It really gets on my nerves. I just don't understand why. On every FAQ I read a question will be "Is Fallout: New Vegas Fallout 4?". The answer almost every time will be "No, it's not Fallout 4, it's not a direct sequel". Why do people keep justifying the fact that it's not Fallout 4 with the fact that it's not a direct sequel? It's completely irrelevant and frankly just irritates me. It's not like any of the other Fallout games were direct sequels. I mean honestly how is Fallout: New Vegas any less similar to Fallout 3 than Fallout 3 is to Fallout 2? Honestly the only thing linking ANY of the Fallout games together (besides setting I mean) is in Fallout and in Fallout 2, the main characters were paternally related. So why do people keep going on about how it's not Fallout 4 because it's not a direct sequel? It makes no sense. It's no less of a "direct sequel" as any other game in the series.

Because chances are good that Bethesda will be making a Fallout 4

OK, but what the hell does that have to do with anything? Great for Bethesda, but it's not like Fallout 4 is going to be anymore of a direct sequel than New Vegas...

Fallout: New Vegas is not a direct sequel. Why does it irritate you anyway? It does not matter at all, the only thing that matters is that it comes out in October. And people will enjoy playing it, it is sad that you whine about it being a direct sequel or not. No need be agressive about it, calm down kid.

Quiet, troll. I'm not being aggressive about it. I don't care whether or not it is a direct sequel. I am pointing out that just because it's not a direct sequel doesn't mean that it's not Fallout 4. I know it's not Fallout 4, but it's not because it's not a direct sequel.

well its not a sequel, its more of a Spin-off. (Bad terminology is bad)

It has nothing to do with the content of the game and it is just because of titles.

Go ahead and say that, but explain to me how Fallout 3 is more of a direct sequel to Fallout 2 then Fallout: New Vegas is to Fallout 3.

1. Aggresive
2. You are describing your irritation over nothing.


Just don't worry about it. Free your mind.


EDIT: I don't troll.

It's also a common response to the various "Can we carry over save info from FO3" or "Will the Lone Wanderer/Fawkes/________ show up in Vegas?" threads.




Many of the people asking (and who are the target audience for those FAQ questions) aren't familiar with the original games and also are used to the modern gaming world, where many games *do* carry over stuff between them.

Being irritated and annoyed != aggression... That's a bit of a stretch. Also, lol @flyers losing the cup (all in good fun. I know we lost to the Canadiens so let it rip.)

This is what I call....a hypocritical paradox.

Okay I'll put this as plain as possible:
Beth owns Fallout
Beth asks Obsidian if they want to make a Fallout spin-off
Obsidian says yes
Obsidian makes Fallout: New Vegas
Fallout: New Vegas is a spin-off
People rejoice as Fallout: New Vegas blows Fallout 3 outta the water and off the chart

OK heres one for you, lets try this.

GTA.
2 and 3 were sequels to the first. Vice City was then a spin-off, using alot of the other games ideas and plot-lines to fuel the games story. They used alot of the characters, but it wasnt a sequel. Any questions?

Well and good, but this is irrelevant. I am simply asking why people keep saying "It's not Fallout 4 because it isn't a direct sequel." The fact that it is not a direct sequel is completely irrelevant to the fact that it isn't Fallout 4 because NONE of the Fallout games are direct sequels. I mean you can't say "Fallout 3 is not Fallout 3 because it's not a direct sequel."

LOL. I just realized that too, thanks for pointing that out! :disguise:

You're quite welcome!

I understand now - we've had people in the past ask assume this game was or should be Fallout 4 and I assumed this was in the same vein.

Ultimately New Vegas is not Fallout 4 because Bethesda decided as much. I realize that's rather arbitrary and risks turning the debate towards needless philosophy and abstraction but when you boil it down that really is the reason. If Bethesda had wanted New Vegas to be Fallout 4 then it would have been - they did not. I'd assume Bethesda would like to develop the core series from this point forward and if New Vegas was titled Fallout 4 people may assume they were passing the reigns to another developer.

I don't see anything in the official FAQ about this not being a "direct sequel" but it wouldn't surprise me if this has come up in interviews with Bethesda. In that case I'd guess they're using that explanation for two reasons. First, I think many people asking about that are wondering if it is a direct sequel. We get threads with some regularity asking whether people will be able to import their Fallout 3 characters to New Vegas (some who have even lept to the conclusion that this must be in), as well as other people who feel that this ought to be Fallout 4 for one reason or another. Second, its ultimately not very important who the game is named so I think the dev's try and keep the response short rather than going in to an in-depth explanation on why they chose to do this.



If it annoys you that people suggest it's because it isn't a direct sequel I'm not sure how to help you - however being overly hostile about the topic certainly isn't the way to go about it. This thread has gotten heated and I have to admit I don't see it improving even with a caution so it will remain locked - hopefully my explanation has helped.