Agreed. Up to a certain point at least -- I do have my preference in ISO or topdown.

I would add that the important bits are, among what you pointed out, the systems design and how it translates to the gameplay. This is where I found New Vegas to be lacking (in the minute to minute core gameplay) -- the impact from progressing the character outside those dialog options (some of which I do think should've been % based checks).

thx for doing the research for me mate

for the iso mode, yes, that was utterly useless. only tried it once, in one of these barren border hill regions to fo3's map's west, view got locked to the same ground texture all over the screen, so orientation was totally down the hill, and then i got shot by machine gun fire, and i'll never know who did it because i couldn't f***ing see there )

When you say that, are you stating that as a opinion, or as a fact?

As established ~as per the design of the series' gameplay. Fallout was carefully intended as a top down/turn based GURPS RPG ~that is a niche audience if there ever was one. The series gameplay also stressed think 'before you act', and 'live with the results'. In the Fallout series, the PC was capable of burning their bridges... In FO3 they cannot, those bridges respawn ~as it were...

• In FO3 the PC can shoot the gate guard at the Citadel, and return asking admittance ~and get it.
  What person sees the one who shot them, and behaves like it never happened?
  What person would stand by and allow that monster to join their organization unopposed?
  
  
• The mechanics and perspective of the Fallout series appeal to a smaller audience by their very nature. And I find it sick that the larger mass audience tends to justify destroying/converting established series that fill their niche... into unsuitable titles that no longer address the niche they were designed and intended for ~but becoming more palatable to them.
  
  Fallout was a top-down turn based tactical strategy series with deep RPG aspects... and due to mainstream intolerance of the series' intended niche the new studio discarded all but the base trappings from the IP, and decorated a wholly different game with them. One that does not address any part of the established series' game design.

This is why the gameplay of the Fallout series should never have been allowed to be replaced with a kind that could sell to that many in the mainstream.
(It's because it destroyed the game... It's not got descendants, it's got conquerors that adopted its name.)

Something has to be very ~very wrong when a sequel loses its die-hard core audience.

I agree; and what a waste of millions it was... They didn't need it to sell FO3 under another name. The people that had even heard the name "Fallout" even once in their life, number a marginal percentage of their sales ~at best.

Fallout 1 and 2 had soul! Fallout 3 pale compared to them. Fallout 4 , hm... we shell see.... so far nothing good to expect .... i just hope InExile and Brian Fargo get licence to make TRUE Fallout.

Gizmo , AMEN brother! lone voice of the truth

So you're still stating that as a fact, okay. At least you aren't using the term "Universal truth" anymore.

You're just going to have to learn to move on some day, realize that Fallout isn't for you anymore. You'll feel a lot better too, since the way you describe Fallout having changed over time is the same way you describe someone as having personally killed your dog. I can't imagine feeling that upset over a game.

It's implied ~of course... I didn't think it needed saying.

Is there any here (anyone at all), who could disagree that those screenshots look more like a Fallout game than FO3?
( Or in the very least ~ more like the majority of Fallout games. )

RPG aspect aside, if FO3 had been even that (as depicted), and played even like Wasteland 2, then that would have been a passable Bethesda Fallout game. ~IMO

*In fact... If FO3 as it shipped, had offered that [shown] ISO/3D view with a point & click [even Witcher 1 style] UI, and Tactics awful RT mode... that would have been mostly passable.

Do you see anything wrong with claiming your opinions as fact, much less "universal truth"?

I don't see them as my opinion; I looked at the established series. (You can too.)
I also looked at what the series architects were making next: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYmQyHl2bc
They devised this stuff, and they know best what they intended.

(I have all the TES games, and I'm fine with them... if I hated Fallout 1 & 2 to the core, I could still see the problem with their sequels being re-skinned TES instead of proper Fallout; I might have even liked them far better for it ~but that wouldn't make it right. )

**That's actually my situation with Wasteland 2... Terrible sequel; terribly awesome Fallout clone. (And they know it, and planned it so.)
I can (and do) say the same of FO3&4... Terrible Fallout sequels; terribly awesome TES clones. (And they know it, and planned it so.)

*I get the strong impression that many people seem to assume that a person has to side with what they approve of, rather than what they perceive as appropriate ~even if they don't approve of it.

That is the cause of why people have a lot of conflict with you. You say that games changing over time is wrong, but say that's not your opinion, but that is actual fact, that it is a universal truth that change is bad.

If you said that you don't like where Fallout has gone personally then you wouldn't have so much hate. That is a stating a opinion, saying it is a universal truth that nothing should change is passing off a opinion as fact.

I wouldn't mind Fallout 4 as an isometric game but I vastly prefer it as first/third person game that it will be. Mainly because I like being able to see things close up and also like being able to see into the distance. Once thing I always disliked about most isometric games is that I can't see enemies until they're usually within attacking distance which makes avoiding the combat more difficult than it would be otherwise if I could see them while ahead of running into them.

I would say that there is nothing wrong with new games... but if one has to change it that much, then it's time to change the name to something that's not next in the established series. Notice that Fallout Tactics was not Fallout 3; notice that FOBOS was not Fallout 3. Why is that do you think? Why is World of Warcraft not Warcraft 4. Why is Spacemarine not Dawn of War 3?

*Each of these IP games were made by the original owners, and they could have exploited the established series name to snare the fanbase, but they are of radically different gameplay; they are unrelated games ~aside from the shared setting. Is that not a universal truth?

Fallout 1 & 2 didn't have that problem.

@jaramr: One of the precepts of the Fallout series was to show that turn based mechanics can be fun ~that's why they did it. They were pressured [internally from Interplay's marketing] to make it real time ~to compete with Diablo. Imagine a series designed with that in mind ~turned into a realtime FPP franken-shooter.
That's where my upset comes from.

Then saying "it should be called something else" would also be a lot less aggressive than "It is wrong and needs to be changed back".

Its like saying that small dogs aren't real dogs, because the original dogs bred from wolves millennia ago weren't that size or temperament. You could say "I don't like small dogs because they are very unlike the big dogs that I have had over the years", but when you say "Small Dogs should never exist because the architects of dog breeding never intended for them to change that much. It is very ~very wrong and it is a universal truth that dogs should remain the same" it comes across as not just stating a opinion as fact, but as very aggressive and confrontational. The first statement comes across as personal opinion, the second statement makes it sound like the fabric of reality is going to come down on us mortal men for daring to break the truth that dogs should never be small. And they're just dogs, its true that they are some of the best things in the world, but people enjoying canine companionship a different way does not and should not cause so much distress.

No, it's realizing that the Ocelot you've been shown (with the collar that says 'Fido' on it), is not a dog; even if the owner says it is.

Which reminds me of this: http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Gizmojunk028/possum_poster_zps4jk4apan.jpg
I wonder how many people assume these are cats when they see them? (Probably not cat-people, I'd expect.)

Do you understand what I am saying? That if you say your opinions as undeniable fact and universal truth, you just come across as very aggressive, confrontational, and generally not someone that people enjoy being around?

You wouldn't have people spending all day arguing the same points with you for the past 7 years if you stated your opinions as opinions.

Fair enough, been awhile since I busted out Fallout 1 or 2. I do remember the camera for Fallout 1 and 2 being pretty high though.

I do state my opinions as opinions.

There was some lee-way, the camera was not pinned to the PC (thankfully); but I meant that any time combat ensued, you knew it, and the game then awaited your orders.

Then im afraid the discussion stops here. I don't want to cause even more conflict and just go in circles like so many of us have done for the past years. It just gets old and stale.

If i had such choice, i would have got this isometric version instead of what we actually will get as fallout 4.

Maybe one day, fallout will be turnbased again, with quality non repeating quests and vibrant and fun world, as it once was.

yes, here.

actually, these screens don't look like fallout _at_all_. what tells us it's fallout is what's shown, but not how it looks, that's just totally not fallout. too saturated, most of all

you ever happened to see the screens from this abandoned fallout online game from that bulgarian studio (forgot the name, sry)? that's more what these screens look like.

in contrary, i think fo3 caught the feeling pretty well, letting aside the 2d/3d thing. it just LOOKED like fallout. if you had played the 1st two parts, known nothing of fo3's existence and then be shown a screen or 2 of it, you'd say hey, isn't that fallout?

and being at disagreeing , i also disagree with your whole mainstream thing.

1) fallout isn't mainstream.

shooters are mainstream. the classic shooter player frowns at fo because it's an rpg and has no realistic whatever gun nut bs

. and the classic rpg player also frowns on fo, because it has guns and not swords and no magic whatsoever except if you take rads for mana.

and the classic flappy birds player (ok THAT's mainstream ) frowns at fo anyway, because it's an rpg, has guns, takes more than 1 finger to operate and, most of all, is fallout

fallout is and will be a niche product. it might be a millions players niche, but it still is a niche.

2) you're taking the term "mainstream" like in music business, where a quasi-monopolized industry took about any musical underground movement, cut all edges off it and cleaned it of everything interesting and then produced soulless clones of it to feed their format radio minions so they'd have stg to fill the breaks between the commercials with.

neither did computer game industry, in past times anyway, let's see about the future, have structures like this, nor would that work on a grand scale, which you can see by the awful flops 99% of me-too-games or, like, license ridden games-to-the-movie are.

and least of all does it apply to bethesda, counting in id, they WERE, in similarity to music business, that "underground movement", they MADE the stream, and if it gets main, it's THE OTHERS running with it that make it that. w-a-s-d? fps? sandbox rpg? hell, before doom, an "action game" was basically a jump and run with a gun. before morrowind, the top notch of rpg looked and played like lands of lore, anybody remember THAT? you just can't compare that to dunno some bloody bubble gum r'n'b producer.

oh, i don't care. i regardlessly pull undisputable truths into doubt just as well as opinions, no big dif actually ,-)

Diablo 3, Dota 2, League of Legends...

Isometric games don't have to be relegated to a paucity of sales, Diablo 3 has sales in the tens-of-millions and Dota 2/LOL are played more than just about any other game in the world.

http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Gizmojunk001/screen_zpsdby8cnoq.jpg

1. Oh we can agree on that... that is if you mean what you typed; and mean Fallout, and not FO3.
   
2. You don't give them [Bethesda] enough credit.
   
3. I'll reserve judgment on Doom4... I'll watch the trailes to see if it's better a DOOM sequel than Doom 2.

yes, still the same effect on me: it's what's ON them that says fallout. sure you primarily see what's in common in a comparison like this, but if we could have, in both styles, just plain landscape etc with no menu, muties or anything writing "fallout" on it, it'd leave us with a too colorful, too bright, too friendly style. just like that bulgarian fallout online, as i already said (and don't get me wrong, i don't think either of these look bad. they just don't look like my idea of fallout. which is about "depressing as hell? i still say: ha!". as opposed to "sun is shining, the fallout is sweet"

i'm not that much into doom actually, nor any fps at all, just not my kind.

but that said, i think the little e3 chainsaw massacre looked awesome. if you're into chainsawed skulls. which i'm not. which, on the other hand, won't keep me from paying doom (the whole series as one fictitious entity) the acknowledgement it deserves (for being THE fps alone, if nothing else)

When done correctly, yes.