It's an extreme example - I accept that. My point is that because the visitors to this board may not accept FO3 as being an example of PC design, doesn't mean the rest of the world sees it that way.
It's not really relevant how anyone without an idea of the history sees it.
It's more about what it ACTUALLY is. I think we can look at Fallout 3 pretty objectively and compare it with similar CRPG titles. The most obvious comparison would be the prequels - because that's the legacy any sane person would look at first when determining Fallout 3's adherence to its PC tradition.
Naturally, if we compare Fallout 3 with a typical action game - not an RPG - then it would be favorable in terms of added complexity. But there's really no sense in doing that.
What I think makes sense, and i'd even claim being objective here, is to compare it to the typical PC rpg, and see where it falls in terms of complexity.
The whole thing is of course silly and maybe even pedantic, but in my mind - Fallout 3 is a clear-cut example of the mass market mindset. But let's not go all out on Bethesda, because it's a common trend. The same things can be said for most modern developers of big titles, and Bioware and others are equally set on streamlining and catering to casuals.
Again, the only thing I find irritating (and that's all it is to me) - is the denial of it being what it is. It's NOT being sensitive to hardcore gamers or that kind of complexity. It doesn't mean it's bad or that it doesn't "evolve" PC games in some way, being more complex than action games or whatever the casual ignorant gamer would compare it to. I don't mean ignorant as a derogative, it's simply what it is - they have no idea of the history of the games they're playing. I'm ignorant in a ton of ways myself, but I happen to know A LOT about the history of gaming and the CRPG genre in particular.
Is Fallout 3 simple and "dumb" from the casual gamer's point of view? No, of course not. In that way, it's probably pretty deep and complex.
But is it simple and "dumb" when compared to the classics of CRPG history, and in particular those games it claims to follow? Yeah - it most definitely is. That might sound harsh - and that's just my way of putting it. I'm sure there are hardcore gamers - or enthusiasts as I like to call us - who think it's plenty deep and complex, but I would simply have to disagree. It's a matter of what the individual requires for those terms to apply. But if anyone claims it's of the same depth and complexity as Fallout 2 - then I'd have to claim they're objectively wrong. But I doubt it's something I could prove - as anyone can call anything deep or complex if they feel like it.
In essence, this debate is probably not going to change anyone's view of Fallout 3.