alternate history with the Fallout IP having as many entries as Ultima IP

[TheHouseAlwaysWins]

Alright, let's imagine that Fallout was conceived in the 80's as itself and went on to make a new installment every 2 to 3 years with similar quality to Fallout 2, it would be possible considering this was before the effects of our economic system forever made the IP what it is today.

So how would you imagine a post apocalyptic IP with so many installments? Everybody is rebuilding so at a point the series wouldn't be really post apocalyptic anymore. It would really just be.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Funny that you bring up this topic as I have been thinking about Van Buren a lot lately.

Well I would like to imagine that Van Buren and Black Isle's Fallout 4 came out as planned (Fallout 4 being in Texas with focus on the Caesar's Legion).
After that I think Fallout games should have explored other parts of the former United States in earlier time periods and build those up like the South-West was built up in Fallout 1, 2, 3 and 4, like for example the East Coast with its own unique factions/locations/species/etc.
All of these would be turn based isometric games.

I would not mind to see spin off games similar to Fallout New Vegas just like Ultimate had the Underworld series, the spin offs taking place perhaps between the main games or at the same time as main games, but focusing on other parts of the Fallout setting.

I have this mindset when it comes to the post-apocalypse/post-post-apocalypse time period of the Fallout universe (the black isle one because the Bethesda one is always crapsack/no rebuilding because they believe the world should forever be in that state). It should last about three or four centuries.
After that the Fallout universe has become to much "rebuild"/recovered.
So place Fallout games within this period but not before (it would have to be called something different) or after.

 

[R.Graves]

with similar quality to Fallout 2, it

Ew.
Fallout 2 was a downgrade in almost every way apart from convenience and scale.

 

[NMLevesque]

Alright, let's imagine that Fallout was conceived in the 80's as itself and went on to make a new installment every 2 to 3 years with similar quality to Fallout 2, it would be possible considering this was before the effects of our economic system forever made the IP what it is today.

So how would you imagine a post apocalyptic IP with so many installments? Everybody is rebuilding so at a point the series wouldn't be really post apocalyptic anymore. It would really just be.

Uh...so why isn't Tactics or FoBoS made in this scenario?


As for how the 'Fallout Universe' should work: a game for every hundred year period after the great war, for every major region of America (obviously Oklahoma isn't getting its own title, so I can't say 'for every state'), until the setting becomes untenable. By then it would make perfect sense to reboot it, just to do everything all over again, let alone try to outdo the original timeline with new tech and design standards...

But I think major disasters, natural and artificial, should also occur regularly along with devastating wars (civil, interstate, insurgency, rebellion/revolution), that altogether cause progress to stall out for longer than just a few hundred years (two steps forward, one step back). Asteroids impacts, earthquakes, famines, floods, hurricanes, pandemics, reactivated superweapons, wildfires and maybe something to do with climate change or some radical disruption of the biosphere could all contribute. History has its periods of progress and peace, as well as the those of regression and conflict. This is exactly the kind of thing that I think Fallout is especially well suited to explore.

Ew.
Fallout 2 was a downgrade in almost every way apart from convenience and scale.

Wow, I actually agree with you for once. Is the sky still blue? Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[ArmagdoGaming]

I think that if that was the case, they would not be able to make games with the same quality as Fallout 2. Games would start to degrade in quality as time goes on. Either from getting bored with working with the same franchise over, and over, and over again (Yes, I know they would work on other franchises, but still, they would get bored at some point.), they would run out of ideas on how to keep the series interesting, or that they would get lazy. One franchise that comes to mind is the Assassin's Creed franchise. I think Fallout would go that route if it did release every 2 years or so. Start strong, mess up in the middle, people lose interest, rehash the series later on.
But, that's just my opinion.

 

[MasterworkStone]

I think that if that was the case, they would not be able to make games with the same quality as Fallout 2. Games would start to degrade in quality as time goes on. Either from getting bored with working with the same franchise over, and over, and over again (Yes, I know they would work on other franchises, but still, they would get bored at some point.), they would run out of ideas on how to keep the series interesting, or that they would get lazy. One franchise that comes to mind is the Assassin's Creed franchise. I think Fallout would go that route if it did release every 2 years or so. Start strong, mess up in the middle, people lose interest, rehash the series later on.
But, that's just my opinion.

I think it'd be pretty good if the more the series went on, the more common it would be to resolve quests through dialogue.

I think the Brother of Steel is a hotbed for some interesting conflicts, maybe break away from tradition a little and befriend the general wasteland so when they show up it's not necessarily a bad thing, but still keep some core values like keeping technology in check so the world doesn't get blown up again.
There could a splinter faction that thinks the new way of doing things is stupid and wants to follow tradition into the grave, like Mojave branch was doing, dying and in desperate need of change.