http://www.cracked.com/blogimages/2009/02/timepanties2.jpg

I wouldn't want NV to be the end, they reference so many unseen regions and talk about the MWBoS. I at least want the MWBoS to appear in a game before it wraps up.

Responce has a Lonesome Road Spoiler:

He kind of looks like an older version of Ulysses...or Morpheus

I'd rather the game as a series end soon, because you can only have so many games before the game becomes the 'Sonic the Hedgehog' of gaming. I mean that in the sense that the only things that'd be left would be are two types of fan, the disgruntled fan who gripes and moans over the changes of their nostalgic childhood, and the fan that willingly wallows the fecal pile excuse of a game. It doesnt matter if you want to throw a hissy and say 'BUT I LIKE IT SO IT SHOULDNT END!', because quite frankly, the truth is, it's better you'e disappointed as a kid that Santa clause isnt real then being some 35 year old manchild who still actually believes some fatman sneaks into your house and leaves presents. It's best to let Fallout end while it's a LIKED game. In the game industry, letting a game have 3 games is a pretty bold endeavour without the endeavour beeing utter rubbish to the fanbase, but Fallout has had six games, one of those six is half jokingly 'banned' to be spoken of by fans because it was rubbish. No need to let it continue and just one after the other game becomes [censored].

Am I saying it should end right now? Not at all, but I think after Fallout 4, the seventh installment of the series, it's best to consider calling it quits while we're ahead.

I don't mean that I want New Vegas to be the last Fallout game, just the last game in the New Vegas area. I would love to see another game with the Midwestern brotherhood, and the Midwestern US in general.

As for Ulysses:

"Santa clause isnt real" belongs in the spoiler section doesn't it?

I'd rather the game as a series end soon, because you can only have so many games before the game becomes the 'Sonic the Hedgehog' of gaming. I mean that in the sense that the only things that'd be left would be are two types of fan, the disgruntled fan who gripes and moans over the changes of their nostalgic childhood, and the fan that willingly wallows the fecal pile excuse of a game. It doesnt matter if you want to throw a hissy and say 'BUT I LIKE IT SO IT SHOULDNT END!', because quite frankly, the truth is, it's better you'e disappointed as a kid that Santa clause isnt real then being some 35 year old manchild who still actually believes some fatman sneaks into your house and leaves presents. It's best to let Fallout end while it's a LIKED game. In the game industry, letting a game have 3 games is a pretty bold endeavour without the endeavour beeing utter rubbish to the fanbase, but Fallout has had six games, one of those six is half jokingly 'banned' to be spoken of by fans because it was rubbish. No need to let it continue and just one after the other game becomes [censored].

Am I saying it should end right now? Not at all, but I think after Fallout 4, the seventh installment of the series, it's best to consider calling it quits while we're ahead.

I think it should end on Fallout 7, with a n unexpected ending. Not 200 years later the nations nuked themselves again... Or nothing stupid such as aliens returned to earth and abducted all the people.

i'd personally say 5 as 7 seems a bit of a push to be honest.

I think the 'nuclear wasteland' theme is gonna be hard to sustain believably - civilization should be getting back on its feet now, and the NCR is apparently doing its Manifest Destiny thing as of FNV. The series should only continue if it continues to evolve - show us the various growing civilizations, and the way they interact as they bump up against one another. If they're still doing the nuclear wasteland schtick in 2350 I'd rather they not do it at all. It would be even lamer if they go the tabula rasa route and have a second round of nuclear bombings that sets everything back to day zero.

"post apocalyptic" is a huge theme these days, more than it ever has been, the entire post apocalyptic/retro 50 type stuff...not sure what you're even talking about, saying people are burned out on it...rofl, hardly

He's not saying that people are getting tired of the post apocalyptic setting, he's getting tired of the nuclear wasteland setting in Fallout. As in the Capital Wasteland is still a desolate, barren wasteland with barely anyone travelling the roads after two centuries. Eventually some semblance of a thriving population is going to show itself within that time. In the Mojave you can clearly see signs of life and civilization all over because this is what would have actually happened two centuries after nuclear devestation.

I agree with him. I would much rather see people rebuilding civilization then another barren wasteland.

He's not saying that people are getting tired of the post apocalyptic setting, he's getting tired of the nuclear wasteland setting in Fallout. As in the Capital Wasteland is still a desolate, barren wasteland with barely anyone travelling the roads after two centuries. Eventually some semblance of a thriving population is going to show itself within that time. In the Mojave you can clearly see signs of life and civilization all over because this is what would have actually happened two centuries after nuclear devestation.

I agree with him. I would much rather see people rebuilding civilization then another barren wasteland.

if civilization is rebuilding too much, its really not the idea of what a fallout game is...new vegas was a one off type game to fill the gap between FO3 and FO4, kinda an extra fallout game, like they said when they were making it, its set in the fallout universe but not a sequel to FO3, so the rebuildling civilization part might make more sense in las vegas where no bombs fell, but on the east coast the capitol wasteland was pretty messed up still so, i doubt FO4 is gonna jump too far ahead, if civilization is too rebuilt, then you don't have a post apocalyptic survival game, it would be a contradiction to even call it fallout.

"Santa clause isnt real" belongs in the spoiler section doesn't it?

if civilization is rebuilding too much, its really not the idea of what a fallout game is...new vegas was a one off type game to fill the gap between FO3 and FO4, kinda an extra fallout game, like they said when they were making it, its set in the fallout universe but not a sequel to FO3, so the rebuildling civilization part might make more sense in las vegas where no bombs fell, but on the east coast the capitol wasteland was pretty messed up still so, i doubt FO4 is gonna jump too far ahead, if civilization is too rebuilt, then you don't have a post apocalyptic survival game, it would be a contradiction to even call it fallout.

I just hope that they do something about the constantly developing world. I think we should let Avellone nuke everything to the orbit. It's not Fallout if everything is rebuilt, same ol' USA just with a different name and flag.

Nah, I don't think it'll end.

However, I also don't see a reason why Obsidian shouldn't be involved again (despite what the hatemongers say here ).

Nah, I don't think it'll end.

However, I also don't see a reason why Obsidian shouldn't be involved again (despite what the hatemongers say here ).

if civilization is rebuilding too much, its really not the idea of what a fallout game is...

if civilization is rebuilding too much, its really not the idea of what a fallout game is...new vegas was a one off type game to fill the gap between FO3 and FO4, kinda an extra fallout game, like they said when they were making it, its set in the fallout universe but not a sequel to FO3, so the rebuildling civilization part might make more sense in las vegas where no bombs fell, but on the east coast the capitol wasteland was pretty messed up still so, i doubt FO4 is gonna jump too far ahead, if civilization is too rebuilt, then you don't have a post apocalyptic survival game, it would be a contradiction to even call it fallout.