Forum:Not enough settlements?

Is it just me,or are 3 'major' settlements,a few small one's, and one where you can't do anything (read: little lamplight) not enough? The great molerat. 15:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely, especially if compared to the number of settlements in Fallout and Fallout 2. Ausir 23:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The area of Fallout and Fallout 2 are a bit bigger than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 also takes place at the U.S. Capitol and was probably hit by more nuclear bombs than California, resulting in more casualties.  Let's also not forget the abundance of Raiders in the Capitol Wasteland.  --MadDawg2552 18:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ummm you are conplaining about the lack of places and poeple left after a mass nuclear war.

there aren't anywhere near enough settlements, though i wouldn't dare hint that the states on the west were hit with less nukes because these states have they most people so they would have the most towns and cities, theirs are lots of places in the wastes that would be good places for cities or settlements or even outposts but then again the wastes aren't that big if they were bigger there would be more room for more cities there would be much room in the mountains for cities and bunkers as well as vaults.this is my site! 04:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don´t see much of a problem with the number of settlements but rather the "depth" of the setting. Most settlements have only about half a dozen people you can have a real conversation with and one quest that can usually be summed up as traveling for ten minutes, then take either choice A or B to solve the problem, get back to town and then the town is pretty much useless for anything else than trading items. Golan2781 09:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

♠ Golan2781: I agree completely. Even in Bethesda's latest Elder Scrolls games, there was a lot more to do in the cities. I'm not sure why they didn't do as much to immerse you in the towns when they spent so much time and effort to immerse you in the environment. I do miss the 'New Reno' of Fallout 2. *sigh* Magnum101 23:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

4 or 5 new settlements would be cool as well as more things to do in the settlements. 01:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well almost all of the vaults failed so there must have been less people who survived.....9:42, 18 February 2009

the vaults werent meant to save people just ton test people. 19:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think whilst there are enough settlements, they lack depth. I like Rivet City as every NPC is named, has conversation, and is related to a bounty of quests. Megaton and Paradise falls have their un-named people, and even the named ones aren't too interesting (Jotun, Ymir, Billy Creel). If every city was like rivet city, the game would be better. In paradise falls there is less than 500 caps before you upgrade Pronto, and the caravanners only stock a couple hundred before you upgrade them. Megaton has a fair few shops, but two bars and one supply shop is a little underwhelming. Tenpenny Tower isn't bad. I understand it, but it has no caravan traders, and is pretty out-of-the-way. No one seems to know how to fix up a weapon, yet they got a robot working as a bartender. Underworld is one place I find no faults with. Ghouls are few and far between, so the town is understandably small. If they upgraded all the towns and made revisiting them, worthwhile, maybe, just maybe. --I-am-a-panda 11:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC) what pandas saying is very valid. though i still would like to see more settlements in the northern regions.23:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Canterbury commons is the northern most settlement, but it's way out to the east. I think the Northern hlaf of the map was supposed to wilderness, a bit like runescape.

On that note, Canterbury Commons is also underwhelming is size. It's known as a trading town, but has a mayor, his kid, a guy who runs a diner and 2 guards. 5 people hardly make a trading town. Hell, its hardly a town. There is only one shop (and a caravan outside mostly). There is so much room for improvement with the empty houses but alas, no. They could at least have put it somewhere central. Having regulator HQ way off there makes more sense than having the Commons there. Maybe it would be okay with 5 more named PC. OOohh, i smell a mod. (HINT,HINT!)--I-am-a-panda 15:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

your all forgetting the kingdom of Dave, still that large plain out in the north, both of them are prime locations for a small town, even the water place(forgot the name thinks its Montgomery something) would make a great place for some trading and houses because of the water they.oh and theirs oasis but that doesn't have any traders which is a let down.Maccy Man the man with no plan. 16:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

its not the kingdom of dave. and its the Montgomery County Reservoir. 71.191.37.12

fine smart ass the republic of dave!Maccy Man the man with no plan. 19:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

i would really like some more towns AND some adjustements to the other ones. maybe one that looks like Fairfax Ruins (without raiders trying to blow your head off.) The great molerat. 20:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

it would be nice to be able to open up boarded doors to get into houses and stores all over the map.Maccy Man the man with no plan. 23:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO there are too many settlements. I expected the wasteland to have a very sparse amount of humans living there due to limited supplies, irradiated water etc. Dweller93 01:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with lack of settlements and population in general. Remember it's 200 years after the war, the capital wasteland isn't anywhere near as irradiated as the pit, and even they are still mentioned as having children (though they usually turn trog pretty fast because of said radiation), so sterility isn't a big problem in a world with "Science!" instead of science. It really makes stocking up on ammo even if you have shitload of caps an annoying affair at bestCavesloth 04:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Cavesloth