Forgive me for being rather gruff, but if Bethesda didn't want too much to connect Fallout 3 to the previous games, if they didn't want to follow the direction the series that it was going, then why the hell did they call it Fallout 3? It's like someone writing an eighth Harry Potter book, but not having Hogwarts or Harry Potter, but having Lord Voldemort and Wizards and having them use guns. Not the best anology, but that's pretty much what's going on.

The thing is, you don't need the same factions for it to be called a Fallout game. Basicly, you need a realistic world (How does the world survive?), vaults, all of the guns etc. I would have been perfectly fine with FO3 if it was set 40 years after the war and they made new factions.

would be very radiated then

It is already.

To be honest, I always wondered why they didn't call it "Fallout: The DC Wasteland," or even just go the full reboot route and simply call it "Fallout."

When it comes down to the terminology, the fact is that there's no hard and fast rule for what to call games (or movies, or whatever.) When you get right down to it, I'd imagine it's called what it is simply because Bethesda wanted to call it Fallout 3. Any other name would have worked as well (some would say another name would have worked even better, actually;) but that's the one they chose for it. Life would be simpler if there was some sort of guideline for when and where a numerical increase of a title is called for - but that simply isn't the case.

Anyway, my point was that I'd guess that Bethesda had their own vision for where the direction they wanted the series to go, and they likely didn't want to have to worry about getting too bogged down with the existing lore. (ie, new story arc, new location - same universe.) Hence the time shift, the re-introduction of classic Fallout tropes, and a move to the other side of the country.

I'll be honest, I find that to be pretty stupid, because Fallout, from an artistic point of view, isn't their series. There were Fallout games before Fallout 3, and thus Fallout was already a predefined universe with rules, ideologies, and direction. To say screw it with the rules, idealogies, and direction is total disrespect for the previous artists work, efforts, and dreams that they had for the series. Wether or not those artists take offence to that is a whole other story, but the fact remains the same. This isn't Bethesda's series, this is those who worked in Black Isle Studio's series. Who or who does not own the IP is inconsequential from an artistic standpoint.

you do know there is already a fallout(1st fallout game) so they can't do that please check you facts before saying stuff like that

That's why he said "reboot"?

Hey, I'm not saying everyone has to like it. :shrug:

Fallout 3 ain't exactly what I was looking for from a continuation of the series, either.

But you do see this re-appropriation all the time. Look at the Batman movies, for instance. Even Tim Burton's original movie wasn't exactly Bob Kane and Bill Finger's conception of the character. And then by the time we get to George Clooney's Batman, we're closer to post-CCA, 1960's-era Batman than ever. Even with Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins reboot and the follow Dark Knight Returns, it's heavily influenced by the works of Frank Miller's interpretation of the character (and largely lauded by many fans as "truer" to the "real" Batman.) But even that's based on a re-appropriation of the character that's hardly more relevant to the "original" version of the series than anything else.

Frankly, I don't see any disrespect from Fallout 3. Visually, I feel they got it pretty spot on. It may not be 100% "true" to however Fallout 1's artists imagined it, visually, but I'm rather fond of it. (And of course that's a subjective matter.) Fallout 3 is simply how Bethesda interpreted the series. It's taken what they felt were the key ingredients to the series, and interpreted true to their own vision of the work. Again, that's nothing new. It's been happening in the art world for thousands of years.

Whether or not we agree with this new vision is, of course, another matter. Like I've said, I still have my own misgivings about the direction the series has taken in some key areas. But I still don't see how that means Bethesda had no "right" to do what they did. I may not agree with it - but personally, I respect them more for having the guts to do things their own way, rather than try to pander to my own sensibilities. (This is why I wasn't terribly impressed with the Aliens vs Predator movies - too much attention to fan service.) But like I said, the mileage will vary from person to person.