Impressions thread for positive impressions

[Brother None]

You can't take the franchise into account in a "truly objective review"? That's nonsense, it claims to be a Fallout sequel and should be judged as such. The best way to approach this as a neutral reviewer (which I don't think Tessara is sweating out to be - I did enjoy the bashfest tho ) is to separate in your mind what it looks like as a Fallout sequel and what it looks like as a game. There should be no discussion that it fails as the former nor that it succeeds as the latter, even if you want to debate how much it fails and how much it succeeds, as a reviewer you should judge all these elements. If you're going to ignore that it claims to be a Fallout sequel you're not being a fair reviewer, since you're ignoring part of what the game is.

Also, Edge gave it 7/10. Just an FYI. Not sure what a "recognized" review is but I hope to Frith you don't mean metacritic, their selection methods are junk.

 

[Per]

Metacritic and Gamerankings do stuff like equate 8/10 to 80/100, 5/5 to 100/100 and A to 100/100, which is statistical nonsense. And that's even before they start making averages of numbers that have no units and effectively all measure different entities on different scales.

 

[NYHoustonman]

You can't take the franchise into account in a "truly objective review"? That's nonsense, it claims to be a Fallout sequel and should be judged as such. The best way to approach this as a neutral reviewer (which I don't think Tessara is sweating out to be - I did enjoy the bashfest tho ) is to separate in your mind what it looks like as a Fallout sequel and what it looks like as a game. There should be no discussion that it fails as the former nor that it succeeds as the latter, even if you want to debate how much it fails and how much it succeeds, as a reviewer you should judge all these elements. If you're going to ignore that it claims to be a Fallout sequel you're not being a fair reviewer, since you're ignoring part of what the game is.

Also, Edge gave it 7/10. Just an FYI. Not sure what a "recognized" review is but I hope to Frith you don't mean metacritic, their selection methods are junk.

I generally go by Gamerankings, as I don't like to spend the time browsing random reviews, but either way, a 7/10 doesn't exactly support Fallout 3 being a bad game.

For sure, I have no problem with reviewers acknowledging that as a Fallout game it falls short of expectations - every reviewer has an obligation to point this out if it is indeed the case. But people on this board have explicitly stated that, even as a game, without factoring in the previous two, it's still awful (again, not everybody, but that seems to be the general consensus here).

My only point is that as a game, I don't think things like 'no turn-based combat' or 'inconsistent (taking into account the previous games) lore' or 'first person perspective' should count against it simply because they take it away from the spirit of the first two. If you want to see / haven't seen yet what I'm talking about, take a look at some of the 'reviews' on this board (specifically, those that include opinions that are, according to the poster, ignoring the name of the game). Some of the claims being made are, to me, pretty ridiculous, as I've pointed out - there are few things more annoying than people masquerading as being completely unbiased and then spouting complete bullshit under that guise.

As a game, it's frankly great (and people have been banned or reported for trolling for expressing this opinion - pathetic). I have no way to judge it as a Fallout game myself, but I can understand the annoyance as a Warcraft fan anxiously awaiting a new RTS in that universe.

Hell, there's an entire thread that's been trolled to the point that it's devoted to bashing the game's graphics - it's no Crysis, but it is not at all a bad looking game (random, sparse textures that you need to search for to really notice notwithstanding).

Metacritic and Gamerankings do stuff like equate 8/10 to 80/100, 5/5 to 100/100 and A to 100/100, which is statistical nonsense. And that's even before they start making averages of numbers that have no units and effectively all measure different entities on different scales.

They do these things to every game, so comparisons are generally still accurate. It's not truly scientific, but it's not completely baseless either.

 

[Brother None]

For sure, I have no problem with reviewers acknowledging that as a Fallout game it falls short of expectations - every reviewer has an obligation to point this out if it is indeed the case. But people on this board have explicitly stated that, even as a game, without factoring in the previous two, it's still awful (again, not everybody, but that seems to be the general consensus here).

I wouldn't say so. The general consensus, if there is one, is that elements of this game suck the big one. The main storyline, character animations, dialogue writing, there's plenty to hate in this game. For some that's no problem, for some that is impossible to get around, but it has little to do with it being a Fallout title - except that the name raises expectations.

As a game, it's frankly great (and people have been banned or reported for trolling for expressing this opinion - pathetic).

No one has been banned for saying the game is great. However, what does tend to get under our skin is when people ignore flaws for convenience or fail to substantiate their claims. You think it's great? Fine. But unless you want to explain to us how a game with as many flaws as Fallout 3 has can be called "great" (rather than "ok" or "good", which I'd both call reasonable), it might be better not to bother us with it.

I wonder: do you see how calling Fallout 3 great can easily be as unreasonable as calling it awful?

 

[Dry]

Re: This section is disheartening

Which brings us to the final point. Bethesda did not fail. If anyone did fail, its you.

I like that line, it sums up the mentality of the kind of pro-fallout-3-people that post here.

If players complain about the game, blame the players. Ridicule them, make jokes about their apparent geekdom, about their playstyle and so on. Reminds me strongly of the Uwe Boll, I wonder when Bethesda will schedule a boxing match

"Fallout 3 doesn't suck, you all suck!"

Oh, I don't think FO3 is all bad, its a good shooter-type game with some nice elements - but not fallout 3. Another good thing about it was that Interplay now offers the Fallout Trilogy (FO1+2+tactics) for downloading - I finally was able to get Fallout 2 uncut (only had the UK Version)

 

[NYHoustonman]

For sure, I have no problem with reviewers acknowledging that as a Fallout game it falls short of expectations - every reviewer has an obligation to point this out if it is indeed the case. But people on this board have explicitly stated that, even as a game, without factoring in the previous two, it's still awful (again, not everybody, but that seems to be the general consensus here).

I wouldn't say so. The general consensus, if there is one, is that elements of this game suck the big one. The main storyline, character animations, dialogue writing, there's plenty to hate in this game. For some that's no problem, for some that is impossible to get around, but it has little to do with it being a Fallout title - except that the name raises expectations.

As a game, it's frankly great (and people have been banned or reported for trolling for expressing this opinion - pathetic).

No one has been banned for saying the game is great. However, what does tend to get under our skin is when people ignore flaws for convenience or fail to substantiate their claims. You think it's great? Fine. But unless you want to explain to us how a game with as many flaws as Fallout 3 has can be called "great" (rather than "ok" or "good", which I'd both call reasonable), it might be better not to bother us with it.

I wonder: do you see how calling Fallout 3 great can easily be as unreasonable as calling it awful?

To me, personally, the atmosphere is damned good (although it'd be cool if the lighting was a bit more 'dark' at night), and that alone lifts the game from being awful.

As an RPG it certainly lacks the depth of some other games, but the story so far has been fairly engaging, and the side quests varied and rewarding. I went through a period around 10-20 hours in where I wasn't enjoying it as much, but things have since picked up (although I'm admittedly only 32 hours in) to the point that I'm looking forward to playing just to see what happens. Dialog varies from good to pretty shitty, but overall it's not bad, and audio in general (environmental/radio) is good.

Speaking of variety, I'm surprised (probably moreso than most 'old-timers,' as I'm new to the Fallout universe) at the number of unique groups, environments, cities, and the like - there's a great deal more of this than there was in Oblivion.

The Graphics, particularly outdoors, are good. I'll admit that at the beginning of the game, notably throughout Vault 101, I was somewhat underwhelmed, but the environments beyond that are all good-looking technically (although, again, PC gamers have been spoiled by Crysis et al) and artistically, and are well fleshed out. Character models and animations are quite a bit more varied quality-wise (some faces compare to those found in Mass Effect, others are far behind, and animations in general within the game world are pretty bad).

It comes down to environment and engagement on the high end and some dialog and animation weakness on the low end, but the biggest thing is that I'm looking forward to playing it more than any game this year save Mass Effect, and I wish there were a better way to quantify that. I suppose I'm a bit more forgiving of the hardcore RPG aspects that may be missing or underdeveloped than many others.

While it may not make Fallout 3 a 'worthy' Fallout game, I prefer the real-time / first person nature of the game more than I would had it been turn-based / isometric (if that helps you understand my tastes when it comes to games).

 

[Buxbaum666]

Ultimately, yes, I think my opinion is by far the more common one - just not on this board (and no, that doesn't make it the 'right' one, no need to twist my words that way), and that's what bothers me.

"This is one of the highest-rated games of the year, far from the 'waste of time' so many of you make it out to be."
That sounds more like a statement than an opinion. And that's what bothers me.

It just seems as if most of you aren't giving the game a chance. I've seen some legitimate criticisms (often blown out of proportion when you consider the entire game, though), but I've also seen a lot of nit-picking and downright ridiculousness (Half-Life 2 - the original - has better graphics? Give me a break. Best game of all time, but no).

I still say the overall quality of the graphics in Half-Life 2
is better. That includes lighting/shadows, textures and animations.
Fallout 3 doesn't have object shadows at all. Bethesda also seems to think that light works like this:

No matter what time, even at night, the sun shines vertically through cracks in the roof.


Yeah, right. I guess there are some spot lights standing in front of the windows.


The whole room is well-lit.


His skin looks like he just survived spontaneous human combustion.

And some of the textures are just ridiculous.


You can find this one on nearly every building in the city.


Interesting read.

There are clipping errors all over the place, hands clipping through armour parts, guns clipping through environment, heads clipping through doors, feet clipping through rocks, dogmeat clipping through the street.


Lots of stuff/cars/people is just floating above the ground.


Many objects also seem to float because of the total lack of real shadows in this game.

Most animations are atrocious. Characters seem to have only one facial expression what, combined with the voice acting, makes it look quite odd at times. The gore effects are absolutely ridiculous and get old very soon.

Mind that I did not specifically look for stuff like this because I wanted to find flaws at all costs or something. It just hit me in the face while I was playing. All of this has nothing to do with the game being untrue to the Fallout franchise, it's just the icing on the cake. It also doesn't necessarily make Fallout 3 a bad game, I just don't see where all that fits into a 10/10 review.
I am quite unsure if I am enjoying the game. I really don't know. Sometimes playing Fallout 3 feels like a chore to me. "Alright, time to start Fallout 3 to get into subwaystation X for quest Y. Then I get item Z from location V for NPC W. On the way I'll kill some Super Mutants and some more Raiders for loot and XP while finding a few new locations on the map that I will check out later on." The game is repetitive and unique moments are scarce.
This game doesn't give me anything near to the feeling I had when I was playing the original games. They have some stuff that looks similiar to their Fallout 1/2 counterparts but overall it doesn't look or feel like Fallout to me. Not at all. That might spoil my game but I can't just switch it off or something. It's there and I can't ignore it.

Edit: And here I am, 4 in the funking morning, arguing about Fallout 3 stuff.

 

[NYHoustonman]

Ultimately, yes, I think my opinion is by far the more common one - just not on this board (and no, that doesn't make it the 'right' one, no need to twist my words that way), and that's what bothers me.

"This is one of the highest-rated games of the year, far from the 'waste of time' so many of you make it out to be."
That sounds more like a statement than an opinion. And that's what bothers me.

It just seems as if most of you aren't giving the game a chance. I've seen some legitimate criticisms (often blown out of proportion when you consider the entire game, though), but I've also seen a lot of nit-picking and downright ridiculousness (Half-Life 2 - the original - has better graphics? Give me a break. Best game of all time, but no).

I still say the overall quality of the graphics in Half-Life 2
is better. That includes lighting/shadows, textures and animations.
Fallout 3 doesn't have object shadows at all. Bethesda also seems to think that light works like this:

No matter what time, even at night, the sun shines vertically through cracks in the roof.


Yeah, right. I guess there are some spot lights standing in front of the windows.


The whole room is well-lit.


His skin looks like he just survived spontaneous human combustion.

And some of the textures are just ridiculous.


You can find this one on nearly every building in the city.


Interesting read.

There are clipping errors all over the place, hands clipping through armour parts, guns clipping through environment, heads clipping through doors, feet clipping through rocks, dogmeat clipping through the street.


Lots of stuff/cars/people is just floating above the ground.


Many objects also seem to float because of the total lack of real shadows in this game.

Most animations are atrocious. Characters seem have only one facial expression what makes the voice acting seem quite odd at times. The gore effects are absolutely ridiculous and get old very soon.

Mind that I did not specifically look for stuff like this because I wanted to find flaws at all costs or something. It just hit me in the face while I was playing. All of this has nothing to do with the game being untrue to the Fallout franchise, it's just the icing on the cake. It also doesn't necessarily make Fallout 3 a bad game, I just don't see where all that fits into a 10/10 review.
I am quite unsure if I am enjoying the game. I really don't know. Sometimes playing Fallout 3 feels like a chore to me. "Alright, time to start Fallout 3 to get into subwaystation X for quest Y. Then I get item Z from location V for NPC W. On the way I'll kill some Super Mutants and some more Raiders for loot and XP while finding a few new locations on the map that I will check out later on." The game is repetitive and unique moments are scarce.
This game doesn't give me anything near to the feeling I had when I was playing the original games. They have some stuff that looks similiar to their Fallout 1/2 counterparts but overall it doesn't look or feel like Fallout to me. Not at all. That might spoil my game but I can't just switch it off or something. It's there and I can't ignore it.

Those screenshots do certainly highlight some irregularities. Several points, though -

-None of the Source-based games have day-night cycles; they don't even need that kind of positional lighting. In the case of indoor environments, yes, that is a bit jarring, but not too hard to understand considering the maps for interior/exterior in those cases are completely separate. Outdoors, though, the lighting, particularly during sunrises/sunsets, is quite good.

-Very few games, even now, have truly dynamic shadows - they're too strenuous on hardware. One of the reasons Source-based games perform so well is that they take major shortcuts with shadow rendering - it wasn't until Episode 2 that any kind of dynamic shading was included. In the original, shadows didn't change at all based on lighting sources - they were based solely on character movement. Point being, they aren't being calculated in real-time. At the very least, Oblivion included character shadows that changed based on light source movement (namely, the torch), so I'd assume that carries over here, although the lack of object shadows is jarring. I wouldn't call the shadows in either Source or Bethesda's engine 'good.' Even the likes of Gears of War is about even here - character shadows, if visible at all, have nothing to do with lighting conditions.

-There are assorted low-res textures scattered about, but this seems to be commonplace in games with environments as huge as this. They're at the very least bounds ahead of what Oblivion featured upon release, and that was for quite a while the best looking game on PC.

-Clipping hasn't seemed any more frequent here compared to many other games I've played recently, although maybe I've missed something. I haven't seen any of the extreme examples you mention (dog through street, for example) - that would definitely be noticeable XD.

-Animations are admittedly pretty bad.

-The screenshot of the kid - looks like you have your Pip Boy lantern on...?

-textures with readeable text that size aren't so commonplace that something like that sign looks bad in comparison.

I don't know if this is relevant or not compared to how you're running the game, but I'm at 1680x1050 4xAA 8xAF, and the game looks anywhere from 'okay' to 'great' depending on situation, and to me this evens out to a solid 'good' by modern standards. Compare anything to Crysis and it'll look pretty horrid, but compared to other games I've played that are generally considered good-looking it generally ranks around average (higher if you want to include art direction and style).

I should note that I have no bias against Source... Half-Life 2 happens to be my favorite game . Taking the whole package into account, though, I don't see how it compares favorably.

All things considered, I'd probably give the game a 9, as it definitely has its flaws - many of which have been mentioned here. I can't see giving it a 5-6/10 any more than I can see giving it a 10/10, though.

 

[Buxbaum666]

Please don't do fullquotes like this. And I'll probably answer tomorrow, gotta hit the sack.

 

[Josan12]

There's no way for me to prove that you're wrong in stating that most reviewers have been 'bought,' as I can't prove a negative, but I feel the onus is on you to prove yourself right... I'm still skeptical. The bottom line is this - most gamers and most reviewers at least 'like' the game (I personally put it just below Mass Effect among my favorite games of the year), and aren't calling it a '4/10' or a 'waste of time.' Neither of us is going to go anywhere with this argument if we're going to make baseless claims like that (and, no doubt, the next one will be that the majority of gamers are unsophisticated and blinded by hype).

Oh c'mon, man. Just look at the NMA front page. Brother None has said it all by posting literally ALL the FO3 reviews written, and they are almost all full of it. Payola, that is.

It started with GTA 4, and now FO3 has confirmed it. Corruption is rife in the so-called commercial video game media, and these ridiculous 'reviews' are no longer worth reading.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

^ Are you implying that the reviews have ever been worth reading? Sheesh.

 

[Tessera]

Couple of points -

I never said it was the highest rated game of the year, I said it's up there. Please don't misquote me.

I honestly don't think that I was misquoting you, but here are your exact words anyway:

This is one of the highest-rated games of the year, far from the 'waste of time' so many of you make it out to be.

I was just trying to point out that the perception that F3 is "one of the highest rated games" is erroneous, simply because almost none of those reviews are legitimate.


Regarding the graphics quality in Fallout 3...

Just take a look at my signature pic. That's a character that I created for Oblivion. Well, Oblivion is a two-year-old game produced by the very same company (Bethslop). Now, I challenge anyone to show me a single screenshot from Fallout 3 that looks even one-half as realistic as my character does. No chance in hell.

To be fair, I will point out that my character has been completely modified by your's truly and other modders... but even that in and of itself is another reason to condemn Fallout3: Bethslop has deliberately made this game difficult to modify. That is exactly the opposite from what they had been promising us during the past two years of F3's development. We were told that the game would be moddable. We were promised a construction set. Well... then where is all of that stuff..? Nowhere... and Bethslop is being very cagey about giving us any further information.

In short: they lied to everyone. Period.

Why are people making excuses for this mess..? Simple -- they're all pulling at straws, because nobody likes to admit that they've been ripped-off. Another term for this sort of phenomenon is "rationalization."

Fallout 3 is a very sloppy port of a kiddie konsole game to the PC. It's as simple as that. People are free to disagree, but my response will always be "then you and I obviously have different standards." My standards are pretty high these days... but in this particular case, I'm judging F3 based upon the standards set by its predecessors in the Fallout series. Bethesda sold us A FALLOUT GAME, hence its title. Thus, we have every right to expect it to live up to its namesakes.

And it doesn't. Not by a longshot.

 

[Leon]

To hell with legitimacy; few of them are even coherent.

 

[NYHoustonman]

Couple of points -

I never said it was the highest rated game of the year, I said it's up there. Please don't misquote me.

I honestly don't think that I was misquoting you, but here are your exact words anyway:

This is one of the highest-rated games of the year, far from the 'waste of time' so many of you make it out to be.

I was just trying to point out that the perception that F3 is "one of the highest rated games" is erroneous, simply because almost none of those reviews are legitimate.

I said it was one of the highest, rather than the highest, which would be utterly false. Just wanted to clarify.

Regarding the graphics quality in Fallout 3...

Just take a look at my signature pic. That's a character that I created for Oblivion. Well, Oblivion is a two-year-old game produced by the very same company (Bethslop). Now, I challenge anyone to show me a single screenshot from Fallout 3 that looks even one-half as realistic as my character does. No chance in hell.

To be fair, I will point out that my character has been completely modified by your's truly and other modders... but even that in and of itself is another reason to condemn Fallout3: Bethslop has deliberately made this game difficult to modify. That is exactly the opposite from what they had been promising us during the past two years of F3's development. We were told that the game would be moddable. We were promised a construction set. Well... then where is all of that stuff..? Nowhere... and Bethslop is being very cagey about giving us any further information.

In short: they lied to everyone. Period.

You mentioned it yourself, but that's a mod and not part of the original game. Literally the only thing we can really compare there is the backgrounds, as they are unaltered... And Oblivion looks leagues ahead of Oblivion there.

Either way, they're using the same engine upgraded a bit - given mod tools, I suspect you could create that same character in Fallout 3.

The lack of officially supported moddability up to this point is a definite downside, but it has nothing to do with the graphics. Out-of-the-box, Fallout 3 looks better than Oblivion, which was widely regarded as the best looking game available upon release. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't it take some time for Bethesda to release mod tools for Oblivion? Regardless, I wouldn't lose hope so quickly, they know how important they were in making that game better, so it would be downright stupid to ignore them here.

Why are people making excuses for this mess..? Simple -- they're all pulling at straws, because nobody likes to admit that they've been ripped-off. Another term for this sort of phenomenon is "rationalization."

Fallout 3 is a very sloppy port of a kiddie konsole game to the PC. It's as simple as that. People are free to disagree, but my response will always be "then you and I obviously have different standards." My standards are pretty high these days... but in this particular case, I'm judging F3 based upon the standards set by its predecessors in the Fallout series. Bethesda sold us A FALLOUT GAME, hence its title. Thus, we have every right to expect it to live up to its namesakes.

And it doesn't. Not by a longshot.

This is where I disagree, and there's no reason for me to try to change your mind, but at least you admit that you're judging it as a Fallout title.

Myself, I haven't been blinded, biased, etc.; I just like the game. I'm not alone in this opinion, and the rationalizations I've seen from those willing/able to post their opinions have been far from 'grasping for straws,' IMO. Hell, I'd consider a lot of the nitpicking that goes on with the other side to be closer to that.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Well, the FO3 doesn't NOT have modding tools released. And the sheer fact that a modded character for a 2 y.o. game looks better than a character created by the original developers of a brand-new game only speaks badly about the game developers. FO3 has some of the ugliest characters I've ever seen.

 

[Typhoon]

Well, the FO3 doesn't NOT have modding tools released. And the sheer fact that a modded character for a 2 y.o. game looks better than a character created by the original developers of a brand-new game only speaks badly about the game developers. FO3 has some of the ugliest characters I've ever seen.

Some are ugly, some are neat. Don't you think? I think there are not many games out there which have such a wide variety in clothing and faces.

Check out some pics from the screenshot sections. You'll find greatly crafted 3D Characters there. If anyone says Fo3 has bad graphics, he's obviously mistaken.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

^ Hmm, I suggest you the same. Read the forums, check out screenshots. The graphic bugs and horrendous close-up textures are quite bad. 90% character's faces look like donkey arse.

BTW I have not once said that FO3 has "bad" GFX anyways, so I must be right

 

[AstroManLuca]

I was just trying to point out that the perception that F3 is "one of the highest rated games" is erroneous, simply because almost none of those reviews are legitimate.

What does that mean? So because you personally don't like the game, the reviews aren't legitimate? It's one thing if there was something like what happened with a few games earlier this year where the developer refused to give reviewers early copies of their games unless they guaranteed a high score. There is a consensus among game reviewers that Fallout 3 is a good game. Why? Because they're reviewing it entirely on its own, not as compared to Fallout 1/2.

Why are people making excuses for this mess..? Simple -- they're all pulling at straws, because nobody likes to admit that they've been ripped-off. Another term for this sort of phenomenon is "rationalization."

And my response is that a lot of people here decided so far in advance that they'd hate any non-Black Isle Fallout game that to admit they were even somewhat wrong is just too hard. That's also rationalization. I've seen a lot of legitimate arguments for why Fallout 3 is not a good game, but I've seen just as much grasping at straws from those who dislike it.

 

[Tessera]

What does that mean? So because you personally don't like the game, the reviews aren't legitimate?

It has nothing to do with what I like or do not like. This is not personal.

It has to do with it being the absolute truth. All of those glowing reviews on the large commercial gaming sites were bought and paid for by Bethslop, Sony and Microsloth. That's just the way it is these days in the gaming industry, so let's not be gullible.

The fact that the major concensus on the independent fansites (like this one) is almost 180 degrees opposite from what the "professional" reviewers are saying is very sobering.

If anyone says Fo3 has bad graphics, he's obviously mistaken.

Maybe you're right. I mean... what the hell do I know about graphics..? I don't what I was thinking when I wrote that...

 

[Mimezu]

Just to add my opinion about the graphics (by the way don't hesitate to have a look at my works on my website)

I think that the game environnments are awesome artistically, but a bit on the low side technically at some place (some very low resolution textures) because of the dammned console port. But when you are not too close to an object, the game really shines.
On the characters I really like the male models, they are very well done, but I agree that the female characters are really subpar and bad looking. Some textures are awesome, for example the dirt texture on the raider's faces is great, but on the other hand the basic female texture is just horrible :/

Even with those technical issues, low resollutions textures, the game is still beautiful and much more interesting artistically than crysis for example (wich is awesome technically but very poor artistically, too repetitive and too much trying to be simply photorealistic). The only recent game that achieved an art direction as good as FO3 imho was Bioshock, and I launched it again just to have a look and in fact the textures in it are blurrier than in FO3, and I don't speak about the ultra low resolution buildings as soon as you look through a window, but last year nobody complaned about bioshock visuals. I guess we are getting more and more exigents.

About the animations, there has been an improvement since Morrowind and Oblivion, some animations are good (smoking, eating, sitting, the super mutant animations are ok, the feral ghouls are very well animated also) but most of the standing/walking/running animations for the human characters are really awful, lifeless and without any emotion. The lips animations are ok, but the overall facial expressions are quite bad too.

One game that had top notch animation is mass effect, but unfortunately it has a so-so art direction, some bad costumes, and mostly very bland environnments, and bad level design ... (very overhyped game in the end imho :p)

Fallout 3 art direction, with animators from Bioware would be bliss
!!

Tessera : wow, you managed to make an even uglier woman than moira or amata
I am also eagerly waiting for the CS and I hope we will have body and face mods soon, and more haircuts, because while the beards are great, the female haircuts are really lacking. it is almost as if they didn't intended to have females in the game at first, and rushed them in the very end
The only think I disagree is about the eye symetry thing, in real life very few people have perfect symmetric eyes, and most of the time you have one eye lower than another. But they should allow us to weak it while creation.