Why is it automatically a bad thing for one game to be similar to another?
I don't think my suggestion would actually make Fallout feel any more like Bioshock, but even if it did.... What's the problem? You could set traps in FarCry, maybe it'd make it too much like FarCry... They have machine guns in Call of Duty, maybe Fallout's too much like COD... Roleplaying elements, pshhaw, I've seen that in other games, Fallout shouldn't use them.... Fallout's on a disc? That's sooo cliche!
Nah it's not like that really, it's like this.
It's more like, fallout is it's own franchise, but some people want to change it so drastically that it seems like they just want another game of [insert game franchise].
So, say I start suggesting a lot of things that The Sims does.
At that point one can say "This isn't Sims..." because the suggestions are ridiculous and does not fit into a fallout game.
But this time, "That would make it too much like Bioshock" puzzles me.
This time the suggestion is really small.
We have traps in all fallout games, why not let us use them?
It's nothing game changing or something that does not fit fallout.
So IMO "This isn't [insert game]" does not make a lot of sense.
Point is, new stuff is good, but changing the structure of what fallout is, is not.
An example: Look at how many old-school fallout fans detest fallout 3. Why? Cause it changed it's structure so heavily. (Even though I love Fallout 3 I also hate it with a passion)
So saying "This isn't [insert game]" should only be said when a truly over the top ridiculous suggestion is put forward that is an idea completely ripped off said game franchise.
(Looking through my post I find myself confused.... Bah, if none of this makes sense then please tell me, feel like I'm rambling here.

)