2k Boston/australia should do Fallout 3. They'd knock it out of the park.
Yeah, cause when I think of Fallout I think of first person shooters.If anything, Bioshock proves that Bethesda has taken the completely wrong approach in preserving the setting but totally altering the gameplay.
Bioshock, like the two System Shock games, has essentially garnered instant-classic status. Bioshock dumped the cyberpunk setting of System Shocks, yet preserved the core gameplay of a shooter/adventure hybrid with some light RPG elements. Bioshock certainly hasn't lost anything, in comparsion to System Shock, by not being cyperpunk. If Bioshock is in anyway inferior to System Shock 2, it's probably the diminished RPG elements. The point is that Bioshock proves pretty conclusively that it's the gameplay that makes a game a classic, it's setting is only ancillary.
With that in mind you really have to wonder about Bethesda's approach to making a sequel to Fallout. Emil Pagliarulo recently said that they "didn't want to punish players for having converstations" and as result your dialogue choices will not come back to harm you. So remember in Fallout 2 when you were talking with one of the mob bosses in New Reno? And how they were angry and unstable and how if you said the wrong thing it might result in a gun battle? Apparently that's too punishing to the player and we can expect no such thing in Fallout 3. Dialogue is no longer a key component of gameplay, but rather just a way to get quests and rumors a la Oblivion. I'm really starting to wonder if anything resembling Fallout's gameplay will make the transition to Fallout 3.