Just watched the trailer again, particularly paying attention to all of the pre-war elements, and I have a few ideas/theories as to how we may begin our journey in the next Fallout instalment. Apologies if any of the following has already been covered:

1. The inclusion of so much pre-war content suggests that we would almost certainly begin in this era, most likely on the day of the great war - namely October 23rd 2077. It is highly unlikely that this much content would have been created just for the trailer. If this is the case, then the initial character creation process would also likely be during the initial pre-war section.

2. There is an undeniable likeness between the guy we first see in the house (with the wife and child) and then standing above the vault, and the protagonist at the end of the trailer, which would suggest that they are in fact the same person. This would also tie in with previous info suggesting cryogenics as being the predominant feature of vault 111. The fact that they are standing on what looks like a lift leading down into the vault would allow a way for the protagonist's family to be "rescued".

3. Evidence suggests that we should be able to play as either a male or female protagonist as per previous fallout titles, which could well mean that we will end up playing either one of the parents features in the trailer. My personal theory is that we initially choose which parent we would like to play as, and upon entering the vault, only that parent survives, along with the child. The other parent would perhaps be too badly affected by radiation to survive, and then you and your child are put into cryosleep as part of the vault protocol, most likely against your wishes.

4. If the cryogenics theory is correct, then we could end up with a situation where you and your child awaken at different times, possibly even years apart. For example, somebody (either a group or an individual) enters vault 111 many years after the great war and discovers the first cryochamber containing your child and they revive them. They then take the child. Several years later, your own cryosleep is disrupted (possibly by the dog in the trailer?) and you also awaken. You discover that your child (who could now be many years older) is gone. You then have an incentive to find them, hence opening up the story line. This could allow for any number of possibilities, such as your child being raised/indoctrinated by a questionable organisation and you perhaps later confronting them as some kind of nemesis.

5. The character creation component could actually be based around the child (at a later age, similar to F3) which could then perhaps determine the physical appearance of both parents. You would then, in theory, be able to choose which of the parents you choose to play as - maybe even having to decide which parent is saved upon entering the vault, who would then become the protagonist.

Again, this is all just theory at this stage, but it will be interesting to see how this pans out in the final release. Whatever happens, I'm sure we are all in for a real treat. I for one will be spending many many hours exploring the new wasteland when the time comes...

Edit: after much discussion/reflection, I would be more inclined to believe an only survivor scenario would be more realistic. This would still tie in with the other elements of my theory, but would allow much more player freedom without being tied down too much to the past. This would also be more in line with Bethesda's philosophy of letting the player tailor their own experience.

Any thoughts or ideas on this? Or perhaps other theories as to how the main thread of the game would start

I personally think the pre-war stuff in the trailer is to introduce gamers that have never played Fallout to the whole idea behind the Fallout Universe after the huge and unexpected/unprecedented success of Skyrim.

I actually thought that this was the case when I first watched the trailer, but on watching it back it seems that a lot of time and effort has been put into creating pre-war assets. It would make sense if this content had some kind of "greater purpose" otherwise they could have just used still images or some other way of conveying the pre-war element to newcomers

Well, it IS a trailer. A cinematic trailer at that, with a few in-game scenes tossed in. It's meant to set the mood, not the content.

I agree. The flashbacks show the then-and-now and, in my opinion, add a level of excitement. Would audiences find a dog running out of a house and up a hill to a sign as exciting as having flashbacks thrown in? And the atomic detonation shot was reminiscent of Fallout 3's trailer, so I enjoyed that.

It could certainly have relevance to an aspect of the story, but in not looking into it.

True, but then again Bethesda have, as far as we know, been working on F4 since 2011. That's a very long time not to disclose anything, so the first public reveal is likely to contain a lot of layered information, and there is clearly a lot more to this trailer than many people first realised.

No they save that for E3.

The trailer is an hors' douvre. Just a small bite. A teaser. Something to wet your palette. E3, we get the tasty appetizer. And then info dumps. And then should October be true, a nice delicious dessert.

Possibly before 2010. Todd Howard said they were working on two games before Skyrim's announcement. Think it was mid year. If that's Game Studios, which I believe it was, they probably started on small pieces of development back then; possibly throwing ideas back and forth at least.

Then why not just reveal the trailer at E3? I think there is a very specific reason why they have released the trailer just before their first ever E3 conference, and also why there is pre-war content. This would all be one hell of a big reveal at E3 if it turns out that we can play some of the game on the day of the war, especially for those who have played the previous games in the series.

October 23rd, the date Marty traveled to in 2015, who had previously traveled to the 50s

I gained 10 lbs reading that.

... I need a nap.

Relax. It's a trailer, not Mona Lisa's smile. It's not a puzzle.

It's just people wanting to dig deep into a small pile of info, but it only goes a few inches. It's. A trailer.

They released the trailer to get bums on seats for their first ever E3 reveal.
Got to dangle something in front of the world's gaming press to get them to turn up to your first big presentation on the big stage.

Again, if this is the case then why not wait until E3 to reveal the trailer? This is already a very big talking point all over the internet and it's got a lot of people thinking. And I really do think that the trailer goes a lot deeper that is first apparent.

It builds excitement. E3 is right around the corner. Why NOT show a trailer and get people hyped and glued in to their E3 panel?

It's called Marketing.

And the only reason it's a big talking point is because...it's all we have.

True, but what better than to give people a further incentive to go back to the trailer after E3 and to be able to watch it in a totally different light. Would be a very smart move on Bethesda's part.

I am so hoping for an October release date...

But I also doubt the flashbacks are going to mean anything. We got a similar thing with the flashback/commercial in Fallout 3's E3 trailer, but nothing really came of it. Well, maybe Tranquillity Lane, but no flashback gameplay moments.

Compare the F4 trailer to the first trailer for Skyrim, which was very brief, very cryptic and completely cinematic. It didn't really show us anything, but it cause a pretty big stir amongst elder scrolls fans. The Fallout 4 trailer looks like it could very easily be all in-game (or at least in-engine) and it does look very much like an almost completed project. I still think that the trailer has been directed very specifically to show us more than just an "atmospheric taste" of what's to come. I genuinely believe that we will be starting the game just as the war starts.

It could be. Maybe the prologue takes places on the day the bombs fall, then if the cryo-freeze theory is true you get popsicled and wake up after 2281.

This is Bethesda we're talking about? You give them waaaay too much credit lol.
The first time I ever saw an advert for a Bethesda product was a TV advert for New Vegas. Same trailer that was released online. Ran for a month, maybe 2, before the game was released, infrequently.
Exactly the same for Skyrim, maybe a wee bit more frequently and on more mainstream channels.
Advertising has not been Bethesda's strong point

If this turns out to be the case, how cool of twist would it be if your child (now much closer to your age in-game due to coming out of cryostasis before you) turned out to be the main antagonist or a big player in the game world...

This may have been the case with previous games, but don't forget that this is their first venture that includes the new generation of consoles, so they may be approaching this one a little differently. This could perhaps mean a bit more ingenuity with regards to the advertising campaign in order to create more interest.

Bingo!

It nicely covers the basic story background for Fallout games......life was great pre war, nuclear war, some people survived by going into the vaults, other people were left to die & then cool stuff!

I think there is a natural temptation to read way too much into this first trailer, which then leads to some pretty indepth theories that have very little in the way of facts to back them up.

I don't mind the baseless speculating (since I'm doing it myself as well), I am a little surprised by the angry reactions questioning those theories can generate.

You may be right. But with such a long established and lore-rich series there may actually be something more to this. I suppose we'll all know pretty much after E3.

Just out of interest, does anyone else think there could be any pre-war gameplay, and if so, do you think that this could add to the game in any meaningful way?