Maybe it's really just me, but whether Fallout is an isometric turn-based game or a first-or-third person view game just became the least of the series problems. Most of scepticism seems to be aimed at how clunky Gamebryo shooting mechanics were. How much RPG mechanics influence the whole gameplay is a whole 'nother line of worry entirely. New Vegas proved that a good Fallout game can be fit into such a perspective (if only they had more time to perfect it), and Fallout 4 proved that it's possible to build good shooting mechanics out of the engine. It seems like it's barely an issue at this point which type of perspective Fallout should use - an argument I feel could be shelved in lieu of more important issues. The writing, and lack of RPG in it, the lack of choice and consequence, and the addition of filler "fluff" that doesn't serve anything seems to be the most significant ones. So what do we think about this? Once we get, on Fallout 4's engine, a New Vegas like game by Obsidian (preferably with as much development time as Fallout 4 had, minus the time it took to integrate the Creation Engine), maybe then and only then we can reheat this debate up again. And yes - there is a debate. I don't feel like it's a "there and then" argument that Fallout should be just as Fallout always was, but the main problems I mentioned above seems to be the common worries of Fallout fans all throughout. The discussions here, I feel, should start moving off this already. Any opinions?