No new New Vegas thanks!

[Humanoid]

I feel that Bethesda did a servicable job of creating *a* post-apocalyptic world, with some trappings of it being the Fallout post-apocalyptic world. As its own setting, it did a lot of things right. I would hazard that one's perception of it then is just how much that Fallout veneer matters to the game. It just feels as if it was primarily designed by someone with some superficial knowledge of the setting, but which kind of misses the point thematically. Stuff like "Hey, Fallout 1 had this theme of purifying water right? Let's make that the central plot of our game!", amongst other reused elements like the GECK (now a magic genesis device), various factions (BoS, Enclave), of which the names are familiar, but the employment thereoff is just somehow off.

 

The most important thing it misses for me though is thematically. Specifically, the theme of rebuilding. Fallout 1 had you leave the vault and enter a greater world already in the process of rebuilding civilization. Fallout 2 and New Vegas portrayed worlds that have moved on significantly even more than that. I cheat a bit and look at the wiki and note that Fallout 3 begins some *116* years after Fallout 1 does, into a world much more devastated, bleak, and altogether hopeless; where people still scavenge for pre-war food and live in makeshift towns with no plan for the future. If anything, it feels like this should be set a generation or two *before* the events of the original, not very long after the bombs dropped. Sure it can be rationalised as a west coast vs east coast thing, but it still misses that theme: without the player character's (and Liam Neeson's) intervention, human civilization in Fallout 3 looks to be going absolutely nowhere. Discovering nothing, producing nothing, the basin was essentially doomed. Contrast the very first town you encounter in FO1: an active attempt to establish a new agricultural society that appears to be, security aside, fully self-sustaining.

[Nixl]

The only thing I enjoyed about Fo3 in the long term was the exploration.  Although, the environment was very brown/gray and it looked like the war happened just a few years ago instead of a century ago. 

 

The main story and characters really went downhill for me personally, especially once you entered that virtual reality world.  I also could not stand the Brotherhood of Steel.  I even found the Enclave-super computer preferable to the BOS and that in itself did not make perfect sense to me. 

 

I enjoyed the writing and characters of NV far more.  In particular, I enjoyed the debates between the choice of House, NCR, or Independent endings.  The ambiguity is what definitely elevated NV for me personally.  In Fo3, I just found blue good ending and red evil ending. 

 

edit:  Then again, I was one of the few people that enjoyed Dead Money and Lonely Hearts I think.  For Dead Money, I loved the atmosphere, characters (God/Dog), and the theme (obsession/letting go).

Edited March 19, 2013 by Nixl

[Jarmo]

The most important thing it misses for me though is thematically.... Fallout 3 begins some *116* years after Fallout 1 does, into a world much more devastated,...

 

 

That's one thing yeah. I have a feeling the one (group?) writing the storyline and setting planned it to happen simultaneously or before FO1, then someone thought it'd be real clever and nice to refer to all the things that happened in FO1 and FO2 as history, and reintroduce or mention some characters. Which creates a strange time setting stretched some few centuries.

 

Anyway. Then I kind of thought that if the date of the game is one of the biggest problems, and the date isn't even mentioned in the game itself, or can only be deduced from some random information combined with some info scraps from FO1 and FO2, is it really that big a deal? I mean, if they'd just announce the game was set 100 yrs after the war, it'd be a whole lot better? Decided to not stress about such things so much...

[licketysplit]

I'd love to experience the cast of New Vegas, but I can't get into the setting. I fervently hope Fallout 4 is not in the desert west, a setting I find utterly boring. Please let it be in the east, and please let it be free of Bugsidian's reach.

[Anselm]

New Vegas is my most favorite of the Fall Out games, except for maybe FO2.  I thought it was very well done.  I also think I was one of the lucky ones that never experienced any bugs.  My only complaint would be that the main story line was able to be completed too quickly, and that the Vegas Strip couldn't have been flashier and with more hotels and casinos.

[Messier-31]

IMHO the next Fallout game (if there even should be another) could take place back in good old California. Besides - I wonder how many years after the 2077 war this can be going? I mean, 2160s, 2190s, 2240s, 2270s, 2280s.... what's next? Cheers!

Edited April 13, 2013 by Messier-31