Fallout 3 had nothing to do with 1 and 2 except setting. New Vegas has nothing to do with 1 2 and 3 except setting, so why can't it be 4?

Fallout "New Vegas" sounds better than a number? Perhaps they are saving the number "4" for another title? Thos are the reasons I have come up with in.... 2-7 seconds. Personally, I like "New Vegas" as the title because it sounds less generic that "Fallout 4".

But putting 4 on another title is wrong. This is the 4th main fallout game in the actual series. The only way naming it New Vegas made any sense is if they called 3 Capital Wasteland instead of 3.

Which also might have kept them from making fans of the first 2 angry.

the stated reason is because they're going for a GTA-style numbering system... Which would make GTA4 actually GTA 6 (if the "Stories" games are ignored, only the "Core" games).

Only games where theres a major technological/gameplay improvement are going to be worthy of the number.

Personaly, I don't see the attraction of numbers... Naming it for the location or the story seems more appropriate.

It's not gonna keep me from playing it, that'd be stupid. However I believe it should at least be called Fallout 4 New Vegas. Calling it New Vegas could confuse people new to the genre that see Tactics and Brotherhood of Steel and think "Oh, New Vegas must be a spin-off title!" but it's basically 3 with more stuff. Also, hardcoe mode I'd say is a gameplay improvement.

I really have no clue why the latest Fallout is named New Vegas, but Agent C give a very good reason.

indeed it is, but its not a major change - its the major "generational change" that would warrant it.

Fallout 3, 4, 5 and so on: Made by Bethesda

Fallout: New Vegas and so on: Not made by Bethesda

It's as simple as that. Bethesda wants numbered titles for their games. You could argue all day about how different Fallout 3 was to the first 2 but in the end it's Bethesda's Fallout now and it's Bethesda's rules.

I think it's funny the company that's more responsible for the first 2 are working on a game more similar than 3 to the first 2 but it doesn't get a number.

if fallout 1 and 2 were blockbuster smash hits and had great games sales like bethesda did with fallout 3 then maybe things would be different and interplay wouldn't of filed bankruptcy, the first two fallout didn't make a lot of money, they might of had hardcoe fans but the series died, bethesda breathed new life into the fallout series, so no bethesda no fallout games, and the franchise is in very good hands, fallout 3 sold more games than all the other fallouts put together, sure they made fallout too simple and too easy to become like a God player or whatever and the game had lots of faults however its still the best fallout game to date and most popular, future fallout games are only gonna get better with each new game that comes out, its prob gonna bethesdas top selling franchise of all time and so thanks to bethesda we have 2 fallout games in a 2 year period. and they are ognna be way better than the first two fallout games, nostalgia makes it seem like the first two were the best, they prob had aspects to them that were better but overall in the big scheme of things, fallout 3 was a superior game in lots of different ways, and the popularity of the game has been massive.

West, the first two were amazing and better in some aspects. However, worse in others. They're not even similar games. One's a turn-based rpg, the other is an FPS/RPG hybrid.

i never played the first two, i prob would of liked em, fallout 3 was simplified though, i think it was by design to ease people into the series, if it was too hard to make a character properly, it would of broke the game for newbies i think, initially at least, so i think they on purpose dumbed it down it a bit and made it impossible to have a weak character, for the most part, so in the long run fallout 3 was kinda broken, even though it served its purpose to introduce a lot of people to the series, i'm confident the future fallout games will be quite a bit more challenging throughout the course of the game as opposed to in fallout 3 where pretty much once you got near level 20 the game wasn't all that challenging anymore. there were too many skill points, perks, bobbleheads etc. so in that respect i kinda wish fallout 3 was more like the early games. but bethesda definately set the groundwork for the new and improved franchise and its only gonna get better, new vegas is gonna be more for the people who already played previous fallout games, the character creation is gonna be more specialized for sure and its gonna make the game a bit more challenging i think.

So, other than being faster paced, why is fallout 3 a better game? Fallout 1 and 2 had more depth, better story, were hard, had far more customization and didn't have a broken combat system. Also, you can't tell me that fallout 3 sold more than all other fallouts combined because there's no evidence. If you can find me somewhere saying how many copies they each sold then I'll admit it sold more, but selling more doesn't mean better, it means appeals to a wider market. Demon's Souls is one of the best games on the PS3 and won tons of awards but tons of people don't like it because it's too hard. Doesn't make it bad, just means it's not for everyone. So stop stating opinions as facts and please provide proof it sold more than the other 4 fallout games.

Eh, Fallout 3 most likely sold more than Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, the early ones never really gained mainstream popularity. Also, West's comment that Fallout 1 and 2's sales were the reason Interplay failed was wrong, Interplay mostly failed by not listening to its customers and by being incompetent. And Fallout 1+2 versus Fallout 3 is just a matter of taste, it all depends on the person, but West's comment on nostalgia was wrong. I played Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 for the first time shortly before Fallout 3 was released and I find the earlier games to be far superior to Fallout 3. Its just personal taste.

Hurrah! You're speaking sense! Most things posted here have been opinion, except I still don't know why this game isn't as worthy of the title 4 than the previous one was worthy of the title 3.

They're pulling a GTA.

I can tell.

How is "because Bethesda said so" an opinion? :huh:

I'm not saying it isn't worth the title of 4, I'm saying it isn't called 4 because Bethesda chose not to call it that. Bethesda didn't want to insult the game or anything silly like that, they simply want their own games to be numbered titles.

Pshh. Bethesda didn't even make this game. All they did was say, oh sure you can make it but we're taking credit and money.

No, they didn't, but they still own it. Todd Howard could literally walk into Obsidian's office, right now, and declare "All super mutants must wear pink underwear on their heads," and they'd have to comply.

And they'd be like LOL YOU SABOTAGED ________ TRYING TO MAKE A FALLOUT ___! And then chaos would ensue. At least I would.

We're not supposed to talk about the MMO here whilst the legal issues continue.

My bad. Thanks for the heads up.

i could be wrong about that for sure, but they did go bankrupt and the series kinda died and thank God bethesda got a hold of it, i do wish fallout had more depth and the skill and perk system was better, i'm pretty sure most of this is gonna be adressed in NV and fallout 4 whenever they decide to make that, to me fallout 3 was an entry level type game for bethesda, i think by design they simplified it and dumbed it down, in order to kinda launch the series again, if it was too hard to make a good character and people who only lets say only play through the game once, the game would of been broken for em, now the flip side is, the game was broken as far as no matter what you did, most of the characters turned out to be kinda the same, because there were so many skill points and so many perks, plus they decided to not have traits like i know were in the first game, it watered down that aspect of game a lot and the game wasn't very challenging after level like 15. but since they obviously planned to make more than one game, it was ok to make their first fallout game like that. the future games i think will be more like the first couple fallout games in a lot of ways, more depth of story, character creation etc. but i wouldn't knock bethesda like some have, they do make very good enjoyable games, even with all of fallout 3's faluts and shortcomings,i've still be playing it ever since it came out,

West, don't take this offensively. I know you'd love them. You're a Fallout fanatic. Which isn't bad. Trust me, you play Fallout 1/2 and compare them to 3 and you'll need to take a step back due to how good they are. You can get 1, 2, and tactics for $15.00 US Dollars at Wal-Mart.