I don't expect to see as good reviews as FO3 got. It doesn't mean that FONV is not as good (or better) as FO3, but every year standards gets higher.
E.g. because graphic will be pretty much the same - it will draw some negative comments like: "Graphic seems a little outdated" etc.etc... FO3 was a superior game 2008 - but in two years critics expect to see some technical evolution. So they can't give so praising reviews.
I'm not sure how people can expect huge leaps in the graphics department, to be honest. Console hardware doesn't change or get (significantly) more powerful between console releases. There's only so much optimization that can be done to squeeze more eye candy out of an engine before you need better hardware. If the expectation of reviewers truly is to see significantly improved graphics out of the same hardware with every new game release, then those reviewers have really unrealistic (bordering on foolish) expectations of the technology. You're not going to get a hugely different-looking game without switching to a new engine, and it would be ridiculous to expect that from a follow-up game with a <2-year development cycle. That's like buying a Toyota Camry and then giving it a bad review because it's not a Ferrari. It doesn't make any sense.
I also attribute the "samey" nature of a lot of games to pressure on developers to produce better visuals...at least a little bit. Engine tech is expensive and can be time-consuming for developers to work with (making it more expensive). The expectation to up the ante in the graphics department with every game is going to make the game more expensive and take longer to produce. Once a developer and/or publisher dump that much time and money into graphics what's left for good content and innovative gameplay? Will the publisher even be interested in innovative gameplay at that point, or will they feel better about their investment in the graphics tech if the developer uses a safer, proven formula? IMO our obsession with better and better graphics has perhaps gone a little too far to the point that it might be hurting the quality of other aspects of games.
Spot on CCNA
I would love to see a "cyber punk" Shadowrun (I loved the SNES version) game put on this engine as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadowrun_(SNES)
If you thought the SNES game was good then you should look into the PnP RPG that it was based on...the SNES game was just the tiniest of tastes of what's there. I'm really surprised that nobody has tapped into that vast reservoir of coolness to make a really good RPG or MMO yet. Again, though, I'm not sure I think Bethesda is the right fit to make a Shadowrun RPG, but I suppose I'd be happy if anyone was able to pull it off well.
Vice City, San Andreas, and GTA4, etc might have all been on the same engine, but the graphics were updated between the games and the graphics were pretty damned decent to begin with and there were no big technical problems with the engine, which there are for Bethesda's version of Gamebyro for certain definitions of 'big'.
I agree with most of your post except this part. GTA III looked nice at the time it was released, but Vice City and San Andreas didn't get graphical enhancements much beyond what's been done between FO3 and F:NV. By the time San Andreas came out the engine was looking pretty darn old and tired. I remember being pretty underwhelmed by San Andreas at first because it was so exactly like Vice City outside of some minor gameplay tweaks. I appreciated the new content, for sure, but from my perspective there was little to no change in the game engine or graphical fidelity.