Oooookay ...
Heh, that's one of the silliest, most misguided and erroneous assessments I've ever seen. FO3 got high ratings because it was a brand new type of game, never before done like that, when they launched it. So of course it got all the oohs and aahs and raves from all the reviewers. And deservedly so. But the metacritic rating for NV is horsepuckey, when compared to that- for one thing, it had to use the older, outdated engine from the original game, warts and all, and it didn't have the brand-new wow factor FO3 got to bask in when it came out. If NV had come out first and FO3 two years later, I'm completely sure it would have been reversed with NV getting the 90's, and FO3 getting the 80's. Purely a timing and placement thing on that. And of course, NV got no where near the advertising weight behind it that Bethesda's flagship titles do, as usual. As for your last sentence, that is completely backwards as well. It is Obsidian that knows how to make good game elements, and NOT Bethesda. Unfortunately, Obsidian had to work with Beth's craptastic old game engine, for NV. Can't blame Obsidian for those limitations.
On topic I think Bethesda should stick to what they are doing. Although I think this is the right time to close this thread as it appears to have become a flame fest.