Could Bethesda really have fallen so far? French magazine CanardPC certainly seem to think so. In a review (but technically a preview for some reason I don't quite understand) of Fallout 3, the reviewer as well as making several snide remarks about the company's treatment of him brutally bashes the game. From the level design to the colour pallet he barely mentions a single positive thing. Rather strange considering the almost universally positive impressions.
The more time passes, the more I feel like this dog, barking and foaming at every car that happens to be passing by. I run after them, trying to bite their wheel rims, to crush their tires, their muffler, but I miss.They are going too fast, too far from me. And even if I succeeded ? What would happen anyway ? I bite a moving wheel, it stomps my face, I assault some scrap, it smashes my teeth. Some things are so lifeless, so sluggish that you can't possibly let off steam on them. Fallout 3, anyone ?
[...]
This article is not a test. Just an "introduction for things to come". Why? Because the conditions under which I had to play this "RPG" were not acceptable: sixteen hours in a row in a luxurious hotel on an almost finished build, Bethesda asking to see my screenshots in order to "approve" them...These factors, going from obnoxious to truly scandalous would have made my review biased or even dishonest. Well, I mean a little more dishonest than what I usually do. But have no fear, even though I was deprived of my screenshots, I'm not deprived from my opinion. Condolences: Fallout 3 is a sluggish device, soulless, not exactly terrible, actually almost enjoyable, but totally forgettable because of uncountable dishonest compromises.
[...]
From what I've seen, Fallout 3 does not have any of the qualities of the previous episodes. But that was to be expected. However, it has none of the diffuse magic of the Elder Scrolls series. It feels like Bethesda made a break with this new title, a sad bend towards products multiplying "fan service", the dumb, goofy stuff that will make the client laugh, the "awsum roxxorz" elements and micro-gameplay to the detriment of world coherence and deeper mechanisms. To sum it all up, expect loads of shallow combat spoiled by VATS and slowmotion sequences as gore as pathetic, a terribly short main quest - a Spanish colleague has finished it in less than an afternoon, during his first playthrough - nice secondary quests, but which completely missed the intelligence and density of the series, the whole being flavored with failed occasions.
[...]
With technical means a lot inferior, Fallout 1 and 2 managed to depict this world in all its rococo excess and misery in a formidable manner. But no, despite the dismantled bridges, the huge depth of field, the buildings trying their best not to fall down, it just does not work. By the way, when I came back to CanardPC and people asked me "How is Fallout 3?", honestly, all that I could say at first was "Brown". These ochre shades smash, make the most eccentric idea - let's say, why not, the Washington area transformed into a battlefield scarred by trenches - bland, commonplace, immediately boring. Even worse, where the atmosphere of decay should have been palpable, when you are walking in a city overflowed by skyscrapers ruins, disembowelled roads, peopled by half-savages, one can focus on but one thing: ruins placed strategically to prevent you from crossing the street because designers decided that you shouldn't take THIS path.
News Story attached to:
P/reviews are hard not to be biased, we need to judge for ourselves by playing it (:
All I needed to see, that explains it.