the fallout cap was 30 BTW

21, last I heard ;)
A theoretical 99 in Fallout 2. Practically unattainable though, since gameplay is (artificially) limited. Most people I heard would end up 30-35.

<<<NooB --- What is LARP?

Live Action Role Playing
Playing RP's in real life. Put on some costume, etc.

Yeah, but I don't think there was enough Quest xp in the game to get that far. Anything past 16 would require grinding, I think.

A little grinding isn't too bad, a lot of grinding sucks. Except for Fire Emblem, which I'd rather "a buffalo take a diarrhea dump in my ear" than ever play that game again. No grinding, no problem. Just keep playing maps where the enemies are stronger than your guys and many times can kill in 1 hit. Woohoo! Fun! (Sorry off-topic) LARPS. That's weird. But thanks for the heads up. I could be wrong and missed it, but it seems no one caught, or no one was upset by, the fact that your weapons deteriorate. Could there be anything closer to Oblivion than that? I think that by far would be the most out of place among the Fallout universe. (Okay, I do agree that a hand-held nuke is pretty stupid)

Weapon deterioration has been present in plenty of games and feels rather natural to me. Identifying it purely with Oblivion is a mistake.

I'm not applying it specifically to Oblivion. There's Fire Emblem for one. (Which I also hated but not for that reason) plus a few other RPG's I've played. Also, you could say that games that give you a limited amount of ammo for guns w/out a lot of ammo pickups (Unlike Doom or Duke Nukem) could be "deteriorating" in the fact that once it's used up, it's gone. All I'm saying by my last statement is that Oblivion has a certain flavor where you have a repair skill and need a tool or two to repair your deteriorating weapons/armor. Bethesda makes Oblivion. Now they made Fallout. Fallout never had that system before. Now it does. Is there a connection? Yes. If Fallout is the great game we say it is, why add new things that drastically affect the way it plays? I think a weapon that loses quality over time would be considered a big chance for the Fallout universe. Will it make it a bad game? No, I don't think so. But with all the petty griping that has gone on (not so much from this thread but other sites I've visited) you'd think you'd hear more about a change that effects all your weapons, rather than one weapon like a hand-held nuke that seems to be optional use anyway.

If that's a conclusion, your reasoning is fallacious.
To be honest I think there's plenty of connections between Fallout 3 and Oblivion, but this isn't one. It fits more in the line of the other survival elements added in. Did you need to eat, drink etc. in Oblivion? You never had to before in Fallout (unless you can't that non-substantial 'lose-1-health-per-chance' gimmick in the original Fallout) :P

Because adding things is good, if done well (that's the issue with the catapult - it's ridicilous even in the Fallout universe, not a good addition. Really, there's enough wrong with the avid Fallout fanbase if you ask me, but you can't blame them for thinking purple ponies wouldn't improve their game :P). The real problem starts when you start changing things that are already good, or vital to the feel and gameplay qualities of the old game (determining the audience for example).

Okay, but by your own admission, why change something that isn't broken? I don't want to have to drink water. I don't want to have to worry about my gun deteriorating. I want to concentrate on story and doing whatever I want. That's Fallout. I understand where Bethesda is coming from considering it's a post-nuclear thing in the vein of The Road Warrior, but really...why not give the option? There's a game on this site...and I forget the name, but it's 1st person, and you can choose survival or arcade mode. Arcade would be considered regular Fallout, survival mode, ifyou get hurt, you need to disinfect, use antidote, wrap it up, etc. Why not give the option? I would say it's a big deviation from traditional Fallout.