Well lets ignore the fact that fallout 2 changed canon(which is really a bizarre thing to even have for a game) from the original.
No, let's not ignore that at all. It's pretty important. Fallout 2 radically altered the world design of Fallout and while not actually breaking canon on many points (the vault experiments were a part of the original concept) it is wildly inconsistent in world feel. It has been broadly criticized for that, but the fact is that Fallout 2 has never been seen as an "untrue" sequel, because while it damages the setting it not only holds true to the core gameplay design but actually expands the core pen and paper gameplay concepts with complex towns with true choices - such as New Reno. Canon-wise New Reno is derided, as a gameplay element it is almost the epitome of Fallout's spirit of design.
Fallout 3 has the same problem with setting as Fallout 2, but it never grabs core gameplay to balance it out.
Why be all bent about the changes in 3. The truth of the matter is, certain crowds will never be happy with anything unless it is more of the same.
Certain crowds, sure. There has always been a part of NMA's crowd that holds to this angle, but even on NMA it has never been a majority. Van Buren as a concept changed quite a few things from the originals, but it was accepted by most of NMA - one will remember J.E. Sawyer's infamous quote on certain fans that you can never please, which referred to a vocal minority inside NMA/Interplay forums led by 4too, Rosh and DarkUnderlord (if I recall correctly).
But it's important to see that change isn't just one single quality that you can judge or dislike as a single quality. Change as Van Buren did it can be seen as development within the framework of the original design concept of Fallout 1 - it still held true to the roots of pen and paper gameplay (and no that is not just about turn-based combat, it's about root concepts like the importance of character stats and the way you treat choice and consequence vs handholding as well), whereas Fallout 3 just dumped the concept wholesale.
You think the rights were bought up and they stole a great game was sealed from ever being released? I doubt that, in reality they probably saved it from being left to dust.
Actually, there were multiple bidders on the Fallout title. I find there are two common images used in this point; one is of Bethesda evilly snatching the title away before Troika's nose, one is of Bethesda's nobly saving a dying franchise. Neither view is accurate, and the truth is in the middle.
In some ways this reminds me of the situation with Wasteland, the way that franchise was nearly abused for Fountain of Dreams, and the fact that Interplay's lack of ownership of the franchise was what led to its spiritual sequel Fallout.
If you're talking about letting go of the franchise, I realized Fallout's core design would be divorced from its franchise when Bethesda released the news that they bought the whole license - the franchise as such was dead at that point, and is now back to life as something completely different. Why that is something to be a glad about - the permanent disjunction of Fallout from its original core concept - is a mystery to me, but this view that somehow people didn't grasp reality years ago is a bit naive. But realization is something different than acceptance. The word belongs to Cervantes;
Too much sanity may be madness and the maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as it should be.
Alot of people like it, and many of you will call us stupid etc for liking it.
Why? I like it. It's a good game. Just not a Fallout game.
Honestly, it's a controversial title just like Oblivion was. What bugged me about Oblivion's debate and bugs me about Fallout 3's debate is the inability of many in both sides to truly think outside the box and accept each other's viewpoints. Whether it be the Codex' linear view of "true" RPGs or the habit of people to lazily dismiss the Fallout fanbase's problems with Fallout 3.
I personally don't see why people take such exception to each other's opinions. Personally, I'll gladly argue Fallout 3's status as a nebulous "true sequel" and I do have problems with reviewers' lack of criticism of such major flaws as the main plot, but someone will really have to explain to me why I should have a problem with someone liking this game.
I guess this is the nature of internet debate, tho', and attitudes like yours can be found anywhere from Something Awful to NeoGAF.
I love how people use other names on games to back up their arguement ignoring for the simple fact alot of the games they mentioned DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS TO THE NAMES.
Both examples I used would have no problem using the original names as far as I know. Even considering the name right problem, it should be noted that there is also a lack of claims of even being a spiritual sequel.
