A bit of your assessments seem a little off, possibly as a result of your detachment from the games' chronological releases. For one thing, while I too enjoyed the pseudo real-time combat choice offered in FOT, it was not Interplay's choice, necessarily, since they merely produced the title, and implementing it into FO1 and/or FO2 was impossible both because those games came first and due to technological constraints. Also I'm really not sure what you're getting at when you assert that the classic games were "cartoony" rather than "gritty neo-realism". The classic games WERE the peak of realism for their era; that's what all games were capable of and attempted to showcase "realism" with in their aesthetic design. The only exceptions to this rule were games like the Command & Conquer series which would utilize filmed cinematics instead of (poorly) rendered cutscenes. Regardless, I'd have to say that it's not the "gritty neo-realism" that makes titles show their age rapidly, but rather the attempt to achieve that realism dipping into the uncanny valley, something that's inherently jarring and discomforting to behold, by nature. The game's don't necessarily age poorly as much as their efforts were just flawed to begin with. For all their inferiority in visual representation of lifelike appearance, the older titles ironically don't suffer this because they're SO un-lifelike that the same discomforting phenomenon of the uncanny valley is never encountered. Anyway, not that your perspective ought to be discounted, but it's all a bit... unrelated to the topic. It's not a question of "which game is better" but rather, among the die-hard supporters, which are the worse incarnations of insolent bigotry? That's a very different question from what the games themselves actually offer.