how is there going to be a sequel to fallout 3 if its so open ended?

Make it in a different area? Honestly, I don't know what you're asking. They don't have to make a direct sequel,

Just pick a new location? The previous Fallout's have been centered on the West Coast, this one on the East Coast.

Point Lookout and The Pitt showed us how the story could branch out from D.C.

They could probably weave a pretty interesting story through the streets of New York City and surrounding areas. The sky is the limit really.

Maybe they'll make a prequel? I'd like seeing the people who end up founding Rivet City and such.

I'd rather have a new stomping ground, I really don't need any more D.C.

And the founder(s) of Rivet City can be met in-game, if you play your cards right.

It would be cool if Bethesda made a FO4 but it doesn't seem likely. there is supposed to be another, not really a sequel, FO tital (I think Black Isle is picking it up? correct me if I'm wrong, and I think I probably am) but its in the ruins of vegas. Fallout doesn't really belong to Bethesda, although if there is ever a next install ment I know that FO3 will be the minimal expectation for me.

Fallout does belong to Bethesda. They hold the title and everything. Also, it's Obsidian making New Vegas. Under Bethesda's watch, and with Bethesda's engine.

Huh? Bethesda bought the Fallout franchise. It's theirs now. There will be a Fallout 4. They didn't spend the money to buy the franchise to just make one game.

Heck, they could even leave the US altogether, although considering how integral '50s-style Americana is to the feel of the game, they probably won't. Still, we've had LA, DC, Chicago, San Fran, and we'll be seeing Las Vegas soon, so the next major city would probably be New York.

Cool, I did not know that, well my hopes for more FO awesomeness is a little highier. not that I want a ten more seqeuls of the same game in different places.

The same way they have made sequels to the TES games?

This.

They even said that themselves. Well a member of the team. That would be creepy if they all said it simultaneously.

The new Fallout Game is called Fallout: New Vegas just incase anyone didn't know!

It wouldn't be a direct sequel, and as others have suggested it's likely to be in a different part of the country (or possibly world). It's also possible that they'll stay in the capital wasteland and set the game much later, which is what Fallout 2 did, but I think a different location is more likely.


That's not the sequel to Fallout 3, it's a spin-off RPG being developed by Obsidian. Whenever Fallout 4 is developed it will almost certainly be done by Bethesda.

*DREAMS*
Game: Fallout 4
Location: London
ERA: Resource Wars
*WAKES UP*

That was the best but most improbable dream I've had in ages.

Not familiar with bethesda games, are you?

At any rate, what Bethesda does when they make a sequal is blur the ending events of the previous game so that all possibilities are regarded as rumor, go to a new location, and set up a new protagonist, with the game taking place several years after the previous game.

A Fallout game set in a different country would not be a Fallout game.

If I was Bethesda I would add in Major expansions to Fallout3

-New continent
-Add more Levels
-Add in vehicles with good physics that don't imbalance the game

etc etc

Yeah, I'm guessing it would work the same way Fallout 2 did, or the sequel to any other sort of open-ended game. There's plenty of ways around it - the most common is to just assume that the PC in the previous game made certain choices if you're going to be dealing with the same sort of area. Like how in Fallout 2 it was assumed that your character was a decent enough guy - that he rescued Tandi from the Raiders, and that Shady Sands was able to flourish enough to turn into the NCR, etc.

There's really only so many important variables in Fallout 3, anyway, when you get right down to it. (Can't go into specifics without giving out spoilers, but all that's really going to have a major effect is what you did at the very end of the game, and possibly whether or not Megaton is still standing.)

And that's only assuming that Fallout 4 will take place in DC again. I think there's clues that we'll heading up to visit the Commonwealth, personally. And Bethesda seems to like starting their games in new locations each time. That way it's all new. Even Fallout 2 only overlapped portions of Fallout 1's world map - it didn't take place in entirely the same area, and you really didn't do very much revisiting of old places, either.

I don't think this is going to be much of a problem.

I agree. It would be very easy to just decide that certain events are what 'officially happened' and carry on from there. You kind of have to if you are going to have these kinds of games and yet have on-going narrative in the world. Seeing as a Fallout 4 would be a sequel to a rather wildly selling and critically aclaimed game of 2008 I seriously doubt they won't come back for more. I would rather we didn't carry time forward more, but for it to be related to FO3 I imagine it would be hard to do a "20 years later" and carry on without moving the clock ahead (ala FO1 & 2). I mean, lets say the LW settled down again, we could rinse and repeat basically where we have the LW form a settlement and you get to play a decendant - but I'd rather we did something else, like just play someone else from a non-vault background who goes to the Commonwealth/New York/Philly or something. Maybe differing starts, like you could be a BOS initiate or a Talon Co recruit or Sticky or a Gary (the imagination races) that allows us to have a sequel but also not have to advance events very much between games.

I hope to GOD one day I'm playing Fallout 8 Europe lol cover the whole US hit England later after the bad taste of Hellgate is gone alittle longer ; )

You mean, like, australia? Why a whole new continent?

That wouldn't be an expansion; it'd an entirely new game built on a completely different engine.

Hey, don't go getting all vague on me all of a sudden.



It's a good thing you aren't Bethesda, eh?

[quote name='raithen' date='Nov 18 2009, 05:36 PM' post='15334004']
You mean, like, australia? Why a whole new continent?

That wouldn't be an expansion; it'd an entirely new game built on a completely different engine.

Hey, don't go getting all vague on me all of a sudden.



It's a good thing you aren't Bethesda, eh?


I think the biggest problem with Fallout 4 would be "Where to go?". I've read a lot of good ideas, and I sent my proposal, with resume, to everyone that has ever been involved in the Fallout Series. My Idea was New York, but from the perspective of a "rouge" detatchment of Enclave based out of a massive bunker complex underneath Manhattan. The player would be a basic trainee (The intro would be your basic) before getting sent out into the world. This detachment had contact with Posseidon base, but not the DC gang. Since their bunker was completely self sufficient (I even drew up schematics), their technology is even beyond the other Enclave detachments across the country. They also don't have a president, and are led by a council of generals with a myterious mentor called "The Elder". Its a really good story, and I'm working on tying it into the FO3 story to make it a Sequel. But I imagine I'm not the only one bombarding them with scripts. We'll see who gets picked in the next edition of Fallout.