the last one had gotten to the limit so this is just a continuation

Wouldn't that mean no more Enclave? They are just the US government, no one elses. And that is the main enemy of the game. They'd have to make a whole new storyline.

I think China would be interesting, being the ones that started the nuclear war with the invasion of Alaska. I hope that is correct, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes but I dont think it should be open ended. Canada as many have mentioned. I think England would be good. Australia. have possibilities. Im not against spin off games I mean the people in Eastern Europe love Fallout. So some spin-offs done in Polish, Russian, Czechoslovakian etc would be a good idea. Also one of the logical conclusions from the the FO universe would be a very likely invasion of all the territory south of the U.S. all the way to the canol zone. So there are some possibilties there also. However I would really like to see the US states and territories and Canada explored more before they ventured into foreign lands

The Enclave did not appear in Fallout 1 nor Fallout Tactics. They were the main enemy in Fallout 2, but they were pretty much destroyed by the end of that game, and even the Black Isle developers did not intend to use them again. Bethesda decided to bring them back in Fallout 3, but it doesn't mean that they need to appear in every future game.



No one knows who actually launched the first nuclear missiles.

As for the game being set in the US or not, I think that the main series should stay in the US, but I wouldn't mind a spin-off being set elsewhere.

Oh. I saw this in the fallout 3 general forum so I just figured that we were just talking about fallout 3. I've never played a fallout before 3.

You should, quite entertaining if you like RPGs. You are correct, though, the Enclave was overplayed, rather badly, in Fallout 3. Any sequels, Fallout 4 and 5, should stay firmly planted in North America, Mexico should be as far south as the series should go in my opinion, a spin off, however, like Fallout: London or something wouldn't be to bad. It wouldn't make sense to put a sequel in another country with the heavy focus on the United States in the series. The East coast, to me, is fine and still barely explored, they have so much more to do before they even finished here on the East coast.

fighting in the rain forest would be fun

The thread is about the next Fallout game, and we should consider all previous games here, not just Fallout 3.

I remember somewhere in the game I came accepss people saying something or I read something idk, but the us is pretty much the only place with semi healthy inhabitants, only real surviving cont

what the hell are you talking about?

what are you talking about?

Focusing on creating new storyline and making it believable would consume so much resources that the game itself would not be as good as possible.

No.

wait no to what no to new country or something else if its no to a new country i agree the only reason for a new country would be in a spinoff but to make on of the main games in a different country now would be suicidal for Bethesda

No, it's not canon. It might only be what some people believe.

What? That's ridiculous. No matter where they set the next game there's a similar amount of work involved.

If they decided to diverge the franchise, outside of the CONUS, then I'd like to see:

The Dominion of Canada
The United Kingdom
Divided Berlin(East and West)
Argentina(Would be South America's only nuclear power)
French Algeria(Perhaps get the Foreign Legion involved)
South Africa(Africa's premier rogue state)
The Soviet Union
Communist China
Australia or New Zealand

and of course, just for kicks: RHODESIA...

No, I do think that there's a bit more work if it's set in most other countries; they'd have to replace a lot of the classic Fallout groups, invent new lore (or at least flesh it out for the other country), etc. I don't think it's necessarily impractical. I just see it as having a few extra blanks to be filled in than a US (or, at least, North American) setting.

I also think that it's easier for people to work with what they know best. Though I can easily see them racking up frequent flyer miles doing research on places like Paris or London, or wherever. Yes, there's online info, photos, film, etc. But none of that compares to actually being there, and experiencing an environment.

Yes, "no" to new country I mean.

Even moving the place around USA would be a problem. It's best if they keep it in East or West coast. Midwest, Canada, S-West or such will be a waste.

To be honest, so long as you have aerial photos of the city in question(of 50's vintage), historical texts(of the nation in question), and a few newsreels...and as quickly as you can say "I Love Lucy is brought to you by Winstons Cigarettes", you have the template for a new Fallout setting.

How about putting it in Alaska then? And since nuclear winter has wrecked havoc on the planet, parts can be tundra and parts can be tropic

Regardless of the setting, I was thinking about this just earlier today: it would be cool to have the main character awaken from cryostasis, Futurama style, with no idea what's going on, not even info from a vault.

A Fallout game doesn't have to be set in one city and its surroundings, with landmarks, etc. FO3 was, but FO1 and 2 weren't, and FO4 doesn't have to be.

its better when there a lot more places to go

I would hope that the design of Fallout 4, would resemble, that of Fallout's 1 and 2.

Fallout 4: New York City, why not?