Yes i am happy,i still think they should make a spin off like Fallout: Chicago or something like that.

Happy with Boston?

Hell, I'm just happy there is a new game coming. I was not into Fallout 1 and 2 when they came out, and honestly I think 3 and NV were better. I'm playing them for the story and the full scope to give my gaming experience in Fallout a more complete perspective.

With that said, would it have been nice to be in California? Yeh. You know what else is nice? A new town, a new area, a new story, a new set of factions, mixing it up with a couple of old ones. I've heard the story of California before.

I don't see Fallout like I do The Elder Scrolls. The world is more broken off from each other than ever before, so epic stories are more "local" and what happens in California does not really affect what happened in DC, and only partially in New Vegas. Same deal here. In Elder Scrolls, a lot of previous events had ripple affects into later games. Not tremendously, but it did affect the overall history of the world you exist in. The only major thing the various titles of Fallout really have in common is that a few hundred years ago a bunch of nukes were launched and it ended modern civilization.

Are there other areas I would have been more interested in? Sure. Chicago (great lakes), Philadelphia (though with the DC, this was more unlikely from proximity and similarity and also the bigger fish to the north). New York (which I'm glad, New York is so overdone with games and movies in general...but for good reason, it's the biggest U.S. city by population), Texas, Florida (if it didn't sink).

I'm perfectly fine with Boston, I think it is a wonderful town and I'm looking forward to seeing it destroyed. As a Philadelphia sports fans, it's gives me closure that the dynasty of the golden age of sports in Boston has come to an end

I'm ok with Boston. http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1480427-official-future-fallout-locations-suggestions-27/page-6#entry23630732

Yeah i have no problem with Boston. I really don't care where it's set as long as it's still Fallout

Well how is Boston as a location?

Having played Fallout from the jump (and Wasteland for that matter) I am happy they went with a place like Boston. First off it ties into the quest line that ran in Rivet City in Fallout 3, as such it also leads me to some interesting protagonist concepts. Its nice to think about possible robotic (cybernetci-android whatever) ebenies beyond Securitrons. It is something that Fallout Tactics had that differed it from F1 and F2. The thing that initially worried me was the lack of icons to destroy but when I saw the USS Constitution I was like "okay, I like this". As a native of the Golden State my heart is always happy with the fact that so many Fallout editions were set in that region. That said, the CA regions in F1 and F2 were indeed generic. This was what made F3 so enjoyable (as I live in/near DC). In addition to recognizing the landmarks, you had a sense of ownership. Similarly (though to a lesser extent) with NV. I lived in Vegas and in fact near Searchlight so again there was a sense of "hey, cool, I know this area". Chicago might have been nice, and considering some of the Canon possibilities with that region relating to Fallout Tactics as well as the BOS in general may be interesting. Could make for a nice NV style "distanced departure using the same engine" deal that there was with F3 and NV.

It's a fun city to visit.

It's a good place as any for a Fallout setting.

I hope gamesas gets the chance to develop the east coast setting more this time. California republic, Poseidon Oil, San Francisco, these settings and the west coast in general better be left to be used in a game made by Obsidian.

I don't remember mentioning those. Look in the era that Fallout takes place the world is at war, certain brands will be banned, and local culture would be the norm. When every country is at the brink of war the people might not always support foreign companies. Sure they may, but we can't know that.

We do know the U.S. and the Soviets were fairly close (presumably because they both hated China) so it wasn't THAT bad internationally.

I'll be happy with any setting so lo ng as the games remain in the United States. I have my personal preferences (Chicago) but Boston is great too.

Boston's fine by me. Better than New York, that's for sure.

Considering in FO3 one of the few people with in-depth knowledge of the Commonwealth, Pinkerton, says its just like the CW. Not surprising. Allows Bethesda to not change much in the environment, besides, maybe, a few extra trees that they will probably just copy-paste from Skyrim. Still, I'm excited for FO4.

it's fine. might by funny running for your life from a raider screeching in brooklynese

"Ay! I'm walkin' 'ere!"

I hope we get at least one Lovecraftian village.

"Pahk da cah, get em!"

I think aflooded New York would have been the best setting ...

New York is just so overdone with....everything.

Just as long as there are no Bostonian accents.

Wild Wasteland?

https://youtu.be/9y-7CpYIJeY?t=27

Matt Damon must absolutely be a main character

But has cool skyscraqers in the 50s .

Cool Art Deco buildings. Love Art Deco.