Give the Fallout license back to Avellone and Urquhart, or at least let Avellone write Fallout 4, or we'll have another Bethesda "open world" failure like Skyrim or Fallout 3. Yes, yes, they aren't failures in terms of sales, but failures nonetheless.
If it's going to look like this, it better play like Gothic II, and not Skyrim. Is it not even M for Mature? Why are there screenshots of some console controls; is this not a PC game first and foremost? It will not be restoring the faith if what I suspect is happening, is happening.
I agree that there are some grating aspects to this game, but I would not compare it to Fallout 3, and I disagree that the lack of mini-games should be one's focus.
Fallout 3 was a bastardization of the glory of Fallout 2. While the idea of a hybrid FPS/RPG, much like Bethesda's other games, sounded good on paper, it didn't come out like that. For me, the VATS implementation was horrible, and the mini-games of lockpicking and hacking were annoyances at best.
In fact, except in the original Bioshock, which had surprisingly engaging mini-games for hacking/lockpicking, I have never seen a worthwhile implementation. I would much prefer that my skill gives me a certain chance, possibly bolstered in some way, and that's it.
I did find the camera rotation and zoom functions to be frustrating. I am almost always zoomed all the way out so I don't miss any doors and have a better tactical command, but that makes me miss a lot of the scenery. The lack of a mini-map is also irritating, but I am glad they stayed away from so many "newer" ideas, like having some arrow showing where your next quest takes place.
Nice review, but I wish a real RPG such as Fallout 2 or, possibly, New Vegas (which significantly improved on Fallout 3), would have been included for comparison, rather than F3.
madglee's comments