..for a direct sequel to NV?

I don't see how you can have a sequel without pissing off around a quarter of the player base, because one of the endings are going to need to be made canon. Combine this with the fact that the NCR and Legion don't really look like they can survive if they don't win the war.

Would you want a direct sequel?

With Bethesda: "New Vegas....what's that?"

Obisidian however would probably choose a canon ending and that's a good thing.

Who cares about the fan's feelings if the story and universe suffer for it?

I dont think Bethesda is all bad... They did produce the Pitt, which I consider the best dlc bar none, and they did let Obsidian have a go at their newly aquired franchise. Im betting they learned alot from both FO3 plus DLCs plus the cooperation with Obsidian.

I'm rather hopefull.


But I think that the west coast is Obsidians turf, and the east cost is where Bethesda will concentrate. A direct sequal to NV... dont see it. A San Fransisco based story where some of the NV chosises are made canon by obsidian... sure.

Well I always felt that the game wanted the player decide which faction would benefit the mojave more, rather than just a "ENDING A FOR PEOPLE THAT WANT TO BE GOOD GUYS, ENDING B FOR PEOPLE THAT WANT TO BE BAD (BTW THIS IS UNCANON)".

Yeah, but when it comes to deciding canon it's hopeless.

I mean, look at Daggerfall.

"Every ending is canon."

No. I'd rather they just create a new game in a different setting altogether. Why rehash an old scenario when you can create something new? A direct sequel would place too many restriction on what can be done, and not just in terms of how the first game ended.