It just seems (to appear) that you haven't played the series much. Fallout was never an RTS ~first off. A lot of people comment that the 'old' games were different from Fallout 3 ~like that was the game's fault, and that they had it wrong (just look at FO3 ); when it's clearly the other way around. When people prefer Fallout 3 to Fallout, it is because they prefer Fallout 3 to Fallout (and FO2)... It's preferring one experience to another... this is not ever the problem. But then come 'Well what is Fallout?' ~Fallout is Fallout [1&2], Fallout 3 is it's own unrelated critter... Not at all unlike Transformers the movie ~~and that Michael Bay movie of the same name.
In both cases it's very possible to like the latter installment best; but it's absolutely the case that one likes them for different reasons. The reasons you have mentioned as cons in New Vegas are the pros of another fanbase; the ones that were fans of the Fallout series before Bethesda put a leash on it. There is nothing wrong with liking one, or the other ~or both at once, but~~ Until Bethesda makes three games in the series, their concept of it is the minority ~regardless of its fan majority... because you cannot change history, or what something was. What Fallout was designed as; envisioned as, and implemented as, is not something most TES fans seem to enjoy, but it's not wrong for that; it was not created to entertain them, it was created to entertain the developers, and http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/yep_zps1417cd1d.jpg, and anyone who wanted a classic PNP Emulation RPG with a unique setting and a harsh double edged rule set.
Bethesda breaks with the Fallout series on almost every turn... even something so small as their NPCs never running out of ammo... Fallout has always equally applied the combat rules to NPCs; NPCs could empty their guns in combat; that doesn't happen in Fallout 3; and I suspect it's because they don't want the NPCs to all have empty guns when the player encounters them... but their fix is hamfisted IMO. They've destroyed a key attribute without even knowing it (or perhaps just not caring). It's not just the bullets either, it's many , many things, and the players that 'Love Fallout', but don't know that FO3 is the younger sibling (by a different mother), and/or don't care about the other two... They don't love the Fallout Family, they love Fallout 3, and they don't understand the dislike (even resentment) they see for the [admittedly] awesome game that they love.
[But they poke those guys with a stick, when they ask for changes that would shift the series even closer to TES (and farther from Fallout) than it unfortunately already is.]
Why shouldn't it be easy to escape by car? Seriously... The series has always presented the player with fight's they can't win, and need to run from (sometimes)... Well... at least prior to Fallout 3. Also I happen to think that exploiting a car, (using it to run over an enemy) to be VERY FITTING of the Fallout attitude; even though it wasn't possible in the games; and you only ever ran over one guy, and it was scripted.
Running over an attacker doesn't always have tohttp://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/bad_idea.jpg.
I don't see any problems besides wonky collision in tightly enclosed areas... and they can make it impossible to enter a town with a car, and they can make scooters and http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Wood-Motorcycle.jpg that won't suffer as much as a car in cramped spaces.
The pros are that they could make the car a trunk for heavy stuff. They could spread out the later areas of the game, and cars would be a money sink to fuel and maintain. The player could seek out car parts ~~Just like FO2. First to fix it up, and then to improve it.
The chief problem I suspect, is one that I could never wrap my head around: That a player would complain that they couldn't play the game without getting the car; It's the same thing (at the root) as lamenting that you can't explore without returning to a hub area first. None of that makes any sense to me. If they wanted to play without the car, then they want to walk; but if the distance requires a car, they get upset that it's too far to walk, and they want an easy option that negates the need for a car ~making the car pointless... But that just means that nobody's PC can be the type to fix and use a car.
It's never made sense to me.