look of the city, but it made no sense.

 

[Languorous_Maiar]

I feel quite the opposite. I liked the atmosphere of FO3 more than New Vegas (and again, I better get out the fire retardant here). To me, Fallout 3 felt far more post apocalyptic than New Vegas--and there was so much to explore. That, and add to the fact that there were *genuine* random encounters instead of set enemies at set locations, and FO3 managed a very wild feel to it--a feel that I loved and to this day, that is why FO3 remains my favorite of the console versions of the game (though FO2 is my favorite FO game overall).

In FO3 I could walk for an hour without running into a settlement if I wanted to do so, only seeing scattered merchants or travelers (this is reasonable for a POST APOCALYPTIC environment). In New Vegas, I swear to God, it felt like I couldn't take 2 steps without running into some sort of outpost or settlement. It felt too claustrophobic, too crowded. There wasn't nearly as much to explore, it seemed the populations of even small towns were bustling by comparison to FO3, and to me it just didn't capture the post apocalyptic feel that FO3 did.

This wasn't a problem in FO1 and FO2, even though there were more settlements and people, because there was much more distance between locales. There was a huge map to explore, lots of places that are "off the grid" and special encounters. They could get away with it and still feel post apocalyptic in nature, because there was a lot more space in comparison to the populations. It's just a preference thing I guess, but I liked the atmosphere and feel of FO3, and was disappointed when New Vegas felt a lot more "modern day."

But that's the problem of FO3. After 200 years since Great War... Capital Wasteland shouldn't looks like bombed 2 decades ago.

Yeah but remember, DC would've been hit the hardest. More bombs, more nuclear radiation. Plus it's more wild then other places we've seen, survival is harsher. So, it stands to reason, that they would have a much harder time rebuilding. I thought, as someone else put it in a FO3 discussion, New Vegas felt too "civilized." Humanity is nowhere NEAR rebuilt in the FO universe, yet New Vegas had an almost modern day feel to it.

"Humanity is nowhere NEAR rebuilt in the FO universe"
Erm what? If original Fallout devs wants to have civilisation rebuilded... it's more thank okay.
Fallout is cool, logic and evolving universue, not as stupid, as Bethesda thinks... with 200 years of nothing in FO3.

I honestly doubt DC was bombed the hardest. It may be the capital of USA (or whatever the actual nation is called in the FO world), but it is largely symbolic, more than posing a serious threat or a good target. It's geographically too far for China's bombers to fly to it, and ICBM are more likely to get shot down, given that they're travelling over a far greater distance than a projectile which is targeted to, say, LA.
West Coast was hit the hardest, the aforementioned LA and San Fran probably the most. Alaska probably, as well as Canada. The rest of the nation was probably hit real hard too, I'm not saying it wasn't, but I firmly doubt DC was hit the hardest, simply because it couldn't have been and there were far greater targets of interest.

And even if it had been hit the hardest, that only makes its design in FO3 even more ridiculous. I actually liked the overall look of the city, but it made no sense.

You're wrong, Raul is cleary saying that Necropolis and DC got bombed in the hardest way.

"I don't think it was as hard hit as DC or Bakersfield, but it was bad enough. By the time we got there, the city was a radioactive ruin."

 

[zegh8578]

I actually liked the overall look of the city, but it made no sense.

The whole deal in a nutshell there - it looks good, but makes no sense. I've always admitted that FO3 looks really nice

 

[Atomkilla]

You're wrong, Raul is cleary saying that Necropolis and DC got bombed in the hardest way.

"I don't think it was as hard hit as DC or Bakersfield, but it was bad enough. By the time we got there, the city was a radioactive ruin."

I honestly don't see the way how he could know that, given that 1 hour after the War, there is no telecommunication and no way to know how and where are bombs hitting, not to mention there isn't anybody to make a solid estimate as to which place got the biggest hit.
Raul may be old, he may have seen much, but he hasn't seen all. He certainly hasn't seen the whole continent getting bombed.