Doesn't matter, an attempt was made and that is my point.

Hey I liked the 90 too, but last I checked this is 2015, get with the times ;p

Oh I'm moving forward full steam ahead. It's not 2008 or 2006 or 2011 anymore either.

Nukes fired

Oh right, forgot about that one. Randomly selecting a cave from which to retrieve a a pointless item or kill enemy you've killed five hundred already doesn't seem too big of a breakthrough, though.

*claims to move full steam ahead, tries constantly to push Fallout towards being like the old 90s games*

If ya say so ;3

And I will. There's a distinction between making the game a 90's game and making the game respect and adhere to its roots even if those are from the 90's.

I won't disregard any technical advances that has been brought to the table since then; and the design ideals aren't obsolete themselves (though heavily underused).

Which I think Beth and obsidian both done a excellent job, especially by finding a good hybrid balance with the fps/RPG elements.

This is where I disagree. The "hybrid" design here over elevates the FPS over the RPG (it provides both a lousy shooter despite the elevation, and a mediocre RPG), and even New Vegas only got the narrative side "right". It is still far from a "balanced hybrid". The character system in Fallout 3 is practically irrelevant, in New Vegas it does it half better but dares not go further.

Again, doesn't matter what the final result is, an attempt was made, contrary to your statement that none was made. That is all.

At least they aren't actively trying to make it imbalanced towards one side *cough* RPG side *cough*

But they should. The "perfect middle ground" is a fail because it does neither side particularly well, and the game is supposed to be an RPG. And I would argue that they have indeed been leaning more towards the FPS side (during Fallout 3 developement they said that you can approach the game as a pure FPS, and you can, and also said that they toned down the skill effects because their playtesters didn't like them, which is potently visible from how the game plays out).

Let Bethesda do the world building and let Obsidian do the rest.

There is a thing called 'innovation'.

Fallout isn't going to return to the 90's.

Turn based combat was cool back then but now it's outdated, old and boring.

This is how it will be.

Can't tell if troll.

Obvious proof that this is wrong lies in the fact that the main questline in Fallout 3 is linear, black-and-white while Fallout New Vegas has more than four different main outcomes. This is something that cannot be conveniently ignored. I also invite you to give me significant circumstances where New Vegas is linear and doesn't offer choices. On the case of Fallout 3 -- Tenpenny Tower? That was one of the bright points because of the reason you stated, but it is only a minor quest and very insignificant in the outcome of the game. The Pitt is a DLC; while it was stellar, it has little to do with the fact that Fallout 3 is very one-dimensional as a game by itself.

Fallout 4 needs to adopt the successes of Fallout: New Vegas if it's going to be worth replaying for a long time. 84 on metacritic or not.

What's so innovating doing the same game over and over? What do you mean by innovation here? FPS is not innovation; hasn't been in... what, 20 years...

I'm not asking Fallout to return to the 90's (I know it won't and never will) -- I know I will never get a proper sequel to the series again, that ship has sailed, but what I am asking for is something that tries to provide at least a passable compromise on all areas.

Turnbased combat is still cool, and it's definitely not outdated. Your mileage may vary, but that's your business. On top of that, I'm not even asking for it -- or I am with a reformed VATS, but not at the expense of the FPS side.

What is "how it will be"?

This version of the game.

If i follow you're logic (correct me if i didn't understand it) nothing ever has to change and everything needs to be done like in the originals or else.....

I don't understand how is turnbased cool and new these days ?

Maybe in stratigic games like the Total War franchise,but not in combat games.

Oh yes and one more thing to anwser youre 'what do you mean by innovation' question.

Improved physics,3D world,dynamic combat, new world to explore, New graphics and face animations etc ....

We will find out if Bethesda will go outside of their comfort zone when Fallout 4 comes out. I hope they do.

If not... we there is still the hope that Obsidian might get to make another Fallout after Fallout 4

If I remember correctly, when you take the baby in The Pitt the game pops a message in your face telling you that now, you are a baby kidnapper =/

I want grey choices, but without a stupid game scolding me for every damn choice I make.

Yeah...Even the most morally ambiguous chapter of Fallout 3 is giving subliminal hints to follow the "good guy" path. Heck, they're not even subtle enough to be subliminal.

Leave it open-ended and up to choice. I agree.

- This version? The current version is what know nothing of but what the trailer shows. If we did know, these debates and wishing for this or that wouldn't exist.

- You're not following my logic. Change is good. I'm asking for it (but many people here seem to oppose change ). I admitted that things won't return to how the original games work, but the change I am asking is to bring the core design ideals closer as much as can be with how things work now; and even if the game was to go back to turnbased and isometric, I wouldn't want a copypaste job of the originals (nobody does).

- I didn't say it's new. It is not new -- even if basically it is doing something of a comeback with certain other games. But neither is FPS, that genre has been staying the same for a good amount of years.

- You haven't played much of TB games have you?

I already said I don't opposed technical innovation (like 3D world, physics, etc). I'd be stupid if I did. My contempt and desires are purely on the design side of things.

In the originals you would get a trait for doing worse. In Fallout Tactics there is a man who asks you to kill him and when you do you are called a murderer

Anyways, I wouldn't want the game having people run up to me and give me stuff just because I am a good guy. It works both ways really. Hopefully Fallout 4 will have the reputation system because going off pure karma is annoying. I want my actions to have consequences and not forgotten in a couple of days.

That is what they are supposed to be, or they are not ~what they are supposed to be. Nothing wrong with that either ~except then it needs a name change.

Sure making fallout 4 like nv is good idea for the most part. I like its quests options. And it actually learned from what mods were popular in fallout 3 and implemented them in nv. (Faction armor, weapon mods for example). Oh and New vegas companions were actually interesting.

What I hated about NV:

Bland player character. Seriously, I couldn't care less about finding Benny. Being shot in the head is a pretty good reason for avoiding that person in the future. At least in fallout 3 they attempted to give you multiple hooks into the story. Your father, and Amata. You could argue about how effective those hooks were, but at least they tried.

bland locations. - Very few things to stumble over. Mainly in new vegas all you find is desert and more desert. I loved going into landmarks in fallout 3. Or abandoned buildings. It always felt like you could stumble over a new interesting location.