I was disappointed by the lack of good towns in Fallout 3.  Fallout 2 had great towns to explore and quest from.  Towns like Vault City, New Reno, Klamath (sp?), and so on. Fallout 3 didn't.  The best town it had could be blown up in the first couple of hours of the game depending on what kind of character you were playing.  The second best was Rivet City, which was kind of meh.  There were places that had potential to be good towns but only had like 5 people living there.  In the end, Fallout 3 seemed smaller in scale than Fallout 2 which was the game I couldn't help but compare against when I was playing.  And whenever I made the comparison, Fallout 3 didn't compare well at all.  
 
I hope that Obsidian puts in some cool towns in Fallout: New Vegas.  But I think deep down, New Vegas couldn't possibly have the scope that Fallout 2 had.  

I was disappointed by the lack of good towns in Fallout 3.  Fallout 2 had great towns to explore and quest from.  Towns like Vault City, New Reno, Klamath (sp?), and so on. Fallout 3 didn't.  The best town it had could be blown up in the first couple of hours of the game depending on what kind of character you were playing.  The second best was Rivet City, which was kind of meh.  There were places that had potential to be good towns but only had like 5 people living there.  In the end, Fallout 3 seemed smaller in scale than Fallout 2 which was the game I couldn't help but compare against when I was playing.  And whenever I made the comparison, Fallout 3 didn't compare well at all.  
 
I hope that Obsidian puts in some cool towns in Fallout: New Vegas.  But I think deep down, New Vegas couldn't possibly have the scope that Fallout 2 had.  

I agree.

Meh, it gave it more of a feel of an actually end of the war/survival feel to me. But i can see your logic

I couldn't place why a game that took place years after the second game would have less of a population than its predecessor. 

I agreee with the OP. Everybody hyped up Rivet City as being a huge bustling hub, and it just felt like a cramped place full of dialog options.

I agree, I also imagine its alot harder to make Fallout 1 and 2 size towns in a 3D engine. That said, the cities they gave us were pretty good for what they were, but they could have been better. 
 
I also like the Ghoul city in the museum, that place was cool.

It is a matter of perception really.  I found Rivet City very interesting, especially when you dug into the sidequests that were available there. 
 
Fallout 3 is smaller in scale.  Fallout 2 took place in a considerable chunk of Central California and Western Nevada, but only a few points were explorable, Fallout 3 takes place in the DC Metro area, with most of it explorable.

There was that trading town up in the north of the map, I forget it's name right now.  But I really wanted that one to be a good town.  It was perfect.  The lack of towns or even populated settlements made the landscape more barren than it should have been.  

One of the biggest discrepancies I had with Fallout 3 was its horrible muddling of its own message.  
 

hey bill help me put up this sign to let guys know this is a great town for trading....... bill?
*watchesbillgettornapartbydeathclaws*

The towns in FO1 and FO2 seemed bigger, but I don't think they had substantially more content than the towns in FO3.  Look at NCR or San Francisco in FO2.  Even though the maps are big, most of the buildings are empty and you can't talk to most of the townspeople.
 
There's also the problem of scale...the DC Metro area is roughly the size of the Bay Area.  FO2 took a couple of screens to depict San Francisco, while FO3 took an entire game for Washington.  I'm interested to see how New Vegas will handle the scale.

Like others have said, it gave it a very survivalist feel. Besides for maybe Rivet City, there was no real infrastructure anywhere.

New Vegas will probably be a lot more exciting to explore.

As I remember, Tenpenny Tower had lots of people in it, but they were all twats.

Bethesda games in general have a lack of people. Huge worlds populated with only a few hundred NPCs.

" Bethesda games in general have a lack of people. Huge worlds populated with only a few hundred NPCs. "

" As I remember, Tenpenny Tower had lots of people in it, but they were all twats. "

" Bethesda games in general have a lack of people. Huge worlds populated with only a few hundred NPCs. "

I don't really see an issue with the population and settlements in Fallout 3. In a Dog Eat Dog world 37 years from the second game to the third game can mean a lot of changes and a lot more dead bodies.
 
@Goldanas:
I think you're reading to far into the message and contorting it to your own means. What they are saying by "War Never Changes" is that people will always love it, they will bask in death. Then there are others who will hate it and be appalled by the entire situation. Your argument doesn't stand up because of the sheer fact that your character has a choice, he can be good or evil. He can choose the high road or he can take out his anger with a shotgun. Just because you're evil doesn't mean you're corrupt, and because you're pure of heart doesn't mean you're good.
 
I good show if this would be in Fable 2, when they have the good and evil meter as well as the corrupt and pure meter. You can be corrupt but be good at heart or you could be The Incarnation of Evil who actually has some sense of honor.

What about the shooting, that was the reason that I stopped playing that terrible game. There was absolutely nothing about that game that was fun for me. If the shooting was actually good, I could see the rest of the stuff that people enjoy turning out to be awesome, but the VATS system or w.e. was just garbage.

I think the whole point behind the War never changes line is that it is a take on Human Nature.  We all have choices but human nature will never change no matter how optimistic we are at the time.  We will always find a way to kill.  Even after the nuclear war destroyed just about everything. 

Never played Fallout 2, but I really enjoyed exploring in Fallout 3. It would be cool if there were more towns though. 

I liked most of the settlements but from what I understand of the Fallout lore the east got hit much harder than the west and DC the worst. Also it would seem the vaults in the east where more experimental ones than the west meaning less people surviving. 
 
Actually as another note Todd Howard said the size of Fallout 3 was much bigger than the final game but they removed a lot of it so people wouldn't have to walk for very long through nothingness. 
 
EDIT: Although the real reason for the lack of people is lazyness or tech limitations.

I felt that Megaton and Underworld were the best two. Rivet City felt too dense, Canterbury Commons didn't have enough to do, Tennpenny Tower was full of dicks and douche-bags, and Paradise Falls wasn't enough of a traditional city (You know, vendors, bars, random homes), but I did like the slaver population there.

There were lots of small towns however. Big Town, Little Lamplight, Arefu, etc. Then you have places like The Citadel which noone has mentioned. 
 
I loved the game, I have no complaints with anything besides bugs. 

" There were lots of small towns however. Big Town, Little Lamplight, Arefu, etc. Then you have places like The Citadel which noone has mentioned.  I loved the game, I have no complaints with anything besides bugs.  "