Hmm... I hope they don't make Brotherhood of Steel 'The good guys' - but I guess Bethseda should not be so stupid...
Heh, this game will be worth playing, just because I'll want to know, what they changed :D

While I share some of the sentiments of the earlier more Fallout 3 critical posters, I do have to say that at least to me the naming issue is not such a big deal. "It's the same universe, thus the name" concept has been widely used in video games and movies before, so it's not really a big deal to me even though I agree with your reasoning.
FO3 won't be a sequel to FO1 & FO2 even though the name implies that and that's how I believe it should be approached. I am eagerly waiting the release and will be buying it right then and there... even if it is not a direct sequel.
To me 3D graphics or the discontinuity of the plot is not a deal breaker. To be honest with you I do not really understand the eye-candy discussion when talking about 3D. To my eyes the 3D games today are just beginning to get to the level of visual attractiveness that 2D games already had way back when (say 10-15 years ago?). 3DBoxing or Duke Nukem 3D (just to name two) were just gastly when they came out in comparison to 2D games of their time and those were hardly the first 3D games... ok, let's leave it there and get back to the point.
What I am waiting from the Fallout 3 is the same dark sense of humour and most importantly the way the game world reacts to your actions/abilities etc. and let's not forget the freedom of choice. Herein lies the appeal of the Fallout series to me and this makes me a bit concerned. I mean, from the interviews and demos I gathered that there will (always) be 3 choises one can make in dialogue/actions: Good, bad and neutral. What's up with that!? Hopefully they have not made it as clearcut as it sounds because the real moral choices are not as simple as that, and in realising that lies also some of the genious behind the original FOs - you don't always know which of the decisions you make are good or bad in the long run. Is it always good to kill the bad guy or would it actually be merciful to blow up the town of terminally ill? What about the all-time classic - would you not kill one man to save a thousand? If they can nail this, they can have my soul... otherwise... well...
Ah, and here I did not wan't to sound overly critical. Well, what can you say... I too long for the "good old times" after all I guess.

that would be nice yes. but its still not fallout. unless its isometric and turn based. and yes you can probably pause in the middle of the combat but there are no action points. thats what fallout was about...

I still don't get why Fallout necessarily should be isometric and turn based... No, really, it's THAT big deal? Fallout is a name of a worshiped game: I worship it for open gameplay, tons of options, great characters and an awesome world: List would go on and on and a style how combat is made and how you look on a game are the very last things on it, almost not worth mentioning...

well personally i worship it for everything and maybe its just me but i really dont like change. i think its perfect the way it is.

Indirectly, but yes. TB-iso is simply the most logical choice if you want to make a game as close to tabletop RPGs as possible. Fallout 3 going with real-time FPS combat instead suggest the overall game itself takes a shift towards action-RPGs. And that is opposite the direction the Fallout series should proceed to further refine its concept.
Sure, it can still be a good game despite that, but that's also the problem here: "despite".
Also, keep in mind that some people inherently prefer turn-based. I, for one, don't, but it seems to me that games I consider to have good combat are more often turn-based than not. Real-time with pause seems to be hastily thrown together, designed to not get in the way too much, and not designed to actually be entertaining. Action-RPGs seem to go for a "worst of both worlds" approach, the two halves not being satisfying on their own, and/or not complementing each other very well.
So if given the choice between, say, Diablo and X-COM, I'd choose the latter as something Fallout should try to strive for. Not necessarily in terms of depth and complexity (combat is supposed to be but one facet of the game, after all), but in feel, at least.

well, from what I can tell, it's not so much FPS because not only can you get yourself a third person view, but apparently they did figure in a system for your stats to actually weigh on your ability to shoot. Which in my opinion changes everything drastically. because it will not only rely on your ability to point at the object you want to shoot but the characters/weapons accuracy as well. Where in modern FPS the only two things you have to worry about are your own accuracy and the accuracy of the gun. So the role playing element is here within the combat.

You're making a good point.
Except one thing: Fallout is -not- a tabletop game, and no PC game can ever copy that experience. I know, you said earlier that you don't like TES games (or I think it was you), but combat in all 4 TESs (heh) was entertaining, at least for me. And, since Bethseda proved it can be done (still personal thoughts), I believe they know what they are doing. But, of course, their experience lies in sword-combat: Shooting from bow and shooting from gun is not so different, I just hope they'll handle the AI well: Because they DIDN'T in their previous games.

I've been thinking about this a bit, and it seems people are a bit quick to accept that "action game + stats = RPG-ish gameplay". Yes, that can work, but I would say Fallout 3 only manages to achieve what's on the left side of the equation.
Skill doesn't affect your accuracy significantly (toned it down because "missing wasn't fun"), it's mostly just a damage modifier. And what then? You encounter a bunch of enemies, try shooting them down, your character's skill only factors into how long that takes. If it turns out you're not dealing enough damage, come back after you've invested some more skillpoints into the relevant skill. Is that really all the difference, having to come back to a fight when you're more powerful? Not to mention there's still level scaling, so the "player doesn't get unfairly beaten".
So, what is this drastic difference I seem to be missing?
I never said it actually was a tabletop RPG, but that it was trying to be as close to tabletop RPG as possible. From Chris Taylor (Chris T. = Christ, get it? I'm becoming pretty good at this "religious Fallout fanatic" thing):
"Paper and pencil role-playing games were the single biggest influence. We had a goal of trying to recreate the tabletop gaming experience as best as possible. For the most part, I think we succeeded."
This is the main reason why Fallout's gameplay is the way it is, this is what makes it great. And, as I believe I've said before, it seems to me that the guys at Bethesda are coming at it from the wrong direction.
Alternative version: Fallout is -not- an action-RPG, either.
Yep, that was me, so obviously I disagree. :P But that aside, it would be okay if they managed to pull off combat well enough, even if not turn-based. (It'd still be a shame they chose to improve on TES4 instead of FO2, though.) What's not okay is that Fallout 3, using Todd Howard's words, "comes across as a big first person gorefest" in previews, and other than promises, there's little assurance of the game actually being much, much more than that.

they say the AI for dogmeat is going to be great,
but he is still mortal, and my guess is, is that he'll die fairly easily. I would HATE it if I had to reload frequently, but I think I might.

This is a joke, right?

no.
they say usually in any fight, dogmeat is going to be your opponents first target.
and, I'll be getting the xbox 360 version, if I get any version, and you know how in xbox 360 games you usually can only save at check points while their pc counter parts can save any time.

In that case, it is understandable.
Even though I think that games today are way too easy anyway... I hate to sound like a broken record but "in the good old times" saving your game in the middle of things was a rare treat. Nowadays when you can save things almost anytime and when the games in general are much easier, you don't really get that same level of determination (and frustration if I'm completely honest) to reach that particular goal. Sometimes it seems to me that saving your game is unnecessary in the games today and that people complain too easily (not that I am criticising you mind, after all, I don't own xbox 360 so who am I to say anything).

Well, for example, Fallout 1 has it where you can save anywhere, that's necessary in this kind of game with so many wide options.

I would actually prefer the FPS version of fallout 3, as when i play fallout 1 and 2, it feels to me as if it's not fluid enough in combat. I'm not saying its not a good game, it's just that when i play it, it feels too much like i can just sit around and do nothing for an hour and the enemy wont be able to attack during that hour....
also, i will be getting the pc version because
a. i dont have a console
b. i like the mods...