True, NYC would kind of svck not that I think about it but the Battle for the Falls between Buffalo and Canadian Factions would make for an interesting story. Plus we have Niagara Fall Air Base here, that could add in some how to that as well. Trying to think of other things that could play in... There is also Old Fort Niagara at the mouth of the Niagara River Valley on Lake Ontario, Chippewa St., Grand Island, Erie Canol, Buffalo-Niagara International Airport, Niagara Falls International Airport, Buffalo Harbor, Fort Erie/Toronto/Niagara Falls Canada are the major surrounding areas up that way. There are all the casinos around here and in Batavia, NY.

From what Rucks said about football stadiums, there is Ralph Wilson Stadium in Orchard Park, even though our team svckS (Bills) and then there is also the First Niagara Center where our Hockey Team plays Downtown (Sabres) and up the street from that is Coca-Coca Field where our Baseball Team Plays (Bison's).

Possible DLC could be something going on in Rochester, Battling in the St. Lawrence, Albany, Problems in the Adirondack Mountains, Battling with Pennsylvania, Something in Cleveland, Native Americans/Iroquois Nation or perhaps even Buffalo Civil War...

Thoughts on the ideas?

fallout is best with cities and desert. more variety than in fallout 3 is needed. I fear NYC would be logical but it's too urbanised to wander in ruins would be as awful as in WDC. you weren't free to go there was too many constraints.

New orleans could be very nice with its mix out nature and cities + the more interesting culture.

San Francisco could be awesome. you have a big bay Alcatraz, the possibility to make a remake of the landscapes and cities from the first 2 fallout.

I hope bethesda will choose a location where we can have nature, desert, various cities, military bases, and multiple factions

San Francisco was in Fallout 2!

Okay, I know that Fallout 2 took place in San Francisco, but it could still be a good place to site the next Fallout. If you think about it, there are a lot of people who have only played FO3 and FO:NV, so they wouldn't even know. Second, that game wasn't made in first person nor was it made by Bethesda, so they could do some pretty sweet stuff that wasn't done in Fallout 2, after all we're not saying remake Fallout 2 but with better graphics. We're suggesting making it completely different, no same missions, just same location. And finally, Bethesda said they would not go back in time, thus the earliest they could technically do is 2281, 40 years after Fallout 2 took place. As we should all know, a lot can happen in 40 years. So don't throw San Francisco out the window because it was done in a different game that most people haven't played, by a different company, a different way, 40 years before the last Fallout that came out, and was released 14 years ago.

You're missing the most important reason why they couldn't do Fallout in San Francisco right now, and that's because as far as we know, it's just another part of the NCR. And being so deep into the NCR, wouldn't feel like a wasteland like it was before, or in the Mojave. There would be no other faction, besides the NCR controlling things. You might have some tribals around, but according to New Vegas, they're being put on the Rez, like the US Government with Native Americans. So basically they're docile, no longer the threat they used to be, and made to live in a certain area.

The only reason I could see them going so far into California in a Fallout, is because the NCR is falling apart and groups are rising up against the crumbling nation. But I doubt they'd show that in the next, or even three next games, because the NCR as they are in New Vegas, haven't really been shown off except that once.

Who knows what Bethesda can come up with? They're genius' (in my opinion at least). They said they're not going back in time, so maybe they'll send it a few years into the future to a point where San Francisco isn't what it was. There could be uprisings, heck they could make the main quest you starting to overthrow them. Plus there could be groups forming underground, or maybe the information from New Vegas was either wrong, or old said to fool people. Some of the people from Vegas may just be travelers or have loved ones in places like San Francisco, so they try to keep quite what's been going on. I know there are tons of cool places that a Fallout game could be placed, all I'm saying is San Francisco should at least be part of the conversation.

Its deep in NCR and if Beth decided to set Fo4 there, what would be the plot? The legion managed to invade California? The BoS strikes back? Setting the game in San Fran would require a stretch of imagination and lots of explainations as to why the NCR is suddenly so weak. Knowing Beth and their writing skills expect the reasons to be vague at best and ridiculous at worst.

Once again I propose the Pacific NW or Wyoming where the Great Khans are (if that ending is canon).

Again, it wouldn't make sense for them to have the NCR in ruins, so quickly. If you've played FO1 & 2, you see how the NCR evolves and grows. By the time of New Vegas, they're like what the US was before making the Louisiana Purchase, and other major land grabs. They're looking to expand, and take what resources they can, so they can continue to grow and expand. It would be very preemptive for FO4 to take place in San Francisco, showing the NCR collapsing. And like I said, even if there was a FO5, 6, 7, or even 8, I think showing the NCR falling to such a point so quickly, would be rather preemptive. It should be a reasonable decent, like anything else.

Like they say, "Rome wasn't built in a day," and Rome didn't fall in a day either. It took generations for the Roman Empire (Western or Eastern,) to collapse.

Just because people haven't played Fallout or Fallout 2 is no reason to go back to San Francisco. Those that haven't played the Originals can go out and buy them really cheap and play them. They can do a simple internet search to learn all about Fallout history. Re-making Fallout or Fallout 2 is a really bad idea and Bethesda should put their time into making their own original games, not re-doing other people's games.

Exactly, if Bethesda can pull of the plot well in San Francisco, whether the next Fallout or not, it would have to be an epic game. Yes, it would be difficult, which is why pulling it off would be much more spectacular. Who knows? Like I said, maybe they're not as powerful there as they would like others to believe. Maybe there have been new groups forming to overthrow (not going public until they're strong enough to make prove a good opponent). And if they have a good position and enough allies they could win. For example, the group could be located in modern day: Lands End, Russian Hill, China Basin, Hunters Point, San Francisco Internation Airport, or (probably the best) the 1,000 foot stretch near the City College of San Francisco: Airport Campus. These are great places to hold down, they're mostly surrounded by water which gives two distinct advantages:
1) There are less places to attack from, thus easier to defend and harder to overthrow. Why do you think people built castles next to the sea? That's why.
2) You can recieve supplies from allies by sea, which is much harder to cut off then a river or a highway.
A great location is just the start of getting an advantage over your enemy, but once again you don't know how many people could be secretly plotting to overthrow NCR control. Hundreds, maybe even thousands could be in on it.


I'm not saying it would be taken down in a day. As I've said, who says Bethesda will make each game right around the same time period. The jump betweed FO2 and FO3 was 40 years. They could do that again, maybe not so extreme, and, tada, NCR could be weaker. I'm also not saying they completely crumble, I'm just saying the other Factions start to get a real foothold in the area. It's not our decision to really make, it's up to Bethesda and how they see the whole situation.


No, der, don't pick on my weakest reason and leave out the ones that you clearly can't rival, considering you didn't even try. I didn't say that was the only reason, and that is barely a reason. Also, I didn't say remake Fallout 1&2, I said make a completely new original idea set in the same location. Plus, most people like Fallout the way Bethesda made it, not the old top view style which most people now-a-days don't like. I'm not saying pull the wool over the customers eyes by making them think San Francisco hasn't been done, if you read all of my points you'd have no ground for this little comment. Oh, and that "the people at Bethesda are genius'" thing was my opinion. Plus I guarentee their least creative person is twice as creative as you.

Even then they really just became a church. The NCR, like the Roman Empire, is just too large to collapse so quickly and completely.

Edit:

I'm focusing on this part because it is what Bethesda would inevitably do. The question would be 'how did the NCR fall so quickly?' and the answer might as well be 'a wizard did it!'.
Bethesda are crap at giving reasons on why they make huge changes to Fallout lore:
Why is there FEV in Vault 87? - (not explained)
Why are the Enclave(who were supposedly defeated in Fallout 2) incredibly powerful and on the east coast? - There just happened to be another massive group of these cool stormtrooper guys who weren't anywhere near the west coast when the Oil Rig blew up.
How did Jet make it to the other side of the US in a much more weakened form? - (wizard)

I don't trust Bethesda's writing abilities enough to support them venturing into the lore-heavy region of the west coast.

I left out your other reasons because I thought they were your weakest reasons. You are saying "I don't like the old games and they weren't made by Bethesda so we should just completely re-make them."

San Francisco has already been done. There is so much of America left to see, why go back to a location that we have already been to?

Have you played the Orginals? Many people on here have started Fallout 3 and said things like "The old games svck and I will never play them!" but then they decided to play them and completely changed their minds and even came to see the flaws with Fallout 3.

San Fracisco has been done. It is deep within NCR. There is so much left to see of America.

1. That also makes them relatively easy to besiege and keep under siege.

2. It's just as easy to cut off supplies by sea, as a road or river. The Union Navy cut off the Confederacy by sea, and had no trouble keeping their control there, starving the Confederacy by the sea.


And the jump between FO3 and FO:NV as just four years, it would be dumb if they tried to jump 40 years again. It would be just as much of a screw up, as FO3 being 200 years after the Great War, was. It should have been something like 60, where it made sense for FO3 and the people in the Capital Wasteland, to be as they were. Frankly, I hope Beth stays away from the West, at least with the NCR and others, and instead goes back East in FO4 and later installments, because I don't think they'd do a good job with the NCR. There's no way they'd let the NCR (the Good Guys in their eyes most likely,) collapse five, six, or forty years down the road. They'd just end up being the victor anyway.


Exactly.

So let me get this straight your reason for wanting Fo4 in San Fran are the landmarks.... also the bolded part isn't going to happen unless Beth actually makes writing a priority. Another thing is that for Fo4 Beth should focus on creating their own ideas and not reusing factions. I want them to come up with their own factions that fit in the Fallout universe.

Yes, not only is there so much left to see, but there are events taking place in the rest of America, that would have an impact eventually on how things are developing in the country as a whole. If you focus on what's happening in the NCR 40 years from now, what about all of the things that have happened in that 40 or so years in other parts of the country, heck the Chicago BOS could have taken over the legion for all we know...all these questions left unanswered and you want to focus on the NCR. Maybe after Fallout 4 they can have another spin off within the realms of NCR if it made enough sense to do so, but even then I doubt it. I personally would be interested in something around NE USA, in that general area.

Exactly, as much as I may rag on Bethesda for what they have done to the Fallout lore, I am still interested in what new creative ideas they can make for the next game without recycling anything else from the originals. Though I would much prefer if they kept their sandbox on the east coast and leave the west to Obsidian.

Hey all new to the Forum and love TES and Fallout 3. Incredible works of Art Bethesda keep up the awesome work!

I would have to say that they do really need to stay in America. It would loose some of its appeal being set in a different country or continent. The two stand out locations for me would be San Francisco or New York. My mind just wanders with ideas with regards to these locations especially when I think of San Francisco. With the bridge and Alcatraz (Apologies if spelt wrong) the possibilities are almost to much to fathom. I know alot of people will say 'Oh but they went there in fallout 2', but that game was not done by Bethesda for one, and two, half the people who have played Fallout 3 & Fallout New Vegas have not played the previous instalments.

I am from the UK, England in fact and am on course to begin my Computer Game Design Degree at Uni this Sept. I absolutely cannot wait! Bethesda are just pure inspiration to me, when I (hopefully) complete my degree there is nowhere else I would rather be working that at Bethesda. Dont mean to troll on this forum or talk off course! Sorry!

Off topic but a final note, the idea of 'co-op' MUST also be worth a thought! ; ) - I mean, games are great and incredibly fun but when you can share your experience with someone directly.... its just even better! And im not talking MMO or anything like that, simply 2 players in the same game would be just fine. Everyone on this Forum has played Fallout 3 and or New Vegas right? well, imagine if you had been able to 'Share' you experience with a friend...... just have a think about that. How many times have you done something on a game any game on your own, and thought snap! I wish someone was here to see it with me! Mr Howard, think about it. Please.

Love your Work, all at Bethesda. - I envy you! One day, I will be there... one day...

Peace all

I have still never once said to recreate the first two Fallouts, I think they should leave them be (for the 3rd time). Next, I have never played the first two Fallouts and it's not because I won't like them or they're not by Bethesda (also that wasn't my opinion, I was expressing others' opinions). I would actually love to play them, but the reason I haven't played them is because my computer would literally die, even with games this old, but I still get the basic idea of them. I would also like to apologize for the creativity thing, it was an impulse thing. I agree there is more of America to see, and that makes perfect sense, though I would like to see them pull off an overthrow of a major area, apparently people don't like action enough to pull this off. Unless of course there is a place just as deep in enemy territory that we haven't seen. I don't know, just tossing around ideas and I don't like to see one shot out of the sky without much thought except "It's been done by Fallout 2".


I would think it'd been dumb as well, which is why I added "not so major" part.
Also, have you heard of the Battle of Thermopylae? Where (in a small space) 300 Spartans were able to hold off thousands of enemies? As for cutting off supplies by sea: possible? Yes. Completely reliable? No, supplies can still seap in. Does it take lots of ships and soldiers? Yes. See why it's harder than just "Let's siege them". Have you also read the Hunger Games? (possible SPOILER ALERT) One group starting to revolt can bring forth more and more until the NCR has too much on their plate.


Actually, I don't care too much about landmarks, and if Bethesda is smart enough they'll put of making a San Francisco until they actually get a sweet idea (focus on story). I would also like to see them make their own factions, which is why I say a new faction that hasn't been seen come up in San Francisco to start to overthrow the NCR.


I don't think they should skip ahead 40 years, as stated earlier in this comment. And I don't want the next game (necessarily) to be in San Francisco. This forum is for Future Fallout locations, not Fallout 4 locations. So yes, there are other things important that would have to be done first, however San Francisco should still not be over looked for a few reasons that can be resolved by some heavily experienced writers.


Can you all see now? You're bringing forth good, compelling reasons why not to do San Francisco. You're gathering your thoughts and coming up with reasons besides "Can't, it's been done already". This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that everything should be considered, nothing overlooked for small reasons.

Ok then you don't want to remake the orginals. Normally when someone uses other peoples arguments means they support it. "Well there are alot of people that blah blah blah so they should just do it."

I hope one day you can play the originals

I get why people want to see San Francisco, but there are alot of people that want to see something new. We have spent enough time in NCR territory, lets see the other 90% of America we haven't been to yet. In the Fallout Universe Canada and parts of Mexico are apart of America so that is even more yet unseen.

Yet another game set in the NCR only a couple years after New Vegas doesn't sound that interesting to me. We are finally getting new Fallouts, so lets have new locations and new stories and new factions.

*Gasp* That is exactly how I feel!!!!!! Except for maybe co-op. At first it seems epic, but I gave it a lot of thought, so much I have no idea where to start in what I thought. Anyway, co-op would run into so many problems, it may not be worth it. For example who would get the loot? You and your friends would surely each want stuff that only one can have. Though a minor detail, it's fairly important. Others may include rendering problems, and when one person goes inside what happens to the other person? Do they get automatically transported or will one side have to load and one side get to keep playing, if it's even possible. It would also be hard to fit into the story. Another problem being: If you have two players, but sometimes only one player can play, then the one who plays more will be a higher level as well as being better equiped and have more money. I'm sure there are solutions to all these problems, but me and my friend have been spit balling this idea around for awhile, and we're still trying to decide. So I guess it's a possibility.

Provide a reason why, since this is your main justification for having Fo4 in San Fran. NCR has existed for over a century and NCR is safe. Why would there be a revolution? What would be the rebels reasons? "Taxes r bad and stuff?" Note that there is no reason for revolts to even happen unless NCR ending for NV is canon (NCR becomes overstretched) and even then that isn't enough to start a revolution least of all a justifiable one. Also what does this revolution have to do with San Fran? Have the Shi been annexed by NCR and why would San Fran be the epicenter of the revolt?

Again Beth needs to start being original and come up with their own ideas instead of staying in their safety bubble (BoS vs. Enclave and potentially NCR vs. Legion).

I agree, there has been a lot of NCR, so maybe we should set it down and let it cool off for awhile. Maybe bring it up awhile later (maybe even have a dozen games later), but I still can't think of many places I'd like to see. Maybe the Grand Canyon, but that's still in the west. One quick question, does anybody have like a map of the continent that shows where which factions control so I can think more clearly?

Oh, and I can't wait 'til I get a new laptop to get the first two Fallout's, plus the newer ones so I can use the G.E.C.K.

Hmm, provide a reason. Probably one of the hardest things, yet possible. Maybe they have been experimenting with nuclear missles and that doesn't side well with locals. Maybe some people are just tired of the NCR controling everything and they don't like the way they do it. I might think of something by morning, but it's not so easy off the top of my head. Which is why it would be hard to do San Francisco (hopefully in the future IDK if it's the next game or 6 games later), the story would be hard to come up with, but if you can get a good one that makes the experience that more awesome.

You just want San Francisco for no real reason....why even bring it up when it's been done before and there is no reason to do it in the near future. Bring it up again in several years maybe when it might actually be relevant. And a great story will make any gaming experience more awesome...in fact I believe we should expect a great (and well executed within the game) story with every Fallout game no matter where it takes place.

Wow, 300 Spartans against 1,000 enemies, huh? That's a pretty spectacular feet!


*Dimness over*

Yes, I have, and that battle didn't last for more than two or three days at the most before the Spartans got nailed, and Xerxes marched onwards. As much as it's been regarded as a pretty awesome achievement, looking at the big picture makes it into really nothing more than a hiccup to Xerxes' march to take Greece. It was also geographically different when it came to the strategy used there, than it would at the places you suggested. It's always easier for the besieger to continue their siege, because for one, they're the ones on the outside and are able to resupply easier, and also they have the ability to move and change direction easier than those besieged. Resupplying by sea isn't as easy as it would seem. Yes, some ships would get through a blockade, they did during the American Civil War, but like a besiegement on land, a blockade by the sea would be just as difficult to breakthrough.

As for groups rising up against the NCR, it could turn out to be like that. But again, the whole thing is for it to not happen for a few games. It's more than likely Bethesda would take the NCR as the "New America", and play them out as if they have a "Manifest Destiny" drive to expand eastward, instead of westward like the real US did.


San Francisco as a location in a future Fallout game, has been brought up before, this isn't the first time some of us have brought up issue with a game being set there after FO2.