This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the page "Fallout: New Vegas creatures."


Yeah, uhm the mirelurks were mirelurk kings, and the kings are mutated turtles. Turtles belong to the reptile family so I went ahead and changed the little mishap. 22:03, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Giant Ants confirmed in this 15:42, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Reptile Thing Edit

Ok since the "reptile dogs" are part reptile, shouldn't they go under reptiles?Shadow 21:41, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

No, they should be under mammals. As they look like (mutated) dogs/hyenas/mountain lions/cougars (debated, but all mammal), look closer to canines/large felines in overall structure, and we have not had full evidence of what they are genetically (other than snake-headed canines, which is quite vague), they should be under mammals. It also has fur, a non-reptile trait. So, while they are somewhat reptile, their defining trait, they are dominantly mamallian. Nathan Hale 11:42, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

They are called "Reptile" dogs for a reason, they may have mutated into reptiles. Sparky talk

The name of the dog is unknown, so that's just a speculative name. Also, why are we making such a fuss whether it's a bloody mammal or not? Just put it in the one which it most likely is, reptiles. Tezzla CannonUser Tezzla Dog 11:30, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was arguing against. They are, overall, more mammal than reptile, and therefore should be classfied as mammals. We could also, to compromise, just have a heading for conglomerations otf multiple creatures like this (there may be more). Seeing how mutated creatures in the Wastes have become, normal taxonomy becomes almost pointless, as many of the original classification no longer have much meaning in the world of Fallout. Nathan Hale 11:42, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
How can you say they're MORE one or the other? There isn't any halfway. Do they generate their own body heat? Do they lay eggs? Hair on a reptile isn't impossible. But I agree that they should be mammals, since it's most likely that they are dogs that have just started to mutate, so they would retain most of the mammalian traits, but there is no way to know for sure. RadRuler 13:01, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Someone please make a god damn poll. Sparky talk
My meaning of "more mammal than reptile" was just stating that the number of visible traits of mammalian origin exceed that of reptile origin. That's all.Nathan Hale 13:11, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
How about a "chimera/unknown" section for any animals that don't obviously fit into one category or another? Kris mailbox 13:26, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Stick it in there. Should solve some problems. Nathan Hale 15:12, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, this section definitely needs a catch-all category. And I wasn't trying to sound like a jerk earlier. RadRuler 23:05, August 17, 2010 (UTC)


I know all we have is this to go from but it's farfetched that they're not going to be in the game SPOILER WARNING: "I found a few other little settlements, some farms (even a molerat farm) and what looked to be a labor camp" 21:45, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but I don't think it's enough to put into the wiki just yet. Kris mailbox 21:58, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Walamingos Edit

A guy says in his speech files (can remembeer his name) that he saw a guy in a suit being chased by weird alien things that could walamingos maybe. --Mary roc 17:01, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Nightkin Edit

Added a creature: Nightkin (Fallout: New Vegas). First encountered one, although dead, on the road to the REPCONN test site.


What is up with giant radscorpions in NEW VEGAS!? They are like, immposible to kill unless you have a power fist or somthing. In Fallout 3, it just took paitience,(and ammo) but now, they are like superman or somthing. WTH!! Does anybody agree?

no get some better weapons

Aliens Edit

In Fallout 3, we placed the aliens in their own class due to them not being mammals. Here, though, they are once again placed as mammals under the humanoid section. I understand that Aliens look kind of like humans, but they aren't mammals, and thus should be in their own category. Which is exactly what I'm going to do.--Whachamacallit 04:21, December 11, 2010 (UTC)


I would like to point out that Nightstalkers are not mammals, as they lay eggs.--With care and happiness, Supermutantslayer450' YOU. LOSE. 21:57, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

True, but the also have fur, a strictly mammal trait. This is the kind of stuff that happens when you try to genetically engineer a rattlesnake coyote. Kastera1000 22:43, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the fact that they have fur isn't evidence that they are mammals-watch out, I'm about to become a prehistory nerd. Certain Synapsids (or mammal-like reptiles) had fur and were still considered reptiles. But on the other hand, them laying eggs is not evidence for them being reptiles. The platypus and the echidna both lay eggs, but they're considered mammals. The real way how we differentiate mammals from reptiles is that mammals produce milk. Can't say where that puts Nightstalkers though. Maybe we could put them in their own category, although I could see how that could clutter up the page.-- 01:54, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
I was under the impression that besides the whole mammary thing, that reptiles are cold-blooded. Just sayin'...No reason really:) 06:05, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
That still doesn't matter-and it's not really true. Most-if not all-dinosaurs were endothermic (or "warm-blooded") and Synapsids were also warm-blooded. The ONLY difference between the terrible Linnean reptile category and the equally terribly Linnean mammalian category is that mammals produce milk, reptiles don't.

Robots? Edit

Do they have their own page, or have they been overlooked? Just Sayin' 04:56, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

I withdraw my ill informed question. Apparently they were just overlooked by me. It begs the question though why there is not a unified list of 'creatures'(or as I like to think of em, stuff I likes to shoot). In most RPG circles the term creature or monster is a catch all for any potential adversary, victim, or neutral party. Just Sayin' 05:07, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Not enough enemies in F:NV Edit

Compared to previous FO games the Mojave wasteland really deserves the term "wasteland" - there is just nothing going on - empty landscape, except for certain locations, and even those mostly have only a few enemies. And the most ridiculous thing is that F:NV has added so many great killing-means - whatever your little heart can desire - but there is just not enough creatures and enemies to use them on :( Sure, you can go to the more populated areas, like the Strip, the Fort, etc. and wreak havoc, load a save and do it again, but it is just not that, it feels (and in essence is) more like a mess-around-and-then-get-back-to-playing thing, rather than something within the game environment, which would have you constantly consider what weaponry to carry along where, etc.

Does Anyone else feel like F:NV should have had more random enemy encounters, considering the wide and varied arsenal it offers?