o it is sorry some one on a different topic said it wasn't canon and i dont realy know alot about it but how does the bible know about a place fallouts never been to (New york)

If there will be then we all know what Song will be on the Radio http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-8_Se1n67Y

Personally I hope that if we see it that it will be in the same shape as the Boneyard and Bakersfield.

Anyways there is an offical section and the link to it has been posted.

Its "Canon until contradicted later on"

oh yeah, what open world sanbox rpg has post apocalyptic new york been done? and not some stupid game from 10 years ago.

well watching a 2 hr movie isn't exactly the same as playing a video game, there aren't any open world post apocalyptic video games set in new york, so it hasn't be overdone cause it hasn't been done at all.

The point is, certain area have been mined to death. NYC, at this point, is pretty boring as a setting. I wouldn't mind seeing it post-apocalypse, but there are other places I'd like to see more. The South being numero uno.

Same here, with Canada being a close second. Whenever I think of the Canadian Wasteland I imagine people living in houses partly underground, similar to that Oblivion town (Bruma?). I think a frozen wasteland would offer some unique resources, ice fishing, with various kind of fish, or a whaler bringing in whale oil and we can't miss out some serious seal clubbing. The fur coats would help you stay warm (something that could be included on HC mode, though I'm no HC player).

Off topic
I'm surprised this thread hasn't been closed yet.

You should've read further and then edited your reply accordingly...

Some people may think NYC is just a Concrete Jungle well yes and no
no because NYC also includes Long Island btw never been to New York or as far east as West Virginia
however a certain Volcano blast from a certain Island off the coast of Africa could create a Tsunami big enough to reach the east coast and devastate much of NY state.

Look at Point Lookout

Honestly, I think we're kind of just bowing to the inevitable at this point. We see lots of suggestions for various locations for a new Fallout game - but none compare in sheer volume to the New York ones. So, "unofficially" we're just letting this one sit for awhile. New York alone gets enough talk that we kind of figure we can allow it to have it's own topic for the moment.

Personally, I'm in the "too cliche" camp. I've seen New York destroyed in many, many movies and other media. I've explored it in countless games (especially if we count the games that take place in a fiction NY with a different name.) Frankly, from an artistic standpoint - New York is kind of the location you use when you can't think of anything else. It's the go-to location, post-apocalyptic or not. I don't think I have any real big problem with the idea - but I can't say it's a location I'd be terribly excited about revisiting again.

That said - it probably is rather inevitable. If the series goes on long enough, then it's really only a matter of time before we see Fallout: New York. It's just a given, as far as I'm concerned. Frankly, I'd just as soon as they get it over with, with a spin-off at some point, and be done with it. :shrug:

I too am in the "It's too cliche camp," and honestly I just cannot understand why people want to see the location so badly. Even if the city somehow pulled a The Pitt or New Vegas and survived the Great War relatively intact, what's the appeal? Is it the pretty skyscraqers? Is it the densely packed environment? And if so, why on earth would you want a densely packed environment? Is it the culture of the city? If that's the case, have you forgotten that locations in Fallout games almost never have the same culture they once had before the war? The closest thing I can think of is the Shi preserving some of San Francisco's asian culture, but even then they weren't natives to the city. Maybe New Reno and New Vegas too, but even then the pre-war and post-war culture were still really different. The NYC of 2290 or whatever wouldn't be anything like the NYC of today, and really the only benefit it has over other cities is the name and it's landmarks.

I want Fallout 4, and really all future Fallout games, to be set in locations that are unique to the post-war world. The Pitt, for example, was nothing like pre-war Pittsburgh. I fear that if we suddenly went to New York City despite it almost never being mentioned in any of the previous games, we'd just be visiting a ruined location that's as stuck in the past as the Capital Wasteland was. If NYC was actually the exact opposite, and did in fact have a unique post-war culture such as The Pitt did... why didn't we hear about it from Ashur? You'd think for someone with relations, good or bad, with Toronto, Massachusetts and Washington D.C., he'd mention New York City as well if it was worth mentioning. But he didn't mention it, so one can assume it wasn't. And why didn't Tobar mention it? Surely he'd stop there on his trips up and down the coast if it was worth it... but apparently it wasn't worth it to him either. I'm sensing a pattern...

Crysis, Crysis 2, and some other game that I don't remember the name too. It was called Speedrunner or something.

When thinking about it... I'd actually see a city with skyscraqers, leaning onto eachother, and so derelict, so broken, that you can see the sun shine through them (kinda like the washington monument in F3, with all the holes). And then, the streets would be too dangerous. I dunno why, if NY is either flooded and now has dangerous waterliving mutants, or if the streets are just very radioactive and full of other scary mutants. The "wastelanders" (more like... "concrete jungle tribals") live on the rooftops of buildings that are not too fragile, and they walk between them on ropebridges. Then there could be some mission where you are hired by a faction to destroy their enemy faction's HQ, which is on the top of a skyscraqer, and you get to plant bombs on some supportive columns, and then you get to view the skyscraqer fall from the distance, maybe into some other building.

Doesn't necessarily have to be NYC.

Actually, I kinda got the idea of Van Buren's Denver. I still love the idea.

Well, okay - I'm sold. If NYC could be something like that, then I'd be up for that - if the setting itself provided something in and of itself, then I don't think I'd mind a New York setting. :thumbsup:

Would be so much better outside of New York.



Denver would be amazing. I could forgive no node system (would probably forgive anyway) if it were based around Denver... Fort Collins could be the Northeastern boundary, Denver the southeastern, and then a bunch of mountainous terrain (and Boulder, for example) to the west.


That's really only appealing because I live in Fort Collins.

NY is overused. Beth needs to be original. Also NY would probably be blown to [censored] anyways.

It would be great to see something Original from Bethesda when it comes to Fallout. The Commonwealth to me is a sign the next game will take place in New England mostly in the state of Massachusetts.

If they do a sandbox, it will be a small portion of Massachusetts. If they do a node-based map with sandbox-based nodes, it will be the entirety of New England.

Just saying :whistling:

I agree, they need to bring back the Map node System. So once again Fallouts can cover entire States not just one scaled down city and the 40-50 miles around it all crammed into a small map.

Even if they do a node based system, they'll probably keep the nodes in Massachusetts. Remember that Bethesda seems to want to stick with the East Coast for their games, and doing all of New England in a single game seems counter-intuitive if they want to have multiple games set there.

yeah but the East Coast is very big. From Maine to Florida. They can even go up into Canada if they wanted to. One City at a time is getting boring, and how many "untouched cities" do we have to come across?

They can always use time progression over different locations once they have covered the entire country (Which would take over 10 more games).

Massachusetts is very big as well... sure the cities will still be more "cramped" than they were in the originals but it's better than having them all super-duper cramped into a single sandbox.



I suppose that could work, but I don't like the idea of them doing the entire country anyway... eventually they'd have to resort to going back to the West and I don't even want to imagine how much backlash they'd get...

Massachusetts is not that big, having the map node system will bring back the feeling of being in a wasteland as in having settlements surrounded with many miles if not hundreds of miles of wasteland. Fallout 3 settlements are just over every hill. Can't throw a hand grenade without hitting the next location. New Vegas does little better but it still feels cramped.

America is very large. North America is even bigger. New Vegas mentions NCR in Mexico and I don't see why Fallout has to stop at the US/Canada boarder. Canada was apart of America in Fallout. There are still large parts of the Midwest to do as well as the south, Florida and Texas. Chicago was mentiona and I would not mind going back to the locations of Tactics to see the MWBoS again, it has been 80 years.

Even with the Map Node System, it would be many games before America is covered and a very long time before Bethesda runs out of locations and goes to California.

One City at a time does not give me the feel that things are changing on a grand scale. Things changed in the Originals it meant things were changing on a continental scale, effecting thousands if not millions. This is not so much a problem with New Vegas because the story effects two of the Largest Factions and has big changes but it would be nice to go into Arizona or Colorado and not just stuck in the 50 mile radius of one city.

I also have an odd feeling that what ever city Bethesda picks will look just fine and almost every landmark will be intact just like DC in Fallout 3.

Edit: does not mean I will be unhappy with FO4 if it is just based on one city, its just that we can have many cities with the map node system.

(Well, as much as i would like to see a compromise, i do not think it will happen, and it will be a Sandbox map like the last two games. Not that i think it will be so bad, it will be interesting to see the buildings be more vertical, the skyscraqers in ruins, the sights of New York City in ruins, the multitude of Subway ruins, not to mention that this was the nation's biggest city, so the chances of finding every kind of armor would be better as well, and a plethora of weapons as well.)