For years after FO:NV was released there was discussions based on the next Fallout's location. Then there was the rumor that the next iteration was going to be based in Boston, which as it turns out was true. Yes I'm aware we've all had this discussion before but now that 4 is here, and that it's now official does anyone agree with the setting Bethesda used? Perhaps you felt it should be somewhere else other than the United States? Well now here's the official topic thread to discuss it. So I'll start first. Fallout 1 & 2 locations were both in California. The first game of course was located in southern California and the second game being mostly located in northern California. The limitations of the game engine showed us there was very little to distinguish the differences despite the polar opposites of the states diverse geography. (The north being cold with snow, the south being quite literally what it is a desert) Fallout 3 of course is centralized in the D.C. area which covers a lot of ground (Baltimore, District of Columbia and Pennsylvania). But, what exactly makes the Boston area much different than D.C.'s to justify a sequel so closely located to the 3rd's adaption? It's the same climate, both regions are on the north eastern coast. I'd expect Bostonian accents, that's bit of a expectation though. I for one like the concept of the never made Fallout Tactics 2 where the game would take place in Florida. From what the designers explained, it would take place in Florida and that we'd see is the effects of radiation as well the FEV virus on the local fauna and flora. Besides, who doesn't fear the potential of a mutated alligator?