My only real issue with Odyssey was that, by the end, it really fell into the Ubisoft trap of "visit waypoint, get collectible, clear base, repeat" cycle. The story and gameplay were fine, and I couldn't care less about the inclusion of entirely optional and unnecessary microtransactions.
In the writing and the setting. That's all straight-up Fallout, and I'd argue it's as good as anything from Fallout 3 on in that respect.
About the only thing Fallout did "new", there, really, was giving you a panel in the ending montage that talked about the long-term effects. That's not really gameplay, at all. And even there, it was mostly binary stuff; you either did the good thing, or the bad thing.Fallout first and foremost was the RPG that introduced real choices and consequences to the RPG world and always worked on having different options and different outcomes depending on what you choose and how you approach matters. I am pretty sure the term 'choices and consequences' was coined with the first Fallout game.
It's hard to say that Fallout 76 doesn't have that, because what you're talking about is the ending slideshow of prior games. Fallout 76 doesn't have that, because it doesn't end.And all of the subsequent games (Excluding FO4 in real sense instead of few scripted railroaded options) did have these aspects and worked based on idea that whatever you do in the world matters. The survival aspect came from scarcity of loot and inventory space.
There's also a lot of optional stuff you can choose to not do. It's just that most players will, for completion's sake, and because they're going to keep playing; there's no ending to rush to.
Your entire argument here is about the ending slideshow. The actual writing in the game itself is still all there, and there's arguably more of it than there was in Fallout 4.FO76 has only the 'survival' aspects while it sheds about everything else that made Fallout what Fallout is, to far further extent than FO4 ever did and that already was abomination to the legacy of the serie.