You know what? I like the way Fallout 3's shaping up.
I played Fallout when it came out. I played Fallout 2 when it came out. I've played them both dozens of times over in the decade since then. I have a tremendous appreciation for the setting, tone, and artistic design of the games.
I don't think Bethesda's screwing it up.
From the screenshots and the demo reels, the wasteland looks perfectly in keeping with the artistic sensibilities of the first two games. The vehicles, architecture, advertising... it's all there. The color pallet is darker, admittedly, but the technology is different. And I agree wholeheartedly that a first-person perspective is the most immersive of all available views. Fallout 1 and 2 were wonderful for their time, using the technology available, and were immersive then partly because they made the most of available technology. The setting, story, and design made the rest of it so memorable.
But I believe the environment is straight-up fallout. It expresses the tone and setting in the most immersive available way with today's technology.
As far as everyone bagging on the demos and screenshots being combat heavy, and not being able to reason with the supermutants: has it occured to any of you that these are just like random encounters in the first two games? Getting yanked off the world map to fight a bunch of non-communicative supermutants on a mostly blank map is a fact of life for fallout. These are keeping with that tradition: pointless, brief combat situations thrown at you simply because you're going between locations in a hostile environment.
We haven't seen much of the dialogue, and there is cause to worry there, but at least there is the inclusion of the dialogue tree and not just the lousy word-prompter from Oblivion. Fallout, for all its strengths, usually presented options only in good/bad/ugly trios itself, as has basically every other CRPG... Planescape: Torment possibly excepted. I worry that the writing team at Bethesda does not seem as sophisticated as the old Black Isle team. But there will be player choice, and there will be morality options, and that's encouraging for me.
I don't like the Fat Man. I'll agree with everyone there. Nuclear weapons were always LOL SERIOS in the first two fallout games, and it's annoying to treat it so casually in this one.
I think the inclusion of the enclave is fine. To try and reclaim an area as symbolically important as DC is very in keeping with the Enclave's modus operandi, and with their oil derrick destroyed, what would keep them in California?
In regards to everyone ragging on the BoS being good-goodies, I seem to remember the Bethesda devlog detailing that the leader of this chapter of the BoS is not operating according to standard procedure, and is letting his personal morality interfere with the brotherhood's more callous approach.
The shooter elements go hand-in-hand with the first person perspective as far as speed and flow of gameplay is concerned. From an isometric view, turn based is easy to do and fun to play because it is tactical. First person cameras present a much more present, visceral experience that demands a faster pace... which real-time combat, punctuated by VATS, provides. It is an excellent cross between the tactical RPG elements and the pacing demands of the presentation.
I am also skeptical of their ability to pull off true fallout humor with consistency, but from what I've seen, they occasionally nail it. When the game actually comes out, we'll be able to experience far more of the little details, and it's in the little details where so much of the humor and personality of the fallout franchise is found.
I'm looking forward to this game. A lot. It might not be a sequel to Fallout in terms of gameplay, but I strongly feel that it'll live up to the franchise and usher Fallout into gameplay modernity.