Syndicate wasn't really a strategy game. There were some tactics involved in combat, sure, but you spent the bulk of the game walking around and mowing people down. It was basically a squad-based, isometric shooter.
Based on this announcement, it looks like the new game will retain some of the core elements of the original (premise, setting, upgrades, shooting) and abandon others (research, money management, squads in single-player). I can live with the removal of the latter, provided that the levels remain large and open-ended. If it ends up being a completely linear and scripted CoD-fest, I'll be disappointed.
Fallout 3 was different from its predecessors, but felt like a modern day take of an older franchise. The most memorable things about fallout for me (the humor, world, moral choices, and character advancement) were kept in some form in fallout 3. About the only thing missing was the really boring turn based combat vs rats at the start of fallout 1 that almost kept me from playing the game. If your most memorable elements of fallout don't match mine I can see how you would see fallout 3 in that way, but this is kind of the danger of upgrading any franchise. Everyone's idea of what made it work is not the same.
I agree, for the most part. Fallout was an RPG, not a turn-based strategy game, and therefore turn-based combat was not essential to the experience. Role-playing, on the other hand, was essential and FO3 did a decent job of retaining this. Unfortunately, FO3 also had pretty lousy writing. I'd say New Vegas was a more faithful successor to Fallout 1 & 2.