boy, you really think we got no pepsi and oreos in europe et al? ever heard of global capitalism? ,-)

Since I′m not American I don′t mind, important part is it′s a new location at all and not just reusing a area from previus games

Well, as a Southerner, I'd really like some view into my own neck of the wood. We've seen the West, the Wild West, the Capital, and now we'll be getting the North. The South isn't too popular though, and I'd expect them to do a game in a European or Japanese city before it comes here.

Hell, I can't even recall any references to the South in the game.

I do think that the Boston area shows a lot of potential. Lots of collapsed bridges, lots of radioactive water, a good size city that shows a nice level of revitalization/rebuild. And I'm sure, since it was a metropolis pre-war, there are lots of interesting things to discover in the Wasteland.

Happy with Boston? Yes, don't see why not. Just happy that we're finally getting a new FO game and wouldn't have really cared where the game was based in all honesty.

Boston is perfect, hopefully we go to New York City in an Expansion pack.

I want detroit and a vast wilderness for dlcs.

I'm happy with Boston. I think it's a great place for Bethesda to continue their story of Fallout. I am however wondering if Salem will be in the game. http://i.imgur.com/5jOe4ZS.png

Seeing how Bethesda likes to put tidbits of the supernatural into their games. I'm wondering if there will be any reference to the Salem witches/witch trials.

I'm fine with it.

Yeah, San Francisco totally looks like Miami and Los Angeles bears a striking resemblance to New York. That's worse than saying London and Paris look the same.

Detroit in Fallout? Wouldn't work. The locations in Fallout are the post-apocalyptic remnants of once great cities.

Not slightly better versions of the real city.

Am I happy with Boston?

Well, to be honest, digging deep inside, they could set it in my families home-town of Donaphan, Missouri (There's nothing there), and I'd be pleased as punch. Just gimme that Wasteland, baby.

Not in Fallout, no lol.

What made you think that i would think that cities after the war would be improved?

There is no mentioning in the lore of what happened to detroit. It was already known to be in the first have of 20th centuary as vital part of americas industustry.

What remains there would be valuable.

Do I have to explain the joke?

I'm saying if you dropped a nuclear bomb on present day Detroit it would likely be an improvement.

i think he is being sarcastic

detroit had a reputation for cars 50 years ago- now its known for being a huge pile of crap

well im taking about the fallout universe detroit. Which hasnt even been mentioned. Not the real world one.

I get the joke. I get that reference. I lol'd.

and my post clones itself

hey as long as we are in MURICA and we can smell the (post-apoc) democracy and freedom, it doesnt matter.

Oh and please bethesda, don't touch California and/or Mojave, where the lore was established by the original creators of the franchise.

Philadelphia has a bunch of big factories and industrial facilities from the early twentieth century that are still there, apparently because they are too heavily built to demo. I imagine this stuff would survive pretty well in a nuclear war and would make a pretty nice setting.

http://streetsdept.com/2013/07/29/inside-philadelphias-rusting-halls-of-power-with-noah-levey/

...but Boston is fine.

I would of preferred New York and the tristate area is it would be nice to see what New York City looks like.

pennsylvania was already in an expansion! no more please lol

The way I see it, we're bound to have what I call the Fallount Sightseeing Tour issue. We get one thing, people positioning for another, basically based on them wanting to see it blown to hell.

@mc858 Hey, I like post apocalyptic locations that are well built.