you're not making sense, FO4 will be the second bethesda fallout game, you can't count the old games, most people who first got aquainted with fallout never even heard of the old fallouts, they were like from the 90's when not that many people had pcs, so fallout is actually a new franchise to most people. most of the people who played FO3 never played the old ones, and thats easy to prove cause all the old games combined didn't come close to the amount of fallout 3 copies people bought. FO3 came out on all platforms, and during a time in which far more people owned a pc...but thats also like saying monopoly should be discontinued. good games stick around a long time. it doesn't matter how old they are. and actully bethesdas fallout was a huge success, it was the game of the year...so its a franchise thats alive and well.

As the saying goes, which has already been quoted a few times here, "all good things must come to an end". Or else things will just become blander and blander, repeat the same events after events, so keep the famous quote from T.S. Eliot in mind - "this is how the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper". And with a whimper is how I will se Fallout end if it goes as far as Fallout 9 and 6 spin-offs. So, I say there can be, hmmm, 4-5 more games of Fallout. Maybe Fallout 4, Fallout 5 (maybe even Fallout 6) and some spin-offs. Fallout 5 should be the last installment and it should end with a BANG! Maybe not literally, because where would they get all the explosives from? But more like..... we see nations form and grow, they wage war and conquer, and finally after decades of constant bloodshed and greed, they all settle with peace or at least a non-violence treaty. Everything is like it was in the beginning of the 1900's - the situation between all nations in europe was really tense, a lot of nationalism, agreements, alliances and everyone was gearing up for war but still keeping a smiling face towards one another - then something simple as an assassination was the lit match in the powder keg - BOOOM! World War broke out! So I say that Fallout ends with a world war Now, I know we only know about America, but since America is the only world they know, and since there are many nations in America, it could be counted as a world war Or, I don't know, suddenly we see some post-apoc nation from Eurasia?

well a thread on game forum isn't exactly the determining factor here, i doubt fallout is gonna be ending for a while, maybe when todd howard and pete hines are 60 years old, but they aren't that old yet so i'm pretty sure they have a lot of good ideas still for the next few fallout games.

It's interesting that while there are currently a fair few post-apocolyptic games around at the moment, they all seem to share the same period: Specifically, Begining to rebuild, stuggle for power, morning the old world.
It would be really interesting to see a game set during right one the disaster or way, WAY after it (where the pre-war world is considered a myth/legend and the people that lived in it are considered magical).
Not saying that I want Fallout to be the game that explores those settings, just saying it would be interesting.

I've said it many times, but I'll say it again. Just because a game is more popular then another doesn't mean its better. Popularity and quality are two different entities.
I'm just relaying what i have heard, I haven't played Fallout 1 or 2 yet.

Considering how big a disappointment Skyrim was, I doubt that Fallout 4 will be anything groundbreaking like the first 2 games (or New Vegas, although it merely reinvented the wheel) were for the series. If anything, it'll be like Fallout 3. Oh please, God, not like Fallout 3.

it does mean a game is pretty good if its rated at 9 or 10, absoloutely, i totally pay attention to reviews and ratings because they are quite accurate i have found, even a game type that i don't like necessarily, like lets say modern warfare, for what they do, they do really really well, so yeah ratings are very accurate, now i'm not talking about some give away game where a million people buy a game for a dollar, but if lots of people are shelling out 60 dollars for a game and it gets great reviews and ratings, yeah its probably well worth the money, now you may not like a lot of the new games so you might be biased, but i like the new games, there's a lot of great games in the last year that came out, and skyrim and deus ex are two of the best games of last year in my opinion and they are both rated over 9. so to me, yeah thats important and they live up to their game rating, so i would give em both an 9 or 10 also.

You do know that most game review sites are paid to review games well, right?

Of course you don't. I give you too much credit.

Reviews are incredibly accurate in the sense that they depict how much that reviewer enjoyed the game. Ever single review is an opinion by one person and is not meant to represent the whole community. I actually really do love the games that have come out recently, so don't make assumptions about me. Gears of war 3 is one of my favourite games to come out last year and I have Batman Arkham City resting on my shelf until I get through my current playthrough of New Vegas.

It's good for you that the reviewers you look at seem to have similar tastes to you. I personally have some what similar tastes to Reviews on the Run. but not the same because i'm a different person. Of course I don't let them decide whether or not I'm going to see a movie or play a game because their opinion might not match mine and i refuse to let someone else guide this side of my life. When Gran Torino came out I thought it was one of the best movies of the year, but it didn't get a single Oscar nomination. In this instance the Academy's perspective was different from mine.

This is why I don't really interrogate people on their tastes, but I do defend mine.

I don't think it's a certainty that every game in the series will leap forward in time. They could choose any number of locations, and offer stories running before, at, or just after the time-frames of events in previous games. Without impacting the stories told there.

The locations chosen since Bethesda took the helm, Washington, for a good look at the state America's capital is in, and Vegas, a city birthed by the invention of the atom bomb - seems they're getting the meaty stuff out of the way. But really, they could introduce any number of factions to the setting, in any number of surprising locations, possibly without even including factions we've already seen.

The entire setting doesn't revolve around Super Mutants, Brotherhood of Steel, Enclave, NCR etc. The next Fallout might be played almost entirely in the maddest, largest Vault ever built by Vault-Tec. lol Player emerges at the end to the sight of... a Ghoul infested New York. Possibilities for the setting, the timeline, the factions, and retro-futuristic post-apoc feel... are bloody endless.

Todd howard stated that each game will move FORWARD didn't he?

I don't see why people are going to this so much, Todd Howard goes back on his word all the time.

I wouldn't mind seeing a quote. But having read the posts before I posted, I still don't think it's a certainty. lol New Vegas is only four years after the events of Fallout 3, and the events of Fallout 3 have little to no impact on the events of Vegas. Beyond mention of a warring Brotherhood somewhere... and the like... but that's it. Fallout 4 could be set two years after Vegas, and nothing that happened in Vegas has to impact what happens in 4. People seem to think that the series moving forward will mean an entirely rebuilt civilisation and a loss of post-apoc feel. Heh ha.

What are the sale comparison for total revenue?

where is the poll?

IMO yes, the Fallout series should end. By its very nature it strays from its own setting the further ahead it [in time] that it's set. They would need to be bombed again ~and later again; or to have a prequel that ends with getting the PC into Vault 13 (IE. the harrowing adventure of the Vault Dweller's family to reach safety).

If Obsidian tries to make another POS game like NV then yes. However, if Bethesda does not get stupid Obsidian involved and they go back to making gems like Fallout 3 then no the series does not need to stop.

Not surprising, since that comes from a guy who just said:

?

Thank god you don't speak for the rest of the community. Heh, heh.

There's something called "opinion". Your "opinion" is that Obsidian is "stupid" and that Fallout New Vegas is a "POS", and unless you are god himself, that doesn't make it fact.

On topic, they shouldn't move forward in time, they need to start making prequels.

Everything Gizmo said is absolutely true.

I would love to have a Fallout game where you actually experienced the great war, although that would probably never happen, as it takes quite a few decades for the major groups to form.

When did New Vegas start being a bad game? And I'm not hating on Beth but they kind of didn't make the story for Fallout 3 that great (The Enclave shoudn't have been around, because they were destroyed in Fallout 2) and New Vegas had the same gameplay as 3 so what made New Vegas so bad for you if you loved 3 so much?

To answer the question "Should fallout end" then yes it should, I don't want it to end soon but sometime everything has to end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ne1fVhvL00

that should be the Intro or perhaps tutorial. you could also have a mission(s) of when you just enter the vault and given a job (SPECIA & skills choicing basically)

then have the game set 10-30 years(so either your guy or child) after the bomb dropped, No large towns, end of world chaos, Per-war people still alive, large amounts of radaition, supples not rare but harder to find/get too, better equiped raiders(may require different name) and no stupid weapon & armour degrade

Now that would be good game

edit: also not vault 13, perhaps Vault 8 or another Vault that opened early.

I agree but they should give us an option to turn on degrading.

It'd be cruel to dump any of the old references into the new game's core, it wouldn't make sense for the majority of people.

bethesda owns the fallout franchise, so i'm expecting another great fallout game probably sooner than we all think....every one of their games is a huge success and usually rated about 9.5 and they get plenty of acclaim and recognition from the gaming community, awards etc. nobody makes open world games as good as they do. so i prefer what how they make the game over the old style rpg any day. and people want the types of game they make.

We know Bethesda owns the rights to Fallout, you tell us in every post.

Stop using the opinions of other people as "evidence" that Fallout 3 is better then New Vegas. No one is really disputing that Fallout 3 was a good game, just that, as Gabriel77dan said, it wasn't a good Fallout game. You have given your opinion that Fallout 3 is better then New Vegas, I still don't understand why you are then wasting your time in this section?

Bethesda being the best maker of sandbox games is highly debatable and is your opinion. I personally think that Rockstar is far superior.