It also means that factors that might seem insignificant to the mainstream press (ie the combat, the viewpoint, the way stats are handled) will get their fair amount of coverage. I'd put money on the first mainstream PR, and probably the stuff afterwards, will also be talked about in terms of the fans' reaction to it (alongside the writer saying how cool it looks, of course). I don't think there will be unconditional gushing praise here.
Again, I kinda hate it to talk about something although so little is known about it. I hate to speculate, and I hate it if others speculate. Right now, everyone predicts that Bethesda will make a commercially successful game that will appeal to the mass market, but not to the hardcore fans. But fact is - we don't know that. After all it's possible that they come up with a game that plays and feels like the original Fallout (not very likely, but theoretically it's possible). It is also possible that they will come up with a game concept that no one has taken into account yet... so it's not only very difficult what players will say about the game, it's also very difficult to predict how the press will react. Just imagine Bethesda would come up with a combat system similar to UFO:Afterlight. It would be very hard for FO fans to justify a "true" turn-based combat system in such a case.
I've learned my lesson a few years ago when I was vehemently fighting against Spector's plans to bring Thief to the console, and to change certain gameplay aspects that were (at least from my point of view) essential to the Thief gameplay (hence my name). The overall tenor of the Thief community was that Ionstorm will screw up Thief 3.
The results were different from what both sides expected. The game wasn't as bad as most fans feared (although it also wasn't as good as many wished), but it also was not very successful just because it was cross-platform, or of the changed gameplay aspects - something that Spector had counted on. But in restrospective I have to admit that I seriously doubt that even if Spector had created a game more appealing to the hardcore fans it would have made the game more succesful. And to be honest, I also have to admit that today I doubt that I would like the game better if Spector had kept the rope arrow, larger levels, etc. I, like many other players, felt that the game was good, but not brilliant, like the first two parts... but if that had only to do with a few minor gameplay aspects... I don't know...
Now, what I want to say is - success is hard to predict. There seem to be various aspects that influence the final outcome.
But back to FO:
The greatest problem that the hardcore part of the FO community seems to face nowadays is that their credibility is suffering. The personal attacks on Bethesda staff for example make it hard to take such a community seriously. There also seems to be almost no criticism around concerning Interplay, which is surprising if you take into account that it was Interplay's decision to seel the license to Bethesda in the first place.
I was on NMA yesterday and I saw that they proudly presented the polls (concerning gameplay, etc.) from the official FO3 forums. Of course the results were very pleasant for the hardcore fans. But c'mon - they don't really believe that a poll where 250 people voted is representative, do they? The overwhelming majority of players of a game does not even visit a message board unless they have a technical problem.
I think that the guys from Bethesda already have their defense in case the press should ask about changed gameplay aspects. Actually they already used it: "Whatever we gonna do, some people will not like it." And considering how parts of the hardcore fans behaved in the past this is a rather strong argument.
And I am more and more getting the feeling that there is something to that argument. Hardcore FO fans seem to wish for a FO 3 that is similar to its predecessor in every single aspect. But even if Bethesda wanted to fulfill their wishes they are facing a dilemma. While Fallout might be cult, it has never been very successful in terms of sales numbers. The license might get you some cheap pr, but doesn't garantuee a game that actually sells. And let's be honest, if I were someone responsible to create a game at Bethesda I'd think twice before making a roleplaying game that is dialogue heavy and turn-based. Some people might consider such conditions a triple disadvantage.
But then again Bethesda might be one of the very few companies that can afford to make exactely such a game, and turn it into a very successful license - it all depends on how much risks they are willing to take.
Now, I always considered myself a big FO fan. I live in Germany, and at the time FO 1 was released it wasn't exactely easy to get an original US copy over here. But I did not want to wait just play some cut German copy of the game, so I invested quite a bit of money and time to get my hands on an original.
Recently I installed Fallout 2 again... I'm still a fan. But I also have to admit that FO wasn't as perfect as I had it in mind... especially not in terms of gameplay. I came to the conclusion that it was the spirit of FO that I liked in the first place. The freedom, the detail, the dialogue, the atmosphere. I could imagine that in the end these aspects will be much more decisive in terms of success than technical gameplay aspects.
I'm so totally NOT responding to the passage from Mr. Teatime I quoted up there, am I? So I'll use at least the last paragraph to do that...
The press seems to be very benevolent when it comes to Bethesda. And I somehow doubt much will change. Thing is, the press needs Bethesda, but they don't need the FO fans. It's Bethesda that has the information that matters, and it has become something of a bad habit, that magazines are obviously willing to give up their own credibility for a few exclusive screenshots.
I'm sure once in a while some dashing journalist will ask Bethesda about criticism coming from the FO community, but such criticism will be easily dismissed by making use of typical developer-rethorics ("we believe in our Game...", "we're big Fallout fans...", etc).
In my opinion the basic decisions about the game were made a long time ago, and I seriously doubt that any criticism coming from the fans will be able to change Bethesda's concept (whatever that might be). If you have a look at games like Thief 3, Ultima 9, or Deus Ex 2 - there also was a lot of criticism coming from the fans, but it didn't change anything. Sad, but true.