So having the new team translate the old teams story and ideas maybe does give me pause, especially when I’ve seen what they did with concepts and elements they carried over into the newer games.
But yeah. In universe it sort of makes sense why and in reality history shows that it is theoretically realistic- ww2 and other conflicts show us that even a few hundred miles away or less from total destruction and suffering you can find relative oases- but the west coast has had hundreds of more years to recover and faced much less destruction than the easy coast by the time of the first person fallout games. That alone makes sense of a lot of the differences in settings even if we ignore the odd plot armor of private rich guy missile shields and all this stuff.

A major complaint that I find valid among die hard fallout purists and even the casual media was that fallout 3 and the total efforts of those who made it showed certain fundamental misunderstanding of the spirit and concept of the original games. I enjoyed 3 and 4, and unlike many who played and lived the original games when they released I didn’t hate them and loved the switch to first person and the action oriented game play. I did and do bemoan the simplification of quests and story and dialog and rpg elements and systems to make a more accesible “looter shooter” type play experience- but the original games aren’t perfect even if they come close for the format.

In my honest opinion- while it wouldn’t have been likely legally feasible- it would have been nice for them to maybe remake the first game in the style of the third for their initial foray- giving you a new way to play and perhaps adding and changing some things, then building out from the first game as if the spec’ing and subsequent games never happened for the new generation console games. Or maybe not. With the technology and such could they have done the nine yard or the hub or even shaft sands justice? Maybe it’s better. Creatively I can understand them not wanting to or feeling comfortable to continue the story laid down by another team.

Not only does that allow the later games in the east coast to play by freer rules and maintain the new teams visions with some cannon explanation- it also avoids too badly crossing plot lines in the past games- at least on the surface. The west coast BOS was as they were and claimed to be isolated because they were at that time. No one every came from the east coast to the west or vice versa because there was nothing on the east coast but death more or les. In theory. In practice they made a mess of that too. Then they did new Vegas and they brought the “west coast BOS” to the east in their search to try and inject more flavor into what was sort of a meh setting.

The problem being that we know with access to modern technology and relief aid that the only working cities to ever suffer nuclear attack were rebuilt and repopulated and thriving within a generation. So even if the concept of nuclear physics is taken at this pop culture stylistic level- that doesn’t explain away how after centuries a major city with scientists and manufacturing- rear pieces and knowledge- couldn’t put together a new society and be on the way to recovery. Until we factor in the plot device that the east coast was very badly saturation nuked.

Having the east coast be exceptionally damaged helped in these regards. It also allowed them to set the games far after the events of the first two games to help distance the games plots and need to connect because distance and time and the fact that east coasters couldn’t emerge as soon allowed that. The later emergence also allowed them to explain things being forgotten and lost and destroyed. To explain why society hadn’t seemingly even began to rebuild after the war whereas in the earlier games small agricultural villages and self governed towns and societies had formed as humans tried to rebuild. Progress was slowed by threats and hardships and lack of technology and such.

Aesthetically and game play and technology wise there is another huge issue. The city would be rather built up- including massive high rises. A more realistic city map would have entire sections of a city looking almost untouched. It kills the feeling and look of the game. The bleakness of a wasteland. To keep that tone they needed to model the destruction more on cities of Europe and Asia ans such in WW2 which saw total war and mass bombing etc. they also needed for the technical constraints and game play reasons to cut down the size of the city and the explotable areas and interiors and the decorations that each interior necessitates. Even in the game hundreds of years after destructive war and scavenging- few places are empty. Some destroyed furniture or skeletons, debris, trash etc. to add atmosphere and a sense most of the world isn’t just empty space there to fill a map.

By contrast even a 1950’s based major east coast city like Philly was well developed and booming. Even with modern technology creating the entire city anywhere near scale or while importing a sense of scale would exceed the technological constraints of the day, and more over, it wouldn’t be much fun. To walk from one end to the other alone would be quite a slog. Even in the scaled down and restricted access version of fallout 3 the city can be a pain to backtrack and such. Designing interesting or rewarding play across such a space is aliso a challenge.

The setting of the first game and somewhat the second game made it a good candidate for a wasteland game. A concept of the deserts of the eastern and central California state in an alternative 1950’s sort of world doesn’t require a lot of sprawl. Lots of farms and small towns and various works buildings and some small military installations and such. The game let players enter the outskirts of a 1950’s inspired Los Angeles- still a large town but much less developed than what most people think of when they think LA, and even in the modern day the outskirts around LA are often sparse.

This meant they didn’t have to design and build an entire city or large parts of a major city into interesting traversable terrain or give you pointless collectibles or out of place valuables scattered across a major city to add value to filler. It also made turn based combat in large areas slightly more bearable as waiting for everyone in a large map to take their turn- even if that turn was used to run or do nothing- is bad enough when the map is broken into 4-6 independent segments but if you had to wait for an entire city to take its turns before you could act… oh man

The first couple of games weren’t first person and they didn’t have full exploration- you fast traveled a map from location to location and location maps that you could roam and explore were limited in size. This was partially a technical choice based on the tech of the time but also gameplay. A wasteland is mostly empty. Decimated cities and ruins are sprawling stretches of impassible terrain and repetitive destruction. Most would be long looted and areas you can traverse would generally have little of interest to see or do or collect. They decided instead of having you navigate mazes if ruined cities and search building after empty building to find trash or nothing and occasionally something of mundane value they would build game play areas that presented interest to the player- visually or gameplay wise.

Sort of a fresh start for a new audience. The original games were developed by people who knew California and set it there. Fallout 3 was made by a company that knew the east coast. Fallout 3 would be a mainstream modern audiences first introduction to the franchise, so setting it out west, even ignoring the real life legal and other complexities of the relationships between the first two games and the third- would bring the weight of the previous games and story. While the game was branded as “3,” it was almost literally the first game in a series. Totally different gameplay with nods to the originals, changes to all sorts of mechanics and world building and more.

The game moved west towards Vegas but the events of the second game carried over along with new decisions that in some cases were questionable and in others were the result of development and other problems. Ridiculous contradictions and far fetched concepts and things that broke continuity- and that ignores BOS tactics and the console games that shot holes all in the plot and contradicted or retconed etc. the cannon.
Fallout 3 and 4 and subsequent games were not just a step away for a “fresh start” from the writing problems of the earlier games but also in a business sense reflecting the behind the scenes drama and stepping away from that. Since fallout 3 would drastically change the format and gameplay of the franchise and be the first exposure for many to the universe- it was also

Of course the fallout continuity is a mess at this point with the west coast setting in large part being abandoned because of the mess made of it. The second fallout game advanced the clock but kept overlap between the original games setting while moving the borders of the map slightly north. We saw the long term choices of actions from the first game- often contradicting choices a player made in the first game and somewhat invalidating the illusion of control and consequence in a game built on this very open RPG story based choice system. But the jump in time, the political and social and technological changes- you can’t just hand wave those away. By the end of the second game there were organized and functional governments, factories and research and advancement of technology. It wasn’t really a “wasteland” anymore.

The first game only featured one major city and large nuclear impact sites were more limited- focussed on military bases and city epicenters and vaults and such. Taking place in relatively “rural” areas of California it made some sense how the game handled the post war. In New Vegas they gave the plot armor-esque reasoning that a rich genius had an anti missile defense system that mitigated a great deal of damage. The relatively isolated location of Vegas served as both the reason that despite the defense system doing a decent job of preserving the city and despite there being few other high value targets in the are- limiting the destruction to a degree- there was still such major destruction and regression. It’s a touch more complex and I’m leaving some things out.

Indeed. No matter how one feels about vaccinations. I won’t list all the parallels in other industries, you’ve done the summation well. Instead I’ll point to how this meme implies that those 1400 people let go could have eased the personnel shortage. In the same bent as the above points- no. They couldn’t. That’s why they were fired. If a pilot doesn’t trust the industry approved safety measures and decides to do things their way they aren’t useful at all in a pilot shortage unless you are ok putting thousands of lives a day into the hands of a pilot who does what they want and doesn’t follow the rules. If the above security clearance isn’t or can’t be obtained, firing someone from a job where that is a prudent step for safety doesn’t create a shortage, it removes a liability. If they were short on heart surgeons- I don’t want them to say: “well this person rejects the basic principles of medical science and established patient safety- but it’s him or we have to hire someone else..”

You can’t have “perfect” every time all the time. So in a world without people who can and will stop bad people- you will have bad people. Bad people will be born or made. Always. People who want more than they have. People who won’t follow your rules no matter how “right” they are or how beneficially they are to society. We have people who won’t call someone “him” to possibly help avoid a suicide- so don’t expect people to go too far out of their way to care about others if it requires they do even the smallest thing.

Rules are made by the people with the power to make rules and those rules tend to benefit the people who make them because that is human nature. It’s why democracy grew wings. If you have a world fan entirely by despotism- a singular ruler with total control- if that ruler is just and wise and near perfect the world will likely be that way too- at least for most people most of the time. One day we all die. If the “perfect” ruler dies the next mag not be perfect. It only takes one Donald Trump to successfully steal an election once and then Donald trump is your president for the rest of his life wether you want that or not. Than his kids after him or whoever he says or whoever fills the vacuum.

The loyalty of the successful and powerful is generally conditional and fluid. It follows their interests and what they deem prudent for their own goals. So these sorts of morals are morals of poverty. Things we teach kids that ultimately adults rarely follow as we would instruct kids to- because the adult world is competitive. There is always someone better, always someone willing to do more or to go farther or to sacrifice more.
My point isn’t that is how it should be or that I think that is good- my point is that is how it is. That is how it always has been, that is likely how it always will be.

Now to your original point- most true. The basic lessons of the emotionally and morally healthy child are classically things like sharing, dealing with disappointment and not being over competitive or aggressive. Patience, kindness, respect, thinking of others… but… are these the traits exhibited by the wealthiest and most successful people in the world? Not generally. When and if they behave such ways it is often tactical- it is done to serve their social position or goals. Elon Musk and Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos and so forth do not sacrifice their business to allow others to have a fair chance. They wait when it suits them and push when it is tactically prudent. Elon Must doesn't give a shit about your feelings if he needs a product delivered in a month and you’re sad or tired or whatever. He will push you to do what he needs and consider what you need later if at all.