Both era FOs are different enough that I love 'em both for what they are. I did spend significantly more time playing FO3 / FO:NV though; but thats because of the modders effort; not Bethesdas (besides offering the easily modable platform/tools).

I'm to lazy to search the net for evidence; but I recall something like that too. Not sure if it was from FO2 or 1 though. IIRC FO1 was a bit more subtle with all the craziness; but not devoid of it.

Could have sworn I read hints to that ingame... *ponder*

Cheater you Vile Cheater you! / *Jokingly*

The Bethesda ones are full of bugs, have mediocre to bad gunplay, awful engine, are way too big for what they offer and are horribly balanced. Mainly because you hit the level cap extremely quickly if you explore thoroughly and the games lose most of their point if I can't level up anymore. And after that, you are so grossly overpowered that the games are pathetically easy no matter what you do.

Basically, if it didn't have the Fallout skin, I wouldn't have finished neither 3 nor New Vegas since they are mediocre at best.

Fallout 3 - 6/10 if I am being nice.
FNV - 6.5/10 if I am being VERY nice.

Bethesda re-releases were robbed off all the extras, as well as DOS version. Interplay, for the win.

Bethesda = more money for less content.

Most impressive necro EVAR!

I liked Interplays Fallouts back in the day but they have not aged well. They are ugly cumbersome and hard on the eyes to play today. Good games back when I was young.

Bethesda games are where it's at these days. Fun worlds to explore with lots of stuff to do. You can craft your own character and make unique builds and most are viable.

So a vote for Beth.