Vythonaut: Bethesda? No no no... while I love their TES series and had fun with Fallout 3 (can't compare it to FO1 & FO2 - it has nothing to do with the original games apart from the setting & the name), I don't think they are the right people for a remake/ sequel, unless we want to see another first person open world game set in the world of Arcanum.
If I were to choose one dev, that would be either CDprojekt (and probably that would mean a top quality 3d crpg) or Larian (that would mean a top quality isometric crpg - I love isometric view...). As for the other companies I don't know yet: I haven't played wasteland 2 yet to see what inxile can do and I'm waiting pillars of eternity to see what obsidian can do nowadays..
I would add Obsidian to the lot as well. As for inXile, I just don't know. While Wasteland 2 is a good game, my initial ecstatic reception has subsided somewhat. There is no a true hub for quests and other intrigue, like Tarant, Athkatla, Vault City, New Reno, NCR or more recently New Vegas and Cyseal. Combat, while interesting at first, becomes repetitious later on. There just doesn't seem to be enough variety, and I'm playing on Ranger difficulty, yet it still doesn't pose much of a challenge, except on some rare occasions (three-four Slicer Dicers for example). Lot of the quests are rather underwhelming. It's not a bad game just not as good as I hoped for. We'll see how they do with Torment.
I personally like Obsidian because their quests always have multiple solutions, which are not obvious right away. Kind of like older Fallout games and their own NV or Arcanum. That's why I believe they would be an excellent fit for a remake or sequel. CDP Red would be great at it too. They can make an isometric game too. While the first TW game technically isn't isometric, it comes close. And they excel at quest design and writing as well.
eVinceW21: I don't get all the hate for Bethesda. I'm no particular fan of Bethesda titles (Skyrim is the only ES I could ever stomach, and even then I'm not half as enthralled by it as most) but I like what they've done with Fallout. The only way their version of Fallout is lacking is that it's a shoddy FPS with less tactical combat than its predecessors, although I think Fallout had awfully poor tactical combat. Fallout1+2 are mostly numbers games. I had a friend jokingly refer to them as "Quickload: The Game."
Fallout established an awesome lore and setting - I think it's one of the most remarkable works of science fiction of our time, but Bethesda ran with it and they've been pretty faithful really. If anything, at least someone is doing something with the Fallout license. Consider all the brilliant material that's still wallowing in limbo. That could have easily been Fallout.
Bethesda didn't make a bad game with Fallout 3. It was just a bad Fallout game. Setting was great. Capital Wasteland was a joy to explore. It is their writing and quest design that were bad and not very Fallout-like. Most quests were pretty straightforward or you had a clear-cut choice. There was no moral greyness like in previous titles. Plus, almost everything presented in FO3 was done by FO or FO2, only better. Enclave was more mysterious and sinister. You could arm a nuke with more meaningful consequences. Infect people with F.E.V. for practical reasons, not because you were cackling evil maniac, but because of necessity to do a horrific thing for a greater good of the world. Plus, the main plot of FO3 was rehashed plot of FO2, only with slightly different means of execution.
