This just has to have come up on this thread already, but just in case it hasn't:

It's called "Fallout: New Vegas" and not "Fallout 4" because that's what Obsidian (likely in conjunction with Bethesda) decided to call it.

/thread

Seriously though, it's a name. Not that big of a deal. It's probably because Bethesda already has plans for something they're planning on calling "Fallout 4," and looking at how Bethesda does game releases, it's going to be a jump in technology a la Morrowind to Oblivion.

The answer is simple: Obsidian does not own the rights to the numbered series, Bethesda does. End of story.

Obsidian owns no rights to any of it, they just do what bethesda tells them. And along the way try to make it better the best they can. Also, a huge jump in technology doesn't mean better a la Morrowind to Oblivion. Elder Scrolls has had less content with each game since 2. Granted it is "just a name" and probably won't effect gameplay, and I don't necessarily think it's a big deal it's something I'm curious about. If they had any logical reasoning or just "Because I said so" parent logic from when I was 6. If it's "just a name" what's wrong with calling it Fallout 4: New vegas? They're gonna come out with a 4 eventually and they're gonna get crap for it then. But there is absolutely no logical reason I can think of to call it what they're calling it. (I think GTA is stupid for the same reason) Now, if they call the next one 5 then so be it, but as for now I'm gonna keep calling this one 4 and I know several people who will do the same.

Also, have I stated I find it funny that they bought the rights, made one game, didn't quite ruin the series by turning it in to "oblivion with guns" but definitely didn't improve it, then said screw this let's make something else and just got another company to start making it? Don't get me wrong, I played the crap out of 3, but that doesn't make it better than 1 & 2.

I think, for some reason, people see New Vegas not being called "Fallout 4" as a sign that it's somehow "lesser," or "not worthy" of having an incrementally larger number associated with it. But I don't see how that's a logical conclusion. That's a value judgement we're deciding to place on it, after the fact. I don't think anyone at Bethesda feels that Obsidian is just making a "filler" game of no vital consequence; and I surely doubt that anyone at Obsidian does, either. One thing Todd Howard has mentioned in previous interviews is that his process for approaching a "sequel" is to break the previous game down to it's vital components and then build it back up again from there - almost as a completely new game. That's Bethesda's stance on what constitutes 1, 2, 3, etc is.

New Vegas isn't doing that. It's taking an existing framework and essentially putting it in a different location (as well as various tweaks, etc.) They're not going back to the drawing board for this game. Ostensibly, the Fallout 4 that Bethesda will eventually put out will. This does not mean that a lack of a "4" in New Vegas's title constitutes a lack of respect, or that not completely re-inventing the wheel means it's "unworthy." It's simply following Bethesda's naming conventions.

Not to mention, that there's already a lot of talk around here about people who are disappointed that New Vegas isn't a complete upgrade from Fallout 3. I don't think it's too much of a leap in logic to connect that sentiment with the thought that this would be even more exacerbated if New Vegas were going to be called "Fallout 4."

In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. New Vegas is what it is - they're taking Fallout 3's existing assets and using that to create a new storyline, locations, quests, etc. Instead of creating a completely new game from scratch. That doesn't make it inherently unworthy of the title "Fallout 4." It just doesn't describe what Bethesda has decided an incremental addition to the number after the title means. And calling it "Fallout 4" would mean that existing fans would expect from this game the complete overhaul that they would expect from a game with that title.

Fallout New Vegas will have things in common with FO1 and FO2. Also it would not be FO4 it would be FO6. There is Fallout,Fallout 2,Fallout Tactics, Fallout BoS and Fallout 3.

Better question should be, why was Fallout 3 called Fallout 3 not Fallout DC?

It's a precedent either set or at the very least made popular by the GTA3 series. If the developer "recycles" or "rehashes" the game engine instead of making a completely new one, then the "sequel" number typically does not increment.

And whats your source for sales figures on this. Its widly known that Interlplay published games made respectable money for their time and they went bankrupt via mismanagement so you are in error there


McDonalds sell more then almost all other food outlets world wide, that must mean that Mcdonalds make better food then anyone else.

Fallout 3 was only superior in graphics thats it. Fo1 and FO2 had better character generation, better implementation of SPECIAL, better dialog system, more interesting quests, where much more internally consistent them FO3, better settlements, better NPCs, a much better PA feel, and so on. I play modern games and older games, not out of nostalgia but because some older games have game play that holds up well today. What about the people who played FO3 and then played the first two and can admit the first two did a lot of things better, is that some kind of weird reverse nostalgia? FO1 and FO2 have been available to buy in some form brand new since they where released, that should tell you something.

FO:NV looks like it will be vastly better than FO3 though, well it compete with the first two only time will tell.

Bethesda would have been better off reseting the series I honestly believe that FO3 would have been a better game if it was the start of a new series and its own canon rather than a poorly conceived sequel , it has some merits in its own right and thats what a reset would have emphasized.