That's why I was wishing, instead of a sequel, to turn the clock back to about 50 years after the bombs dropped
and recapture the chaos of Fallout 1, rather than have an entire working Las Vegas WITH Lights etc and DJ's playing old tunes on the Radio...?

Fallout 1 the airwaves were dead silent, there was no "Three Dog" or "Wayne Newton" playing music, that alone, contributed
to the sense of "Aloneness"

Yes, there were places like Shady Sands and the Necropolis, but you got the feeling that they could disappear at any
moment if they didn't get a better foothold, because a bunch of Raiders could come along and wipe the 'settlement'
off the map.

In the current games, there's cities, fortifications, turrets, soldiers and armies, I'm just not feeling the
aftermath of a nuclear holocaust anymore, because the franchise has moved so far into the future that things,
as I said are too organized and civilized.

Yea, there are still raiders, but everybody just kind of keeps to themselves now.

That's why I equated Fallout 1 with "The Road Warrior", because you got that sense of "Every man for himself",
whereas I equated Fallout 2 with "Thunderome" because you ended up with "Bartertown" only it was called "New Reno"

We are on the same page more than I thought with this. I totally agree.

**But here is what I think. The series cannot have the country progress back to the way it was before the bombs (or it just can't be Fallout anymore). Fallout could [conceivably] progress and then be bombed again (not the best choice IMO). Fallout could be set before the war... and we'd likely regret it [Fallout:Phantom Menace]... I just don't think/feel that it would work out well.
Honestly IMO Fallout 3 was the last chance and VB was canceled. Fallout 3 was made again, and tries to be Fallout 1 set 200 years later. I think OP:Anchorage should not have been a DLC, but a prequel and expanded to fill an entire release as Fallout 4 ~and then end the series. (while strangely mirroring TES & Skyrim :laugh:)

If they are still living in tin shacks with no bicycles in FO4 :shrug:... Ahhh I dunno.

Link? :foodndrink:

Just threw up a rant on the forum explaining my thoughts on this exactly. Honestly, I was very unhappy with New Vegas, If you don't mind a bit of reading check it out.

LOL and NO, No "Fallout: Phantom Menace!"

Now THAT, (the Idea of Taking OP:Anchorage and using it as a Prequel and expanded to be a Fallout 4 would've been
awesome, because that would mean that Fallout 4 would've basically taken place 'The Day After" (if I have my lore right).

If that was the case, think of some of the quick decisions one would have to make, if Played as a Soldier from OP:Anchorage
and you come upon people who have precious supplies, do you gun them all down and TAKE what you need, do you barter in some way
I.E. protect them and/or escort them somewhere in exchange for some food?

It would be nice at the start if you could pick if your character was going to be coming out of a vault,
or was already outside in Alaska as a Soldier on a flight to California (for some reason that explains why you end up in the same location)
or even as a regular citizen who couldn't get into a vault and is slowly starting to "Ghoulify" and you have extra game dynamics involved
that you have to prevent yourself from becoming "Feral"

I personally think that Fallout fits the "rebuilding Society feelings" they cant stuck forever in the "Rocks"

Yeah, Post Apocalyptic, hence the name "Fallout", but the game never said itself Apocalyptic, but POST-APOCALYPTIC,

I dont like the idea of "staying in a doomed world forever" they need to do it all over again from the scratch"

HOWEVER

Bethesda can do what Konami and Capcom did it with some of their games

Reboot the series and develop with their ideals

I enjoyed Fallout 3 more. Not that I don't care for NV. The companions and weapons alone are a big improvement. Just seemed like there were more meaningful building to explore and the subways/tunnels in Fallout 3 were huge. I'd love to take the weapons of NV and port them over to Fallout 3.

The Strip didn't excite me all that much. Big building with quests to do, but little action.

Good point Dario, and in a way, I hope they do Reboot, considering, if you look at the time frames that the games took
place, you never truly get that "rebuilding Society" feel, for one, because your actions don't carry over tot he next game etc...

Fallout 1 takes place 84 years after 2077
Fallout 2 takes place 164 years after 2077
Fallout 3 takes place 200 years after 2077

I was kind of disappointed with the HUGE jumps in time between games, so a reboot fro Bethesda would be nice,
considering they've said that they intend on making a lot of Fallout Games, just like the TES games.

But if they keep going ahead in years without a reboot, pretty soon it's going
to be like playing Grand Theft Auto, rather than Fallout.

I agree up to the part about rebooting the series. They can just go back in the timeline. Different locations far enough away from the events of FO1 and FO2 so as to not screw up what was done in them.

Keep in mind that, I just giving them ideas, but I hate reboots, making the other stories useless, I prefer Alternate continuity, so they cant screw with the original storyline, and also evade nasty RetCons, Marvel And DC just became very confusing to read




FO3 screwed it a lot so I dont know how they can fix it

I don't mean a reboot in a comic book or star Trek Sense, I mean just resetting the clock, and
that Fallout 1,2,3 and New Vegas happened on the West Coast, but reset the clock to 25-50 years after 2077
and have the series coincide with the originals, but have this take place on the East coast.

You've got the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute on the East Coast.
Lizzie Bordon's House isn't too far (game world) from MIT......that has Dunwich Building potential on a WAY smaller scale
there's the American Stonehenge in New Hampshire.... NASA down in Florida....
Wood's Hole in Connecticut, there's a lot of interesting places that could be put into
a "Time Reboot" of Fallout East Coast"

Fallout 3 is in the East Coast, but yeah "pretty much of that game looks like that the think just happened some years ago,,,,,,

Yea, it all takes place in the D.C. Area, and Maryland, but they mention M.I.T. quite a bit
in the game, and I was really surprised that none of the DLC involved "The Institute"

Fallout so far have cover 4.5 states out of 54....not to mention the major cities across the world, I don't see any problem with "while Vault Dweller deal with the Master, the other side of the country (or world)...."

54? America has 50 states add Canada thats 51.

California
Oregon
Nevada
Colorado
Kansas
Illinois
Maryland
Pennsylvania

Have seen Fallout locations

Bethesda REBOOTING Fallout? Jesus Christ, don't even suggest nonsense like that.

Besides, reboots are kinda becoming a joke in the video game industry (Since everyone is doing it).

Try READING before responding.

When I talk REBOOT, I'm just talking about going back in time and going to a different location,
so MY Fallout Reboot would happen in parallel with fallout 1 happening on the West Coast, while the Fallout Reboot
would happen on the East coast.
I'm not talking about CHANGING anything like the Reboot of Star Trek did, I'm just talking
about going back in time to when the first Fallout happened, or even 30 years BEFORE the first Fallout.

As I said before, as the Fallout Franchise inevitably and inexorably marches towards the future,
eventually Governments are going to be formed, Cities, Towns, Counties and States will be reformed
and pretty soon we'll be playing "Grand Theft Auto" rather than Fallout.

Don't be so negative and cynical, we're trying to have a civil discussion, not stomp around in Doc Martins and ridicule each others ideas.

i think the biggest problems i had with NV is that was glitches and the ENDLESS mazes of fkn [censored] invisable walls. :banghead:

fallout 3 rarely had invisable walls except where they were needed. they also always disguised them with rubble or wreckage (except on the outside boundries)

It was my understanding (said from a developer) that the invisible walls in NV were needed; and often placed as a means to simplify the terrain for the NPC AI.
I think a fence along the cliffs would look out of place, as would impassable debris piles.

I don't really mind the invisible walls; I have encountered them, very occasionally I hit them somewhere I'd like to go past but cannot. I usually ignore them, but if I really must... then I toggle clipping 'off' for a minute, but that's rare.

I agree that FO3 should have been set earlier in the timeline. Since we're so far away from the original games' locations, it's not like any events in the game would affect or contradict the previously established lore on the west coast. I really liked the 'surviving in the ruins of a former civilization' feeling of the Capitol Wasteland. NV feels a little too developed, and lacks that post-apocalyptic atmosphere.

As far as the 'right after the war' feeling in FO3, it's somewhat explained that the DC area was so heavily bombed that it has only been repopulated over the last 50 years, but it doesn't quite make sense--Megaton, for instance, is said to have been founded by survivors who hadn't been able to get into V101. So they huddled in the cave entrance outside the vault for 150 years? Really?

I really enjoyed Fallout 3 more, but still had a good time with NV. I wish I could take the better variety of weapons + the jury-rig perk, and the superior companion control back to Fallout 3. Seemed like more combat in Fallout 3 (making it more fun in some ways). In NV quite a few buildings were either boarded up or pretty vacant inside. I know a lot of buildings in Fallout 3 were inaccessible too, but there were a lot more to begin with. I got more than my money's worth out of NV, but doubt that I will be anxious to replay it much. Then again, a few new add-ons could change that. I really enjoyed Dead Money....right up to the frustrating vault ending.

So, I would say it wasn't as much fun, but still kept my interest for most of the game.

there will be no dlc to continue the game
yes man is the best in my opinion

I have that same feeling with New Vegas. I'm just not into it as much as I would be into Fallout 3. Maybe a couple more DLC's from New Vegas will change my mind but I'll wait and see on that.

It was FO3 done with loads of rubbish & little improvements in my opinion. Then again a sequel never feels as good as the prequel.

New Vegas is not a sequal to FO3 just like FO3 is not a sequel to FO2

Argue all you want, but when a game comes out and is called 'Fallout 3' it is a sequel - Bethesda now owns 'Fallout' and like it or not, they decide what's canon now and what's a sequel. 'New Vegas' is a spin off, off 'Fallout 3' - in all honesty I'd expect to see at least 1 more spin off before we see 'Fallout 4'