Hmm. I'm not thrilled with the game but I don't find myself in agreement with that review. It's very ... ah, well if I say it's very no mutants allowed does that make sense to other people? Far too hung up on the fact that this is a new game, and therefore it can't possibly be much good because everyone knows new games are shallow, dumbed down, derivative and aimed at people with an IQ of 3.

Even my limited (not quite 10 hours now) playtime proves some of his points inaccurate. Teleporting about the map without penalty? Sure - until you drop into an area which has repopulated with enemies. Dead on arrival isn't that much of an understatement for the time I dropped into the midst of a raider group via fast travel. Fast travel out into the wastes is a gamble; you'll be fine most of the time and you don’t know disaster awaits until it is too late. The spoiler point about the sheriff? If you're good enough then you can intervene and stop that - I managed it. Karma does have an effect: I noticed NPCs being nicer to me after I started to reach higher karma levels, and my halo-sporting character gets random gifts from people for "being a hero". I've been attacked on sight by evil folk, and had assassins sent after me.

Other points are nonsensical. As unimpressed as I am with the voice acting, the comment about "characters in a post-apocalyptic world spoke with the same tone (and occasionally, the same pronunciation) as the fair gentle folk of the Victorian age." is pure hyperbole. The ability to choose whatever path you like at the ending regardless of the moral alignment you have taken throughout the game? It's been in nearly every western RPG I have played, including those classics which people like this reviewer don't class as dumbed down for the idiot masses. It's present in games for a reason: player choice. Even the evilest of characters might have a change of heart when they find that pushing the big red button fills the world with fluffy bunnies. You're unable to create your character for the long run because it's impossible for you to regret perk choices? Amazing; I regret 2 perk choices already. Planning is vital for the better perks: they have pre-requisites. I tried to plan ahead from the start, and I have still made quite a few decisions I regard as mistakes.






If I were going to do a melee character I think I would go for high END and average STR. Close combat will mean you take more damage, so your health needs to be sky high. STR only has a small effect on damage (.5 per point). Perks and skills would drive most of the killing ability. AG could be ignored or robbed for points because VATS isn't much use in close combat. I'd keep a good luck score too; every build benefits from more criticals. With good intelligence you could pump up unarmed and/or melee very quickly, then flesh out your support skills. A high medicine score would be important; anything to make your stimpack stores go further. Sneak would be a handy skill as it would enable you to pick and choose your fights and start the combat from a more advantagous direction. Maxed iron fist for unarmed ASAP, a level or three (depending on what other perks you want) of toughness, fast metabolism, possibly adamantium skeleton or life giver if you find you're more fragile than you like, chemist if you use them a lot, probably cyborg (damage resist!), better criticals, maybe chem resistant if you took chemist, paralysing palm, ninja. The first few levels would be the hardest; survive them and it might start to shine.

As far as combat goes, I think a variation on my current tactics would work. In my current game I try to get quite close before calling up VATS and opening fire so my accuracy is maximised; zigzagging about and running from cover to cover gets me to the range I want without taking too much pain most of the time (my 4 END character is made of tinfoil). Sometimes I need to plan my approach a bit, sneakily loop around to better ground before letting the enemy spot me. I'd hotkey stimpacks for quick, seamless healing. Landmines and grenades would be very powerful when faced with tougher foes or groups. Going for an ultra-pure close combat build would be much harder IMO.

In a way unarmed might even be easier than a ranged character. You wouldn't need to lug an inventory of guns about, would have more caps from selling off guns and ammo, and you would never need to worry about your favourite gun running out of ammo or breaking. All you would need is stimpacks, good armour, possibly some explosives, and a sprinkling of chems for tough situations.

Sounds like fun; I'm almost tempted to try it. If only the game were as enjoyable to play as it is to theorise about.

That build reveals the biggest flaw with Fallout 3's character generation IMO: INT and luck are so good I can't see any build where I wouldn't pump them.