I just watched the gameplay trailer now, and here are my thoughts as a huge fan of the original games.
Stylistically, I prefer isometric view for RPGs, and I would have preferred to see Fallout 3 take on a more Neverwinter Nights style engine if they wanted to make it real-time. But this is not the deal-breaker for me. I'm going to have to see how it turns out before I pass judgment. But really, history has shown that I enjoy isometric over first-person. Yes, I enjoyed Halo, and Future Perfect, and GoldenEye, and Perfect Dark, and I'm sure there are other FPS games out there I haven't played yet and will enjoy if I do. Even throw in Wolfenstein 3D, Doom 1 and 2, and Duke Nukem 3D. Those were great, awesome games, but they're not among my favourites of all time, the way that games like X-Com, Crusader, and Syndicate are. I think it goes back to my point-and-click adventure roots, that it's just what I'm comfortable with. I don't hate Bethesda for making the choice to go first-person, it's just not my thing.
The demo said that it was going to play it action-oriented, but said there will be stealth and dialogue alternatives to handling situations. The VATS system is interesting and I'll have to wait to see how it pans out. It's just a real-time equivalent of the aimed shot we've seen in previous games, so this, in itself, is not a huge worry until I see how it works first-hand.
I stopped playing Morrowind because I got tired of putting weights on the up button and doing other things while waiting until I reached the next town. Fallout and Fallout 2 spared us this with their map system. I hope Bethesda gives us some helpful options.
So, to sum up everything up until now, I would have personally enjoyed it if the game stuck more closely to the originals, but I understand that change can sometimes be good, and we're just going to have to see how a lot of the gameplay mechanics play out before we either compliment or complain. Some people say that Fallout wasn't about the gameplay mechanic, it was about the world and the humour. I agree to an extent; the world and the humour set it apart from other games, but Fallout 1 and 2 were just total packages, and every aspect of the game came together in an amazing way (except for a few concerns about the turn-based combat, like watching old men verrrry slowwwwly walk a few squares per turn, dragging down the pacing).
No, the big concern for me, that I see right away, is that they mentioned that, like a lot of modern RPGs, it will boast over 100 hours of gameplay. THIS is the part that hurts me the most, because I *hate* long games. I know a lot of gamers want more and more hours of gameplay, but here's where I start turning old and crotchety, remembering the good ol' days of games.
For me, the best RPGs that I think back on fondly were long enough to provide a satisfying experience, but still short and sweet enough to be concise and well-paced. RPGs like Fallout and Darksun weren't long games. If you wanted, you could finish them within a day. A video on the net shows somebody beating the original Fallout in about 15 minutes, because the story is so open-ended that only two key events are required to complete the game; you don't even have to find the water chip!
No, my favourite games of all time, from Fallout to Darksun to Quest for Glory, are all about the replay value. Once a game hits the 30 hour mark for me, it pretty much writes itself off as a one-time playthrough game. 100+ hours is just ridiculous, and the best part about the aforementioned games are that they give you 100+ hours of gameplay through inspiring you to play them over and over and over again in many different ways. That's what I wanted from a Fallout game. I know that I will be spending 50+ hours of those hundred, walking from one place to another. I know that when I'm done, I'm done. This time, I won't be able to play the game over and over and over again; maybe this time I'll be an asshole, maybe this time I'll play a thief, maybe this time I'll play with a party, maybe this time I'll sell my wife to slavery and go solo. Fallout 3 might give us a lot of options, but I'm not going to get the chance to enjoy them all. For the people out there that have the time to play 100+ hours of gameplay 5 times over, I'm sure you'll enjoy this, and I'm happy for you. But I don't have that kind of time.
But that's the dilemma, isn't it? Fallout has always been about catering to the hardcore gamers, but now they have to ask which hardcore gamers they want to cater to. The classic gamers, or the progressive gamers? The ones who want to play a game over and over, or the ones who complain if a game is "only 24 hours long?" Forget first-person vs isometric viewpoints; this is what the argument should have been in the first place.
