They rehash and recycle factions just so they don't have to come up with new ones, like Super Mutants and the Brotherhood, they usually have to come up with excuses for why their worlds aren't developed more even though things were already rebuilding by Fallout 1 and fully rebuilt in some areas in 2, and in general they treat it like an Elder Scrolls side project, not like a Fallout series.

What I mean by that last point is that Bethesda focuses far more on exploration and being able to shoot and loot your way through the game, while the OG devs focused far more on roleplaying and player choice, which you can see in 1, 2, and New Vegas as well.

First of all, the idea that there exists such thing as a "real fan" and a "fake fan" is bullshit, even if someone only enjoyed Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel for the original Xbox, they are a real Fallout fan, same for people who only enjoy Fallout 4 and 76, same for people that only enjoy 1, 2, and Tactics, and so forth. Fans are fans.

Am I pleasable? Absolutely. Bethesda largely just needs to drop the "eternal apocalypse" bit and always having to come up for new excuses for why the world hasn't rebuilt significantly and either rebuild or set their games earlier.

Another good thing would be to stop recycling factions that logically shouldn't be recycled so much, like Super Mutants and the Brotherhood. They haven't done the Enclave to death quite yet, but that's still something that should have largely been wiped out in 2, not come back even harder in 3.

Another good one is overall tone: Fallout works best as a black comedy, where overall it's serious, but sometimes the situation itself can be wackier, not a non-stop barrage of jokes and an overall lighter tone. 1 and New Vegas nailed it, 2 and 3/4 didn't IMO.

Is it not valid to have those opinions? Bethesda treats Fallout like an Elder Scrolls series more than a Fallout series, they focus on exploration over roleplaying and good quest design.

Creative liberties and all that...