Frankly, I don't care about the series timeline, and I don't care about the continuity between games. I'm more interested in how each game plays. And yes, I was one of those who disliked FO2 when it came out, and I still dislike it.
For FO3, it makes no difference to me if the game is supposed to take place 200 years or 20 years after the war. I prefer the vibe over FO2, and I'd prefer to have the same FO3 vibe in NV, as opposed to the too civilized vibe of FO2.
In the end, it's a matter of gameplay taste, as it is for just about every discussion we have here.
So "continuity & story" is moot, and "atmosphere" is acceptable if its changed... Gameplay must revolve around the simulation of an eternally post Apocalyptic world on the verge of collapse.
Is this right, or am I misunderstanding you?
I am the other way (myself), I would prefer a modernized approximation of Fallout 2 with a new location and new story (built accurately on top of past events); so 'story & continuity' are paramount, and the atmosphere of the series was fine [for me that is], as I liked the designer's intended vision of their game. I liked their game play as well ~that is what kept me with the series long enough to learn the story and bother caring about the continuity... with that now gone from the series, the only thing left IS the "continuity & story", and so now it is "doubly paramount". :laugh:
I can do entirely without the first person viewport, so the simulation aspect is "showing off to the unconcerned". That would seem to be how it is with you and their attempt to fashion a fleshed out timeline and have the story not rely on events that contradict it. (they
are going for realism, so they pretty much have to)
My guess is that we will both like the outskirts of New Vegas a lot, and we both might have peeves about the walled city. (I already have a peeve about the aforementioned "Passing a Credit Check", to get into New Vegas), but I don't expect to be disappointed with this game. I plan to make the most of it, for what it is.