Terry from Game Couch stopped by to let us know about his review of Fallout 3. Highlights:
There’s a lot controversy surrounding Bethesda’s take on Fallout and a
lot of discussion on what “Fallout” is. For me, Fallout has always been
more than the setting and the system. If you look beyond perspective
and mechanics, Fallout has always been a collection of memorable
moments: humorous, grim, exhilarating, and poignant. Fallout is a world
that exists around me, but one where my actions matter. Fallout isn’t
about saving the universe; it’s about touching virtual lives. It’s
doing what you can to make the post-apocalypse a little better (or a
lot worse). And that’s what you can expect from Fallout 3.
Actually, that's the concluding paragraph. There really isn't much else worth reading in that review. In fact, this review made me realize somthing. Actually, I already knew it, but it never smacked me in the face until now. All of these reviews, and especially this one, could have been written by someone who has never played the game. It's all a rehash of the same PR stuff that Bethesda released. Reviewers need to spend less time rehashing PR and more time actually reviewing a game. Tell us, specifically, what is good and bad about the game. I don't need to be told that Liam Neeson is in the game. I don't need to be told that the game uses VATS. I certainly don't need to be told the game takes place in Washington, DC. If you're going to mention Liam Neeson, tell me what you thought of his performance. Was it Oscar-worthy? Was it dull? How about VATS? Does it work well? Are there any issues with it? How about DC? How is it different to the real DC? How is it the same? Can you find your house?
If a review can't even go a little bit past the PR rehash, then it's not worth the time it took to write.