So, the Fallout games. (NOW WITH UPDATED OP with snappy snaps)

Batch · August 22, 2015, 09:56:59 AM

Is it not realistic to expect nature to have taken back its realm by now? 200 or so years and everything is still dust and dirt. There is water, so there is clearly rain, but how can people expect to believe that far after it all went to shit, and nature hasn't taken back what was theirs.

New Vegas showed a little bit of green, Fallout 3 showed none (beside poor ol Harold) in the Capital Wasteland, Point Lookout shows what should be happening, I have downloaded a forestation mod for FO3, its not over the top, but its sensible, and hell it makes the game a lot more believable, bit of trees here, bit of grass there, its refreshing from my last experience with the game.

Hell, even at that stage I'd expect a lot more green, but easy does it now.

UPDATED OP: Okay down the page I'd said I'd create a gallery of pictures of what my Fallout 3 currently looks like, what I sensibly think the wasteland could look like, so enjoy and give us your thoughts.

(Theres a lot of these)

Spoiler

Twas quite a gloomy day in the Wasteland

Thats a bit better

A glorious day in the USA!

^Its right you know

Tried to pounce on my photography work

Now these are out toward Tenpenny Tower, where I can only assume was far enough away from any of the nuclear fire to at least, mostly survive, and thus we see a few plains that have thrived.

(Hype for Fallout 4 intensifies)

Okay now we're at Tenpenny Tower, where like I said before, I assumed most of this place remained unharmed, sorta Like New Vegas....but obviously this area could naturally sustain life in the first place (cause....the Mojave is a desert)

Dont mind those floating trees in the background >.>

Mind you that building is probably fill with just ghouls now....woops.

Okay, so now we're in DC, in the city, lets see how nature persisted here.

Murica

And...then it got too dark

And there we have it. Quite a bit, but if anyone wants to see a particular location just tell me and I'll see if I can scope it out and give you guys a good ol gander at it.

challengerX · August 22, 2015, 10:01:51 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Batch · August 22, 2015, 10:06:03 AM

Quote from: challengerX on August 22, 2015, 10:01:51 AM

People would complain that it isn't a wasteland if it was green and lush.

AHEM

"an unused area of land that has become barren or overgrown."

BaconShelf · August 22, 2015, 10:06:29 AM

It's a game series with nuclear cars, robot butlers, laser and plasma weapons in a setting with no microchip and aliens.

And you're complaining about the plants. It's a 50's vision of the future, I wouldn't worry about the science.

Batch · August 22, 2015, 10:08:30 AM

Quote from: BaconShelf on August 22, 2015, 10:06:29 AM

It's a game series with nuclear cars, robot butlers, laser and plasma weapons in a setting with no microchip and aliens.

And you're complaining about the plants. It's a 50's vision of the future, I wouldn't worry about the science.

I'm not complaining about anything >.>

I'm just asking on your opinion as to if it's realistic....I know its just a game, but discussion is nice.

Batch · August 22, 2015, 10:10:53 AM

But yeah, a more serious answer Chally, they could have taken a slightly overgrown, not exactly lush....but hey even at that an urban jungle would be cool to traverse.

BaconShelf · August 22, 2015, 10:15:33 AM

Quote from: Batch on August 22, 2015, 10:08:30 AM

Quote from: BaconShelf on August 22, 2015, 10:06:29 AM
It's a game series with nuclear cars, robot butlers, laser and plasma weapons in a setting with no microchip and aliens.

And you're complaining about the plants. It's a 50's vision of the future, I wouldn't worry about the science.
I'm not complaining about anything >.>

I'm just asking on your opinion as to if it's realistic....I know its just a game, but discussion is nice.

I mean more the setting. It's not one to think about realistically. It's an alternate timeline.

Anyway. Plants grow in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and even Chernoybl now. So no.

Besides, 200 years after a nuclear war and on one coast, there's already several nations close to becoming a post-war superpower (NCR, Legion, pre-Navarro Enclave, Brotherhood) and on the east coast, the capital wasteland has towns built from scrap.

However, the Mojave is a desert IRL, and House basically stopped any kind of nuclear detonation in that area. So New Vegas and it's surrounding area are virtually the same as they were before.

There's a reason everyone criticises Bethesda's writing. They can create really fun games and amazing worldspaces, but don't think too hard about the writing. Imagine Fallout 3 is set 180 years prior and it becomes a lot more believable.

Batch · August 22, 2015, 10:19:00 AM

Quote from: BaconShelf on August 22, 2015, 10:15:33 AM

Quote from: Batch on August 22, 2015, 10:08:30 AM
Quote from: BaconShelf on August 22, 2015, 10:06:29 AM
It's a game series with nuclear cars, robot butlers, laser and plasma weapons in a setting with no microchip and aliens.

And you're complaining about the plants. It's a 50's vision of the future, I wouldn't worry about the science.
I'm not complaining about anything >.>

I'm just asking on your opinion as to if it's realistic....I know its just a game, but discussion is nice.

I mean more the setting. It's not one to think about realistically. It's an alternate timeline.

Anyway. Plants grow in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and even Chernoybl now. So no.

Besides, 200 years after a nuclear war and on one coast, there's already several nations close to becoming a post-war superpower (NCR, Legion, pre-Navarro Enclave, Brotherhood) and on the east coast, the capital wasteland has towns built from scrap.

However, the Mojave is a desert IRL, and House basically stopped any kind of nuclear detonation in that area. So New Vegas and it's surrounding area are virtually the same as they were before.

There's a reason everyone criticises Bethesda's writing. They can create really fun games and amazing worldspaces, but don't think too hard about the writing. Imagine Fallout 3 is set 180 years prior and it becomes a lot more believable.

Like, the simple fact that there is a flowing River and not a spit of green >.>

I know its been like that since Fallout 1, but a peeve for one as I. I wonder....in Fallout 4 if the landscape is going to have any sign of, natural life.

BaconShelf · August 22, 2015, 11:01:54 AM

Quote from: Batch on August 22, 2015, 10:19:00 AM

Quote from: BaconShelf on August 22, 2015, 10:15:33 AM
Quote from: Batch on August 22, 2015, 10:08:30 AM
Quote from: BaconShelf on August 22, 2015, 10:06:29 AM
It's a game series with nuclear cars, robot butlers, laser and plasma weapons in a setting with no microchip and aliens.

And you're complaining about the plants. It's a 50's vision of the future, I wouldn't worry about the science.
I'm not complaining about anything >.>

I'm just asking on your opinion as to if it's realistic....I know its just a game, but discussion is nice.

I mean more the setting. It's not one to think about realistically. It's an alternate timeline.

Anyway. Plants grow in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and even Chernoybl now. So no.

Besides, 200 years after a nuclear war and on one coast, there's already several nations close to becoming a post-war superpower (NCR, Legion, pre-Navarro Enclave, Brotherhood) and on the east coast, the capital wasteland has towns built from scrap.

However, the Mojave is a desert IRL, and House basically stopped any kind of nuclear detonation in that area. So New Vegas and it's surrounding area are virtually the same as they were before.

There's a reason everyone criticises Bethesda's writing. They can create really fun games and amazing worldspaces, but don't think too hard about the writing. Imagine Fallout 3 is set 180 years prior and it becomes a lot more believable.
Like, the simple fact that there is a flowing River and not a spit of green >.>

I know its been like that since Fallout 1, but a peeve for one as I. I wonder....in Fallout 4 if the landscape is going to have any sign of, natural life.

The Potomac has dried up in several places. It doesn't appear to be flowing, more an extension of the sea.

And the water is still heavily irradiated.

Pippen · August 22, 2015, 11:05:14 AM

I wouldn't mind signs of plant life at least.

Mattie G Indahouse · August 22, 2015, 11:17:07 AM

The better nature question is why we don't see any rain.

Azumarill · August 22, 2015, 11:21:16 AM

Quote from: BerzerkCommando on August 22, 2015, 11:17:07 AM

The better nature question is why we don't see any rain.

they added rain to zion canyon in honest hearts

Tyger · August 22, 2015, 12:22:35 PM

Because Fallout games are ugly

🍁 Aria 🔮 · August 22, 2015, 12:27:42 PM

Quote from: BerzerkCommando on August 22, 2015, 11:17:07 AM

The better nature question is why we don't see any rain.

It snows occasionally in Jacobstown.

Turkey · August 22, 2015, 01:31:46 PM

1 & 2 were fairly soon after the war, and I believe the bombs were dropped at ground level, requiring hundreds of years for the radiation to dissipate. Fallout 3 had the excuse of irradiated ground water, and NV was set in a desert so there wouldn't be much plant life there. 4 looks to have a lot of greenery, though.

Gatortag · August 22, 2015, 01:57:40 PM

I'm not genius in this area. So correct me if I'm wrong. But aren't places with extreme levels of radiation supposed to be uninhabitable for a long time? Even 1000s of years. Like Chernobyl.

Luciana · August 22, 2015, 02:22:25 PM

Why do we make multiple threads about the same thing?

Anyway, Fallout 4 seems to at least be colorful. Post apocalyptic games can have plants and color in it, and when done right it looks amazing.

Luciana · August 22, 2015, 02:26:02 PM

Quote from: Josh55886 on August 22, 2015, 01:57:40 PM

I'm not genius in this area. So correct me if I'm wrong. But aren't places with extreme levels of radiation supposed to be uninhabitable for a long time? Even 1000s of years. Like Chernobyl.

While they work on the same principles, the detonation of an atomic bomb and the meltdown of a nuclear plant are two very different processes.

An atomic bomb is based on the idea of releasing as much energy from a runaway nuclear fission reaction as possible in the shortest amount of time. The idea being to create as much devastating damage as possible immediately so as to nullify enemy forces or intimidate the opposing side into surrender. Both effectively ensuring the conflict ends quickly. Thus, it would be important that the area bombed does not remain uninhabitable long after the two sides make peace (Ok, that's my own speculation, but I think it's a nice ideal to work with).

A nuclear reactor is based on the idea of producing low amounts of power using a controlled and sustained nuclear fission reaction. The point being that it does not release all of the energy at once and slower reaction processes are used to ensure maximum lifetime of the nuclear fuel.

cxfhvxgkcf-56:7 · August 22, 2015, 03:10:49 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Luciana · August 22, 2015, 03:19:54 PM

A game should stick to a realism that is in their universe.

Like if magic was suddenly a thing, it'd be daft. It's the same for books or any other form of media.

You can have fantasy, but keep it grounded in the reality of the world you establish.

Jono · August 22, 2015, 06:13:57 PM

What do you want next, rainbows to shoot out of Super Mutant's assholes?

Super Irish · August 22, 2015, 07:51:21 PM

You could go down the deserted route with nature, ala Metro with it's mutated bendy trees and overgrown roots but that doesn't really suit Fallout's more open environment (it might make sense in Washington proper, however), but there's also the problem with radiation.

Radiation kills or mutates, with higher doses giving higher prevalence of the former. Given that standing in irradiated water can kill you in the Fallout world in a little over 10 minutes, we can assume that it's pretty inhospitable for life. That gives rise to more problems like how are people in the Capital Wasteland living over 40 if the unmentioned background radiation must also be higher, but that's for other discussion (and could be overlooked as no-one other than the player and a few rad-resistant characters are given an age to go by).

Luciana · August 22, 2015, 08:23:25 PM

Quote from: SuperIrish on August 22, 2015, 07:51:21 PM

You could go down the deserted route with nature, ala Metro with it's mutated bendy trees and overgrown roots but that doesn't really suit Fallout's more open environment (it might make sense in Washington proper, however), but there's also the problem with radiation.

Radiation kills or mutates, with higher doses giving higher prevalence of the former. Given that standing in irradiated water can kill you in the Fallout world in a little over 10 minutes, we can assume that it's pretty inhospitable for life. That gives rise to more problems like how are people in the Capital Wasteland living over 40 if the unmentioned background radiation must also be higher, but that's for other discussion (and could be overlooked as no-one other than the player and a few rad-resistant characters are given an age to go by).

People in the Fallout world came out of the vaults as early as 20 years after.

There is no real logical move behind it, and people are right to criticize it. And places hit with nukes have already grown and look just fine now.

Coconut Marty · August 22, 2015, 08:26:40 PM

I think the devs said in an interview that they wanted Fallout 4 to be more colorful to more accurately represent the wasteland. So I think we'll be seeing more nature.

Mattie G Indahouse · August 22, 2015, 08:26:56 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on August 22, 2015, 01:31:46 PM

1 & 2 were fairly soon after the war, and I believe the bombs were dropped at ground level, requiring hundreds of years for the radiation to dissipate. Fallout 3 had the excuse of irradiated ground water, and NV was set in a desert so there wouldn't be much plant life there. 4 looks to have a lot of greenery, though.

Fallout 1 and 2 are also set in a desert as well just like NV.

August 22, 2015, 08:27:00 PM

Considering that Chernobyl developed fungi that thrives on the radiation, it's a possibility that plant life could develop like Metro's. However, as stated before, a meltdown isn't exactly a nuclear blast.

Luciana · August 22, 2015, 09:00:31 PM

Quote from: Coconut Marty on August 22, 2015, 08:26:40 PM

I think the devs said in an interview that they wanted Fallout 4 to be more colorful to more accurately represent the wasteland. So I think we'll be seeing more nature.

I'd like a quote from that, but yeah it does look more colorful.

Colorful wastelands can easily work out great.

Batch · August 22, 2015, 10:02:24 PM

Alright gimme half an hour and I'll get some screenshots of my current Fallout 3

See if you guys approve or not.

Luciana · August 22, 2015, 10:13:44 PM

Looking forward to it

Septy · August 22, 2015, 10:23:29 PM

go to nevada and tell me if you see any nature