I just recently finished Fallout 3 and as the topic states, my feelings are mixed.  There are a few spoilers here so be warned.

First, to give you some idea of where I'm coming from, I feel compelled to state my Fallout pedigree as it were.  I played both Black Isle games around the times of their releases and enjoyed them immensely, although I understand that nostalgia has glossed over some of their rough spots (clunky interface, infuriating NPCs, etc.).  They were, despite their flaws, truly great computer role-playing games.  I'll take one step further back and mention Wasteland, to which the Fallout games were spiritual successors, and one of my favorite CRPGs of all time (oh C64, the times we had...).  That game did so many things right and should be required playing for any CRPG developer.

Although I never aligned myself (before or after actually playing the game) with those folks who savaged Bethesda with claims of treason against the great spirit of Fallout, I do sympathize somewhat on two levels.  First, when one is passionate about something, it's difficult to restrain emotions when one perceives that something may be handled without proper respect and love.  Sometimes no amount of proof or persuasion will suffice to assuage those feelings.  For me, it was a vague sense that they may not be able to capture or preserve the magic, and for a long time I avoided the game for fear of having those great memories trampled on.  Was it silly of me?  Probably.  Second, after playing the game and experiencing the differences, I don't care for some of them.

Now I don't mean changes such as going from an isometric view to a first-person view.  That one is just ridiculous.  while I do prefer third-person in general (I like to see my character!) and don't subscribe to the notion that first-person is somehow more immersive, I understand that such a change did not fundamentally alter the character of the game.  And I think we're past the days of using iso view to hide cool stuff.  Yes?

What I do mean, or to start with the one example that sticks out in my mind, is the fiddling with SPECIAL.  To those of you who don't know, it's the character development system of the Fallout games.  If I remember correctly, Black Isle had originally wanted to use GURPS, but Steve Jackson, not liking the tone of the game, refused.  So they came up with SPECIAL (for strength, perception, endurance, charisma, agility, luck), a truly elegant system that allowed for a myriad of (legitimate) play styles.

What they did, in my opinion, was to simplify the skills (derived abilities for things such as weapon proficiency and bartering skill) too much.  They did get rid of some that were arguably useless.  But for things such as lock-picking, they turned a 100-point scale into a 4-point scale.  And why did I have to immediately assign all of the skill points I received when reaching a higher level?  Am I picking nits?  Probably, but what I'm not articulating well is that I thought the character system didn't fit the game as well as it did in the other Fallouts.

They also made it such that radiation poisoning was never truly a concern.  There was absolutely no penalty for taking radiation-curing drugs.  Not so in the originals.

And arguably the biggest complaint from the passionate was the abandonment of turn-based combat.  This one I'm on the fence about.  I like turn-based and always have and tend to prefer it in CRPGs.  But I can enjoy other styles too if they're not too twitchy (I don't consider Demon's Souls twitchy, or Mass Effect 2).  Their implementation of the semi-realtime combat was a bit clunky.  So while I have action points I can shoot these guys in the head, but when I run out...I can still shoot them but in a shoddily-implemented FPS style?  Uhh, OK.  It didn't break the game for me, but it could have been better.

Some things, such as changing the tone of the Brotherhood of Steel, were explained (to my satisfaction anyway) in the game.

Oh and one thing I thought all the Fallout games missed was the importance of survival, in the sense of having adequate potable water and supplies for trekking across a hostile landscape.  I think they could have done it in a way that wasn't tedious.

Now to the actual game.  Fallout 3 is one of the only RPGs I've ever played that made me just want to go off and explore.  The world that Bethesda realized was fascinating in its decayed immensity.  That alone was a grand achievement.  I find the post-apocalyptic setting very compelling in general (for the most part), so maybe that's just me.  And when I think of all the work it took to populate that world with so much...stuff, I can scarcely get my mind around it.  Bethesda must have an army of level designers.  Oh, I should also note that this is the first Bethesda CRPG I've ever played, so although I'm aware this is just "what they do", I'm still blown away.

I derived much enjoyment from just traveling around, playing the wasteland hero to the down-trodden (I always play the good guy.  Being an in-game jerk gives me no pleasure.  I'm jerky enough as it is).  The main plot was serviceable, up to the point where your Dad sacrifices himself at least.  After that it was just OK.

And that brings me to my last point.  Fallout 3 has a level-cap of 20.  Once you reach that level (barring DLC) your character does not improve.  When I reached level 20, there was still a good deal of unexplored world out there for me.  But by that time, what was the point?  I had lost interest.  So I finished the final quest and called it a day.  Before that critical moment, I was looking to purchase New Vegas and/or the Fallout 3 GOTY edition for the DLC.  But now, I think I may be done.

What started out as such a wonderful game ended with a whimper.  Fallout 3 is a true Fallout, at least in tone and setting.  But the game underneath just wasn't put together that well.