Not Quite sure if this belongs in New Vegas or not, but hey.

Fallout seems to have really long spans between games. Like 80+years.
I'd think, with the rate of change already shown, that eventually it would outgrow the Fallouty setting that was established in Fo1.

Who is worried this has happened in New Vegas (what with so many established, functioning economies, and factions), and who thinks that such evolution could catapult this franchise into the first ever series to spread over many incarnations of the game world: have an over-arching story which watches the world re-build into a modernesque one?

I think we could get a fairly long run of the FO franchise. I mean its only been 200 years (as of FO3) since the bombs fell and it would take more than just 200 years for things to recover enough to make a difference after a global nuclear war.

But personally I think it would be very nice to see the story evolve andwe see over time hopefully the recovery of the continent after the nuclear war. I mean an example would be HL series. HL1 ended where we all thought we resolved the rift. HL2 comes along and shows the rift was torn bigger and humanity became slaves and a global war nearly wiped humans out. By the Episodes or as it was to be called HL3, the humans are starting to take earth back. Now I personally wouldnt want FO francise to advance that quickly, it wouldnt be that beliveable after a global nuclear war, but it would be great in my opinion to see how the global nuclear war would have molded the survivors and how things would turn out in the end.

Well, on the one hand I definitely sense that the series is really pushing what it can get away with on time spans, while still retaining some of the post apocalyptic flavor, they could always do a prequel. Indeed, Sawyer has previously expressed his desire to do a Fallout game during the resource wars. Failing that, humanity is still the same species (FEV contamination, notwithstanding), and we still have the means to kill ourselves by the gross, so there's always the possibility of a second nuclear doomsday:

van buren spoilers ahead:

I'm not really worried about the games out growing the setting looking back at fallout 1&2 there were several settlements in each that bounced back to a fiarly civilized state by having electricity, running water, a system of law, and of course government, and since new vegas wasn't hit directly it makes sense that there would be a higher population and civilization would be getting back on its feet. As for the series ever coming full circle wherre we would have a pre war level government and technology capacity I don't see it ever being done because the fact that your trying to survive in a wasteland is a huge part of the feel of the game, as for a return to pre war circumstances I believe it could easily take a couple hundred years to rediscover a lot of the things that were lost. Look at the Roman empire and oll of its vast knowledge then look at the dark ages and you'll see how much was lost and it took roughly 600 years to get back to where the Romans where.

Even if it does advance to fast im sure some idiot will blow us all to hell again. And im not sure how fast they are advancing ive only played FO3 but even if they get economy up, even if some people band together, even if some guy takes responsibility for a towns well being and is made mayor or w.e, civilizaion still has a long way to go before its close to what it was before the bombs. There still needs to be many more people, much larger communities and global communication. Right now i'd say its at the Tigrese and Euphrates phase, its at the ancient civilizations phase, it has a long way to go to get to modern. While they have remenants of the previous civilization its still going to take a long time.

Now that would all be relevant if this was an actual world, actually happening, as it is im sure the devs will pace themselves and string out the series to make as much money as possible.

I dont think we have to worry. There wont be another fallout game for a while, i believe they are going to make a new Elder scrolls game.."Off topic...but yet not really"...after New vegas.

It already has. The world of New Vegas is centuries ahead of the world established in Fallout a PNRPG. Yes, I did just do that.

I have not played 1 or 2. But going off logic, and knowledge of the ideals behind the Fallout universes apocalypse. It's only been in the past 100 yearsish, that humans have really began to start reflourishing technically. So as each game comes out and there are years between, there should be some bigger steps done. Now from 3 to NV, not too many years, as well it is on the west coast not the east. I think Bethesda has some plans for resetting up the west coast and having established part of the east though.

Biggest thing about the future of the Fallout series will actually not be anything from the fallout universe. But the next upcoming Post Apoc game from ID Software called Rage. New Engine, fantastic gameplay visuals and more. This game will be making a run for the Post Apoc king of the Hill. Which is good and bad, if the very next game afterwards in the Fallout series isn't at least Rage and then some, then I would worry. But I believe Bethesda is publishing ID's Rage so, im sure they will have their hands on the engine soon. Im hoping they are working on something now.

I think there definitely needs to be some kind of second-wave of nuclear disaster, just for kicks. Though IMO a prequel would do a hell of a lot better. Actually, a game where you start and the chargen and first couple minutes are in a pre-nuke world would be amazing. They could have it so that in the chargen you pick a starting point (vault, suburb basemant, military bunker, etc.) and make the game really cool, either way though it would end up with you out in the wasteland fairly quickly, like your house is destroyed and you go up from the basemant and look around outside, or the vault you're in for some reason won't close or there's a cave in or something and few survive, or the bunker you're in gets attacked and few survive, I dunno. After the initial beginning though, the game world would shift over the first few days of play, where in the first day people are still relatively civilized and supplies and food are abundant, so you kind of have to pick what to to take and what to leave for the next person, then as a few days pass some people more protective and hostile, most supermarkets, gun stores, etc. have been basically cleaned out, then after another few days everyone is basically for themselves, and there is little left to be found without a fight. I know that's a little fast for it to happen, but it's a game, lol. Also, maybe the main quest could involve starting one of the first real communities, I dunno. Could be a fun alternative, radiation would be a more key player, the game world would feel less static.

Thought TBH at this point they've milked the engine a la max, and need to get an updated (or maybe even new, hey, imagine that bethesda, a whole NEW engine after EIGHT YEARS) engine and make the next Edler Scrolls game.

I dont think a drastic era change would be a good idea. Lets take a look at the quality of the Destroy All Humans games. For those of you who do not know them very well, it is a primarily PS2 third-person shooter putting you in the small boots of an alien with a large toy box to play with. Each game advanced by 10 years in an identical timeline to real life, ignoring the presence of aliens.

DAH 1, Set in the 1950's this game was very well received by critics.
DAH 2, Set in the 1960's this game was a sleeper hit that made everything good about the first game, better. It showed how much fun it was to hypnotize hippies
DAH 3 (forgot exact name), A Wii game taking place in the 1970's, got a 5.0 from IGN
DAH4, A PS3/360 game, taking place in the 1980's, scored a phenominal 3.5 from IGN

I dont think a time change is nessecary. I think we need a Fallout: New China first.

I agree, I think a prequel that puts you in the situation of surviving the global nuclear war would be a good game. I say start out at your place of residence and you have to make your way out of town before the bombs fall. Like wise you would then be faced with a new challenge of getting yourself let into one of the vaults before the radiation turns you into a ghoul or kills you. Like wise it would be open ended where you could choose multiple styles of bombshelters from the vaults down to town hall fallout shelters. I know I was waiting for years for that game to come out called "Survivor" which pitted you against numerous natural disasters from the sinking of the Titanic to hurricane andrews down to the terror attacks of 9-11. It died but I still think fallout could thrive on a prequel like that. But it has to be made long enough where people could explore and basically do as they want in the prequel but your actions will determine the outcome from you being able to get into the vault, you being able to get out of the city down to you being killed in a panic.

I mean yea not many would go for that but I think it would be better than the game starting and you basically see the bombs drop. I dont see the point in starting a prequel in the vault where the bombs just drops. What would we do in the vaults. I think a "survival" style RPG would be good but I am at a loss of how it could be done and still fit in with the FO style.

I think it's possible we could see some ultra-futuristic places in future games. The Commonwealth's main hub The "institute" (D.C Ruins, New Vegas, etc) will probably be highly advanced. I'm thinking something like Blade Runner is reasonable. Also, being that The Replicated Man quest borrows heavily from Blade Runner, it seems likely. However, I still think the surrounding areas will be more traditional and that is unlikely to ever change unless there was a massive story event or reboot.

All in all, I'm happy where the series is going, and will follow it regardless.

Future of fallout, well i'd say American has had its fair run, i wish either that if they continue on the effects of the war within America they change the perspective, not sure how that would work though, once society starts again it'll be over, and i doubt they will make a fallout game for every state, slowly rebuilding America lol. Another country would be alright, assuming the whole world is in similar conditions, also would lead to new people, weapons, places, creatures etc etc. But, something that would interesting, say society is coming back into place n such, either just America or globally, if the super mutants say became like an infestation, and like you basically had to exterminate them, give you a chance to actually work with the brotherhood of steel directly, like be an initiate, or even work for the enclave which would be awesome.

Worried? Hell no. Time flows and things change. If things all stayed the same, they'd just be making the same game over and over and over until eventually someone goes "I've had enough".

oh please..It's the game makers universe, not ours, they can keep it destroyed for all eternity and people would still love it in 3010

I see what you are saying and I totally agree. How long can we go? I really hope that the next fallout that Obsidian does will not treat fallout 3 as canon and set the year near fallout 2. Otherwise this game will not be the same anymore, atleast not to me.

I'm really not that worried about it.

Even if there is 80 years between games, what time span does one game really take place in? A few months at most? A few weeks?

Especially it being a given that there is only two (Correct me if I'm wrong) years between Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas, you have not only the separation of physical location to use, but also an extensive number of time frames that actually consist of the game setting.

Given that each game has a storyline that is centered around the player character, it wouldn't be too terribly difficult for the minds that brought the Fallout franchise to life to come up with other story lines equally engaging as what we have already seen.

Probably not terribly worried. But I do still wonder occasionally at just what the underlying causes for Bethesda pushing the timeline forward so much were, in the first place. I mean, we're already dealing with a setting that's all the way over on the other side of the country and pretty much totally separated from the original games' narrative by plenty of geographical space - I never saw what the real need to keep pushing it forward so much in time was. Sure, it's all fictional anyway - but we are dealing with a game series that's pretty specifically dealing with the aftermath of a nuclear war; the farther you go from that, the more you're losing the whole genre in the first place.

I don't really think there's much danger of Fallout's world ever being "rebuilt" to the point where we're dealing with "a science fiction game where there had once been a nuclear war," as opposed to "a post-nuclear roleplaying game." But I also wouldn't necessarily care to deal with the former, either. I play Fallout when I'm looking for a post-apocalyptic roleplaying game - if it ceases to be that, and moves on to some other setting where we have (even if mostly) "recivilized" the world, then it loses it's entire raison d'etre.

bliviongate:
todd howard said "not to be looking for an ESV anytime soon" that was late last year, fallout 4 will be coming out in due time, i don't see more of a two year span between fallout games. have you listened to todd howard and his remarks of how unique fallout is? i know he's into the franchise, and i know pete hines is too, bethesda initially bought the rights to make 3 fallout games, then they bought out the entire franchise, and pete hines said they did that in order to develop it and continue the series, i see a fallout game prob every two years at most for the next several games at least, there are all sorts of options for a fallout game, midevil/fantasy games are all kinda the same, but there are more possobilites with the fallout franchise, so i don't think they're "done" with fallout by a longshot, bethesda has only made one fallout game, thats fallout 3, obsidian is making new vegas, so that doesn't even count, there will be asequel to fallout 3 for sure and it ain't gonna be too far off into the future.

Cool. Fallout: New China whould be awesome. but personaly i whould like a . Fallout: Scandinavia. whit many kind a weathers like snow, rain and when its raining ice idk what its named. and it whould be cool to be walking the streets of Stockholm. and Loot the Kings house

Um, no, the Fallout setting can continue indefinitely.

There is no reason to assume that "purging" areas of raiders/mutants/monsters doesn't take long periods of time for the Brotherhood/locals/Enclave/Boy Sprouts.

There can exist plenty of other vaults that haven't popped the hatch yet.

Who knows what shape the rest of the world is in.
On one hand there were economic crashes over the end of fossil fuels.
On the other hand there was an established tech base of fusion/fission.
I forget where that development fits into the Fallout timeline.

I for one, have no interest whatsoever in Fallout that isn't post apocalyptic. You want city building, play simcity.

There's no way that Fallout would continue if the story was no longer about surviving the wasteland. It wouldn't be the same. I'm not "worried" about this only because I recognize and accept all games have to end.

Yeah, it'll be sad when Fallout packs it in, but that's better than if it mutates into something way beyond the initial concept and/or hangs around for an annoyingly long time.

i would hope that we dnt go back to modern life..because then i'd just play sims..and i hate sims..i love fallout for it's moral choices and it puts me in a post apocalyptic situation....we have seen very little of the fallout world....the us isn't the only place..i'm sure we might even have a story between the events of 1 2 and 3...or happening at the same time but in different places...also just because one place in the wastes is civilised..well sorta..dnt mean anything about the place right beside it..and with waring factions..you never know how civilisations can crumble...

Wow: a lot of response!
My main reason for posting this was just to gauge the opinions of everyone: see how many people (like Nu_Clear_day) play Fallout for the post-apocalyptic setting, and how many people play it for the b-movie sci-fi back-story.

Personally, I'd love to see Fallout advance to the point where it becomes a regular sci-fi game again: a modern-esque version of the classic fallout ambiguous choices, and open-ended approach to quests could be interesting.

Someone (I'm using quick reply so I can't check, sorry) remarked that Rage was going to be the "new Fallout". And if Fallout continues along the storyline it has now, steadily advancing into a rebuilt world, I would probably play Rage and its incarnates and brethren to get that wonderful post-apocalyptic fix. I would keep playing Fallout through thick and thin: I just really like a lot of the design decisions that go into the Fallout series.

My own opinion is not worry: I think every Fallout game should have its own "feel" to it: the time between games should be notable.

I actually didn't like the setting of Fo3 as much as Fo1 or two specifically because it felt too much like the creators were trying to appeal to the "roots" of the series: while California rebuilt, their DC stayed in ruin.

Welp. That's my two cents.

i dont think theres really anything from just setting the game back to earlier times different locales different situations i mean mutations shouldnt be the same