Ok, so I've been thinking about this for a while and I think that the biggest mistake of New Vegas was that it lacked the 'it' factor that lures both old and new gamers into the amazing. The gameplay is great, and it really has alot of moments for the old gamers, the ones that played and loved fallout 1 and 2, but lacked much for the poor wanderer drifting from game to game trying to find an amazing one like fallout. The series has, at least to me, begun to stagnate simply because they have gone back to the west and focused too much on pleasing the old gamers and have made the game very much a Cliquish thing that makes newbies scared to buy it. Most of the funnier jokes and referances are to things in past fallout games, and I know personally that if I hadn't played 1, 2, and 3 I wouldn't have enjoyed it nearly so much.

Fallout 3 moved the series forward. It's the first fallout game I played and really got me into the series, and my question is whether or not fallout NV has the same effect. A series cannot survive without moving forward in some way and getting new players in. The big draw of NV was that it returned to its roots and was made specifically for the oldies.

I'm only now beginning to question if this was the right choice and think that the rest of the games need to steer clear of the NCR and go somewhere never gone before. I love the game, but don't think that it's the right decision

I could see how some of the new players would be a bit turned off by all these new factions that has such a large backstory being thrown in their face. They wouldn't understand how these people got so powerful or why they do what they do etc....

But honestly, I love it. I played Fallout 3 before I played 1 and 2, but I did play the original ones. Once. I hated the gameplay, but the story was compelling enough to have me play through the main quest one time. It wasn't that big of a commitment, and now I know plenty about the NCR or the Followers or the Khans that New Vegas is just a blast.

I wouldn't go that far. The core gameplay is still the exact same from Fallout 3 (albeit with few tweaks, but their effect appears fairly minor when looking at the big picture) - the only thing more aimed towards the old fans was the bigger emphasis on writing, which practically keeps the game alive for me. I'd say the biggest mistake is lingering with core gameplaydesign and not altering it enough.

Ive never played FO1 and 2 and love new vegas more than FO3. Geez the references to past games are nothing a trip to a wiki to get backstory wont clear up. Ive never felt completely lost as to what was going on in NV at any point. I mean, they pretty much lay it out for you in the dialogue options.

I mean if the argument is "how did the NCR get so powerful etc etc". You could claim the same of FO3. How did the enclave get so powerful, where exactly did they come from, or the BOS for that matter. FO3, wasnt rewriting Fallout, its still drew on the established storyline, and the BOS and Enclave were still from "out west" does it matter if the storyline moved location wise "closer" to the original games?

This argument would make more sense if because the DC wasteland was so far removed from the previous games as far as distance, it established an "original" wasteland free of factions/region specific lore from previous games thus making the west and its established storyline completely foreign and confusing in NV, but it wasnt.

In a way I agree, the series needs to keep moving. Have something new added that makes people want to come back instead of just thinking 'oh, another fallout game' Fallout 4 needs to ditch Gamebryo