Based on what? I've given more than enough examples of how Fallout 3 is a sequel. It continues the story of the Enclave, it continues the story of the Brotherhood of Steel (sort of), it continues the story of the Vaults, it continues the story of Harold, etc. Now the quality of these continuations is debatable, but they're there, thus Fallout 3 is a sequel.

I nice to see that people call us Obsifreaks and Bethesda Haters, when I waiting for TES V and Im not loyal to Obsidian, neither Bethesda, neither others companies, Im loyal to their games (And we are the ones with bias?)

On topic: Who cares, both of them are canon, be glad at least the "burned game" it isnt

Lol true.

These match my opinion.
(Except that IMO FO:NV is a FO3 spin-off that "spins off" towards Fallout 2.)

also the fact that Bethesda have editorial control over whatever happens in Fallout. Even farming it out to Obsidian, they still had final say on what happens in the game, what "becomes canon". They could easily have said "No NCR, we want this game to be the Kings vs The Legion" and Obsidian would have had to have done it. No getting away from it. It's a licensed franchise, and Bethesda own the licence (not matter how many boxes of Van Buren design docs Josh has under his bed, it not HIS game.)

1. Canon is decided by Bethesda

2. New Vegas is in fact Van Buren with some new stuff and others thing who go edited

1) That's what I just said
2) Yup, enough people cared about Van Buren that Bethesda farmed it out to Obsidian to give it to you. There, you've got Van Buren now, now Bethesda can leave it in the past and move on with THEIR vision of Fallout. Not Black Isles. Not Obsidians. Not yours. and not mine. Bethesdas.

If EA did the same thing with Command And Conquer, then sure why not? but the only thing that I ask is that they kept the Lore consistent, a world still destroyed after 200 years of the Great War is something that I expected from Fallout 1 or a reboot of the continuity, but not for a third part, I personally want, "civilization" in the Post Apocalyptic world

Some of us personally want destruction in a Post Apocalyptic world though. :tongue:

Its really a matter of preference, neither one is right or wrong.

The DC area had alot more dangers. Thoughs people would get slaughtered trying to go out and build a world. Bad people/ things ruled DC Talon comp/super mutants/raiders/slavers/and nastey creatures. If the people of Megaton try to go to the mini mart of the school raiders would kill them.

In real life when something terrible happens, and law and order crumble bad people take over. The longer time goes on the bigger and stronger the bad will become. It s human nature........

That sounds stupid.

Care to explain?

I was just trying to sound ignorant but a game where the devs don't give two [censored] about their fans doesn't sound appealing but that's how most games are probably made but the way he put it just sounds unappealing.

They do care, but sometimes they do mistakes, nobody is perfect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_3#Awards Fallout 3 has received seems tell a different story, if fans didn't like the game then I'd be willing to bet it wouldn't have won those awards.

If you are not happy with the way Bethesda has handled Fallout, and can't accept what is, then perhaps it's time to find a new game to play and let those of us that sill enjoy it, enjoy it in peace.

I think he was commenting on people who generally don't mind(and even agree) with company not giving those two [censored]s about the fanbase or lore. :biggrin:
Correct me if I am wrong.

Change, even if subtle like with New Vegas, isn't impossible - both Beth and Obs got some flak from their handling of the franchise. Wait until Fallout 4 comes out before starting to drive people off, that is pretty much the point when it is settled what we can expect from the future.

I didnt liked the game, but that doesnt stop the game from winning awards,

My main problem with New Vegas, is the lack of real exploration as well as enemies. Make no mistake, I do not hate New Vegas, I just came away a little disappointed in what otherwise could've been a much better game had Obsidian had more time to develop it.

I do agree that change isn't impossible, and people do tend to dislike change, but without change Fallout would turn into just another cookie cutter type game that comes out year after year with no significant changes made.

other people have floated an interesting idea recently, an idea I kinda like but am also aware is unlikely to happen; a team effort, so to speak, between Bethesda and Obsidian on the next Fallout title (most likely Fallout 4). The best of both worlds, but even then someone somewhere will find something to [censored] about.

Is that actually possible? Was there ever a game made by two different teams at once? :unsure2:

There's always someone complaining, no doubt. That's especially a problem in taking over an existing franchise with an existing fanbase. Change in it self isn't the problem, though. It's almost always the manner of the change. And I'd say that now, more than ever, change is needed.

A joint effort would indeed be probably the best solution, but I can't see Beth doing it - I'm also sceptical of the level of change Beth is willing to do in order to please both fanbases, but I do think there is still some hope, even if slim (otherwise I wouldn't be here anymore).

Like I said, unlikely to happen. :whisper:

I never said I dislike bethesda's fallout...?

Your post appeared to tell a different story.

What does saying developers should care about their fans have to do with Fallout 3?