Since there is no nuclear fallout maybe it can be called New Vegas: and the adventures of the courier :disguise:

there IS Fallout, that's the one thing Vegas couldn't escape. So you will have ghouls, mutated bugs, giant scorpoions etc

They did drop the post apocalyptic feel from the visual environment and the music.

It's fine, the two games are different on purpose and we'll have to hope for Fallout 4 to continue post apacolyptia, until then we'll have to see if we like the look/feel/music of New Vegas. Maybe we'll want the next FO to be set in Vegas again.

Agreed. The game isn't even out yet! Give it a chance, OP. You may end up liking it.

And if you don't, you're more than free to not get this game and wait for Fallout 4.

Seriously?

Maybe because the Fallout series is all about the re-birth of humanity and civilization after the nuclear war destroyed everything? I think the series that you will find more enjoyable will be the Terminator in which it is now set right after the end of the world. But that is not what Fallout is about. :nono:

I don't know if you realize it, but what you are saying is the same as asking "Why can't Harry Potter be about science and space robots? Why does it have to be about magic? Why can't they shoot laser guns instead of using spells casted by wands?" Or even better, "Why does Star Trek have to be in space? Can't it be set in the modern times with the characters as normal people?"

You idea about a game set right after a nuclear war is interesting, but that just isn't Fallout. Again, Fallout is about the re-building of civilization by the decedents of the people that survived after a nuclear war. Not a game about a few weeks after the bombs dropped. If you dislike what the entire Fallout series really stands for, then I recommend that you either find another series that suits your interest, or design your own game.

How much of Tactics is canon is not clear, to be sure, but in a broad sense it does appear to be something that Bethesda has adopted given the references to it in Fallout 3. So as of right now we can probably assume that some type of BoS exists in the midwest. It is certainly more canon then Van Buren, though New Vegas is presumably going to go a long way to clarify Van Buren's degree of canon content.



I've played Fallout 1 many times, starting back in 1997 when it was released. I'm not disputing where the developers of Fallout 1 and 2 left the BoS and supermutants. But I'm simply pointing out that in canon terms Bethesda brought both of them back in Fallout 3 and that is now canon for the series. If you'd rather think of Fallout 3 as a seperate, yet another alternate reality spin-off of the Fallout franchise then go ahead, but you are also going to have to apply that approach to Fallout New Vegas (which also includes both groups in some form or another) since that is now the direction the franchise is going.

This isn't about where the franchise should have gone, it's about where it did go.

The BoS are in NV... Its been said that they are in hiding, and that they player might have a tough time finding them.

I agree with you here, and I do consider all of them as fractured spin-offs past Fallout 2. There is a pattern in this series that goes all the way back to 1998 when FO2 started to diverge from where the series 'should' have gone; but FO2 was like a stumbling, where as every game since has fallen completely off the path (and strayed off on their own wanderings). :shrug:

FO:NV is unquestionably a FO3 spin-off (and its been made clear that it is not a FO3 sequel, and the gameplay has been changed).
__________________________________________________________
*Supermutants, bottle caps, BoS, and the Enclave will always plague the Fallout wasteland now... as they have become an integral tool to recapture the brand's new Post Apocalyptic feel ~indefinitely. (even though such a state should never exist indefinitely ~just like Bart Simpson is a 23 7 year old year old, and Bruce Wayne is forever late thirty something). This is how it is in Character centric franchises ~but rarely is it like that in 'Setting-centric' franchises... except this time the game world IS the character, and its never going to grow up.

I don't wanna grow up
I'm a Nuke'yer'Ass kid
There's a million ways to frag your ass
That I can play with!
--so sayeth the Wasteland


Personally, I don't care how much they stray from whatever the perfect mythical direction the game should have taken following 1 or 2 or whichever you happened to think was the be all end all. I'd rather have a fun playable game based on a familiar than one tied slavishly to formulaic and well hashed over lore. Mix it up, make it compelling and exiting, and I'm happy.

I really like the direction Beth took with FO3, the over campy 50's stuff and whatnot, it was nice, added a coherent theme and a great feel to the world. Yeah there were issues, such as Megaton and Canterbury, but hey, it was still a hell of a lot of fun. Great game.

Looks like the NV Dev's have followed along with the newer direction, and that's just peachy by me.

This isn't an attack on any one, or anyone's idea's about what the game should or should not be, just my two caps.

That said, the majority of this post is just to avoid being labeled spam for my little jingle up top which I thought of after reading in one of Gizmos posts that the Wasteland was a character which refused to grow. And I'm allowed to have an opinion! Stop oppressing me! Attica! Attica!

:P

:foodndrink:

Funny though... That's about the gist of what I was thinking when I posted ~and I thought that's why DC used Bottle caps, and had Enclave and Supermutants :laugh: (jk)

You are absolutely right. The Fallout series is definitely about the rebuilding of civilization.

Unfortunately however, no such rebuilding was going on in Fallout 3, so... lol...

Thus, Fallout 3 would make more sense as a prequel... it just would. Come on.