We can expect them to create the storyline without worrying about what happened on fallout 1,2 and 3 right?


Do you think that will be a good or bad thing? considering certain games like FO:BoS that everyone keeps saying it's [censored].


I think the story will be pretty crazy (good or bad I'll only know when I buy the game), since they'll be more careless about the older fallouts than FO3 was.... right?

The debut trailer ended with a big NCR flag, so...no?

I am not that up to speed on the Fallout storyline, I am in the middle of reading info from the Vault Wiki and I am some what confused. So is Fallout 3 a direct third part to the series or just titled Fallout 3 because well it is the third Fallout? If so why is New Vegas not Fallout 4? I know there are some other games related to Fallout like teh tactics game but I thought Fallout 3 is sort of a reboot in that it happens in a different area a than the last games. The only thin linking the different series together seems to be the Brotherhood and the Enclave. So then Fallout New Vegas could be Fallout 4 or is it a different story?

Fallout 3 is called such because it fallouts the same TIMELINE. Thats all. The others like Tactics and BOS dont, theyre just storys in random places in the storyline. Fallout 3 was an extension of the timeline from 1 and 2, as Fallout 2 was an extension of 1. Get it?

So Fallout:New Vegas, since its NOT Fallout 4, will probably be before the events of Fallout 3 at some point. Since the NCR very clearly has a flag and a trooper in the trailer, im assuming is after Fallout 2 but before 3. Probably while the Brotherhood was still on its way to the Capital Wasteland maybe?

I expect there to be references to certain things in the Fallout 3 storyline.

That doesnt make since, why would their be references to things in Fallout 3 if this is NOT Fallout 4? Maybe to things in Fallout 3 that were in 1 & 2, sure.

Otherwise, HIGHLY doubt it.

Phew, where to begin? FO 3 isn't a direct sequel, as you said, it's titled 3 just because it's third in line. It doesn't continues the story of the first two games per se, just the http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Metaplot (basically the overarching mythology) of the Falloutverse.
NV isn't called Fallout 4 because Bethesda doesn't intend it to be the forth game, or so I heard. Like Rockstar didn't consider San Andreas the fourth GTA game because it didn't feel different enough for them to warrant it.
Yes, FO 3 plays on the East Coast, while the first two happen on the West Coast and are mostly linked by the setting and metaplot. The only recurring character is Harold. I wouldn't call it a reboot, but your mileage may vary.

Ok that makes sense, and Fallout New Vegas cannot be Fallout 4 as it takes place before Fallout 3 and is developed by Obsidian? So its kinda like a stand alone title with a relation to the original games because of the setting and Developers? Could it be sequel to those Origianl games more than Fallout 3 was, also because of the setting and characters? Sorry for so many questions but I am reading up on the Story and Canon and trying to fit all the pieces together...

I'm not sure where everyone got the "takes place before FO 3" from (fan guess-work taken granted?). Like a stand alone title...well, time will tell.
Don't mention it.

Modifying while I type ain't fair!

Yes and could be, but personally I don't think so, respectively.

Edit - Oops. Wrong thread.

I heard somewhere that Bethesda still plans on making a Fallout 4. FO:NV is not the fourth. I bet it most likely does happen betwix 2 and 3. It also probably wont have much to do with Vaults. You will probably be some person part of another group and such, but wont come out of/have to fix a vault. This is one of those other intermediate games. I bet Bethesda will make Fallout 4 within a few years. Probably before 2013-2015 it will be release. Unless they decide not to make it of course.

I was just going to suggest that. :3

I think New Vegas may have some story content may have some references to Fallout 3. But I think if it does it'd just be there to give the dedicated Fallout Fans something to go "Ah ha, I remember when *Blank* said *Blank* to me when I saved him from that creature. that was so funny."

I wonder if any DLC for New Vegas might contain something tying the story back to the previous Fallouts. Or maybe it might explain somethings that lead up to the story/events in Fallout 3?

I think the GTA example was the best here... Vice City and San Andreas were not GTA 4/5 because at the heart they were not different enough to warrant "Sequel" status, they kinda fit in somewhere between an add-on Pack/Mod (which they are also not, as they stand alone on a technical level) and a sequel.

New Vegas is just like that... Its not different enough to earn "4" as its the same core engine and feel, but its big enough and seperate enough not to be an add-on pack/Mod.

I really, really hope new vegas takes place between the end of fallout 2, and the beginning of fallout 3. that way we could take place in the war between the BoS and hoover dam thats tarts at the end of fallout 2. And mostly, that way we'd have a chance at meeting harold again before he roots.

Why wouldn't it be? I'm pretty certain that it will be more of a sequel to Fallout 2 than Fallout 3 is, and the presence of NCR seems to confirm it. Given the involvement of the original developers, for many fans of the originals this will be THE Fallout 3 (or Fallout 4, since for me Fallout 3 is Van Buren), as opposed to Bethesda's games.

For one, I didn't check how far Vegas is from NCR up until a few minutes ago, I thought it's a much bigger distance.
Secondly, Van Buren was originally pretty much a blank slate, so NV could be one too.

Van Buren did continue the NCR storyline from Fallout 2, just like New Vegas will be, it seems. I hope that they'll just assume the Van Buren story to have happened before the events of NV, I'd love for it to be acknowledged as canon.

FO 3 continued the Enclave storyline...

Yes, but by being closer to FO1 and 2 geographically, they can continue more FO2 threads without it being seen as a stretch than in a game set across the whole continent.

I doubt Van Buren will be considered canon. The Enclave moving all of their forces to the Capital Wasteland contradicts Van Buren. I guess a war between the Brotherhood and NCR could have happened, but whether or not Jeremy Maxson (the guy mostly responsible for the war) even existed is up for debate. There's ways around this, but Van Buren as it was in the design documents being canon seems unlikely.

It doesn't really contradict it. From the perspective of the people living on the West Coast, the Enclave was seen as completely destroyed and they did not know that a large group of survivors moved to the East Coast. VB only featured some small groups of remnants that we could assume ignored Eden's order to regroup. And the mentions of the Enclave in Van Buren are minor enough to be ignored. I mean more along the main story and locations than every single detail.

I doubt Van Buren will have anything to do with New Vegas.

From the looks of things I'd say the older games, which in my opinion are superior to FO3 story, and gameplay wise, though not necessarily atmosphere wise, the FPS take was interesting that's for sure...

uhm where was I? Oh, look of things. I'd say they're going with their own story, taking bits and pieces of each game's world and deciding what will build the best story.

best approach I'd say.

They could have already incorporated Van Buren lore, into New Vegas? I mean they do take place in fairly the same area, so maybe a mention of this and that, from Van Buren will happen?

Also, I don't think there will be much FO3 reference, except maybe some reference to Lyon's group of BOS moving out East? IF it takes place before FO3.

And also, I figure Tactics, NV, and the others that do not end with a number, just like a sub-series. Like with TV shows and such. You have the main storyline, and events in the first series of shows, that began the series in the first place. Then someone comes along, and maybe expands on a certain character(s) life in another series with the same name, just different person/location. So think of it like that- NV is just a FO sub-series, and may mention some things from the main series to have it still be loyal somewhat to the main series, while still doing its own thing.

Well I'm all for it if Obsidian can get it to work.

Well, in case of Fallout 3 and New Vegas it's somewhat complicated because the devs of FO3 are new to the franchise and moved their installment across the continent, while New Vegas will be more of a continuation of the original series story-wise given its proximity to their setting and the involvement of the original devs. I think it would be less confusing in many ways if Beth just called FO3 "Fallout: Capital Wasteland" instead.



Why not? Given that it was made by the same people, I wouldn't be surprised if they referenced the places and characters from Van Buren, especially Hoover Dam, even if the story is completely different.