The thing about Fallout 1 and 2 is that interplay wanted to recreate the gurps system (or the overall PnP feel) for computer players to play. From my experiences with any PnP game (pen and paper), combat is not realtime gameplay. The truth is, you wouldn't want it to be. Part of the fun was calling out how you wanted to carry out your actions if you had enough points to do so (some games had action points, other had actions per combat round). Another thing to point out was how all combat and non combat decisions were based on some sort of skill or attribute. It was fun because this meant there were things as a character you could do and could not do. This is why for fallout they used turn based and Isometric. Not because of some lack of technology. There are some things that an FPS can and can't do well, the same with a turnbased game. FPS are there for immediate action and encourages the player to be the character. You can also walk through the world looking through the characters eyes. Stats are harder to implement though, simply because there's to much that relies on the players own reflexes and sight. In combat a player can be a low level (if there are levels), but if the the player knows what they are doing they can take on higher level folks. Turnbased games offer time to think and rationalize, More importantly, allows a player to be any character they want. Yes it can make the character less personal but that is the whole point, you can play any type of character and have fun instead of just wanting to play yourself all the time (unless you want to). The limits of the skills and attributes are fun simply because it makes you play a certain way. A dumb fighter archetype will more likely shoot first and ask later while a diplomat will try to assess the situation and try the reason first . Both with skills guaranteeing a certain type of success but both with limitation caused by points. This large spectrum of characters is what an isometric rpg can do. It is also important to note that the system allows a character to progress not through the players own reflexes but by skills gained during a level up. Even with a realtime with a pause, an isometric rpg, just because of the view has more options in certain regards that an fps could never pull off. Of course these games are sometimes considered boring because it isn't always fast paced and doesn't have action bursting at the seams. Now to the point. Is fallout 3 better than the other fallouts? It's like trying to say that a circle is a triangle. Since triangles are triangle and circles are circles, it is ridiculous to think other wise. Fallout 1 and 2 are triangles as fallout 3 is a circle. The creators of fallout 3 have made it a circle but labeled it a triangle but as we all know it is not. As an fps, Fallout 3 may be a decent game. Since FPS's cater to some people more than others they may (and have) say it is better than the first two. I don't mind first person shooters. But in regards to the first two it can't compare. Turn base does exactly what it was created and built for, PnP emulation. The Isometric compliments everything about the first two games as well. That is why fallout 3 as a fallout sequel fails in game mechanics at the very least. Just by changing what the mechanics were meant for changes the very game itself and secludes it from its predecessors. In conclusion, Bethesda may have managed to create an okay or decent game (7-8/10), but it is a bad fallout sequel (2-4/10).