then why I should play game just partially ? I hate to restrict myself, game should restrict me. I am kind of powergamer, i like using game to its limits, finding out what can I do. But in fallout there are all those numbers and RPG stuff completly useless, there is no difference between having skill at 20 or 100, i can still kill supermutie with 10mm gun (should be .40ACP but it was 10mm even in F1 and F2) on lvl 2 while playing on hard. But how can roleplaying help me with bug? with CTD? with idiotic quests ? with dumb dialogues? with short story ? with missing backstory?
I can roleplay character with INT1 but how can I do it in F3? stop talking to anyone? walking in circle ? jak by řekl čtvrtníček, vocamcaď pocamcaď (sorry to anyone else :) this is just for fenix). I can roleplay character with charisma 1, but game ignores it. I can roleplay that I cannot use heavy guns, but still i can use minigun and in short range quite successfully. Fallout was long time synonym for solid RPG and bethesda did just some shooter and called it RPG. I do not hate this game itself, as I said it is good shooter, or action RPG, but bethesda sold it to me for quite a price as Fallout successor and good roleplaying game, but what can I do now? I cannot give it back to them and get my money back, for me this is thievery. Then why I shouldn't be upset?
why should I limit myself ? when I will start downloading torrents then I will be quiet, but now i am still paying for games, and i want some quality for my money.

Just for the record: I pretty much agree with you and I'm not in really protecting Fallout 3. Everything I said is mostly appliable in TES games, but some of it you can apply to F3 as well - and get your money woth! Hm, at least I managed to apply it succesfully...
Well, I think F3 WAS worth the money anyhow, and, to be completely honest, it was more fun for me than Fallout 2(... I didn't like F2 much, dunno why) But there's no way it can even get to the Fallout 1s' knees...
In the end, I'd say F3 puts pretty neat basics - and since I don't really care for core-RPG systems anyhow, I hope for F1 remake in it's engine, because Fallout 3 with Fallout 1s' writing would be... The best... Game... Nope, it wouldn't stand a chance against original F1, but what the hell, I like pretty :D

That would be "meta-roleplaying" you're thinking of. :P "Roleplaying" is "making decisions as if you were the character", not "making decisions as if you were playing a roleplaying game". If the game says your character is a great shot using any weapon he finds, then why would you try to pretend that he isn't? Not to mention, stats are there in the first place to describe your character, his abilities and limitations - if they make no difference, then they're just pointless fluff.

What do you think is more fun? Being a causeous assasin, who uses his dagger to cut a throat of unaware opponent, or some kind of a tank, who takes his sword into his hand and chops opponent's head off? Both of these can be character with the SAME stats in Oblivion. Of course, some would like the chopping approach more, but I just happen to be an assasin... Assasin, not a knight. So, I have blade at 100, which means I can use both dagger AND sword. And I'm an assasin. I want to be an assasin. Sure, it would give me the same ctitical hit with sword for a MUCH higher damage, but... Since I'm freaking ASSASIN, I'll use my DAGGER - not because game tells me so, but because I've decided to.
Yeah, Blade as one skill sucks, but you can make it right if you play right...
So, I'll answer your question: Why should you pretend? Because it's FUN, it's more IMMERSIVE that way - I don't play games to use system in my advantage, I play games to have fun - of course, if you have fun abusing mechanic inperfections, by all means, go ahead - but I tell you, from my experience, most 'hardcore' gamers who tried to make their own boundaries will agree with me.

Roleplaying relies on stats to mathematically represent the possibilities available to a character, the numbers are his personality.
Easy enough? The fact that you specify their exact numerical value and you are forced to create a character that functions in his own specialized manner builds a unique role, the way those numbers interact with the outside world defines the player's character as a unique individual creation that's entirely different from the next bundle of stats.
If you have all stats available to you, or you're able to max out everything, that unique role is thrown out the window, the things you can't do are just as important as the things you can do.
In Oblivion all you can't do is maybe max out all of your base statistics, so you can't cast a few spells. So what? Big deal. Little to no customization in that at all, you can max out all your skills and be nearly just as effective with each and every one of them. Your character is not unique, he fills no unique role.
Fallout 3 works similarly, too much is given up to the player because the developers are afraid to balance their own game, they can't deal with blocking the players off to any possible interaction with the world so they simply litter the environment with easy alternatives. So you can max out five skills, you can do every single quest without suffering some penalty because of the things you can't do. Fallout 3 provides so few unique results for specific characters that there's no purpose to attempting to make them unique, other than how you end up killing things.
"If you don't like a feature, don't use it" is probably one of the worst arguments I've ever encountered, it's up to the same level as the "game logic" excuse. If a feature is shit it detracts from the game, period, you don't ignore flaws or bad design, especially not when you actually have to limit yourself to avoid them.
That's like playing Ultima IX and memorizing all the spots where the game will hardlock so you don't have to deal with them then all of a sudden saying that nonsense doesn't matter because you can avoid it.

Why the hate? Most of it is snobbery, especially the No Mutants Allowed crowd. And since Bethesda knew they could only please the NMA folks by morphing into the team that made the original Fallout, they decided not to worry about pleasing them.
The game really is Fallout as interpreted by Bethesda. Bethesda has always been a bit weak on storytelling, but they excell in world-building. FO3 gave them the chance to do both! I found, for example, going through Vault 92 to be a fascinating experience; that place told its own story to anyone who took the time to read a few things and then notice where things were lying around the Vault.
And I've been blessed not to have any trouble with bugs.

Fine, I'll sum it up:
- What are games about?
Games are about having fun, games are about being 'elswhere', games are about being able to do something you'd never dream of doing in real life - games are all of this.
Now, you have feature that ruins the fun for you and, for example, makes game easier, makes it what you don't want it to be. You have 2 options to go with:
-Use the feature and have less fun with the game.
-Don't use the feature and have more fun with the game.
Now tell me, who's logic is flawed?
Games are not here to play us, games are here to be played by us. And as well as we, or at least I, used to make our own rules for Dungeons and Dragons, or any desk game, we can severely tweak the rules in computer games as well. All it takes is to be creative, imaginative, and even the most flawed game can suddenly become one of the best games you've ever played. How so? Because you made it so good, by yourself! Of course, you can't go to extremes - you can't get a white box and be told 'now imagine yourself a world, you can play around as much as you want', but you can do it to a certain degree - the only boundaries are your own imagination. I can picture myself how I were as a child, running along the street with my friend, and being on the greatest adventures of my life - yes, I was on the street, but in my head, I was somewhere else, doing the most exciting things! And that's all it takes - just wake up the child in you, that'll shape the game for you, that'll make it the greatest adventure - and, suddenly, you'll get MORE than what you paid for. You could argue 'I didn't pay to use my imagination!' or something along the lines, but I don't see a reason why shouldn't you use, why shouldn't you make the game so much better whenever you can. It's not real life, you know. You're pretending to be someone else, somewhere else anyway - why not just add something to it?
Yes, if the games have flaws, it should be pointed out in a review, it should get a lower rating... But the same flaws can be sometimes even turned into advantages, if you have an imagination to do it....

I could have skipped the whole Dedalus sections of Ulysses because I detested the character, I easily could have, I could have increased my "enjoyment" as you say, but then I wouldn't have fully experienced the whole of the work, I wouldn't be able to say I actually read the book and that I actually understood it.
Similarly, I cannot say I played Fallout 3 without having experienced all that's within it, I can't say I truly have the right to criticize it if I didn't experience it wholly.
I've most likely played Fallout 3 more than the people that love it, why? Because I'm a Fallout fan, because I'm a long time critic who's based his gaming experiences around forming a developed taste. I don't allow any game to be good to me anymore, if you do, then it waters all the truly good stuff down, and in order to justify my opinion of a game I have to put time into it, if I do, then my appreciation of those games that actually do things right will increase and I will enjoy gaming far more.
There's far more benefits in being a critic and to possess high standards, you don't let yourself be disappointed because you never expect a game to do anything right, when it surprises you, then you know that the game is standout in its own way.
And like I said before, you don't ignore flaws, your logic is flawed because you seem to think that if you ignore the fact that something exists that it will magically go away and leave your experience unspoilt, it doesn't, it stays there in the background and grates in the back of your mind that the developers "did something wrong." In this case, that wrong isn't even a small issue, it's massive, it has to do with the whole structure of the game, you CANNOT ignore it, especially if you've made it a point when playing around in your hobby to be considered a veteran gamer who has unequaled ability in regards to specific analysis of a game.
"Imagination" is all fine and dandy, but imagination doesn't make the game, I could have imagined that my character in Fallout 3 was a gunslinging old-fashioned gentleman, but the game tells me otherwise every second. Each time I enter dialog and get some stupid, moronic option as a response to an NPC, it tells me otherwise, each time I can pick up a minigun and somehow spray bullets in every direction with no loss in accuracy or potency even with only four strength and twenty points in Big Guns (a combination that never would have worked in FO1/2) it tells me otherwise.
Why should I fight the game in order to enjoy it? Why do I have to ignore the flaws to have fun? The developers have a job, making a good game, and most importantly, making that game polished and without inhibition to my ability to enjoy it and utilize my imagination.

You can't possibly ignore something you don't know about - so you can't really talk about 'not experiencing' :D
So yes, you could have skipped the whole Deadalus section of Ulysses(whatever it is, ehm :-) ), and yes, you should have, it it would mean you'll get better experience.
Comparison to books is not really that great - while in books you ARE trying to understand what work has to say to you, in the end, that's what books are for, games are not. Games are ... Games. Book should, in most cases, lead you trough story as writer writer wanted you to - while games, on the other hand, should let you get trough it as you want to. For me, the more possibilities to do it you have, the better. I could use vita-chambres in Bioshock, but ... Why the hell should I? But someone would, maybe, appreciate it... So why don't put it there? I can be sword-wielding, sharpshooting magician in heavy armor, but why the heck should I, if I don't want to? That's the great thing about the games, that's why they are so different from books or movies - because you have CHOICE, it doesn't matter if it means choosing where you're going to cover your ass in FPS games or what will your another life be in RPGs..
And yes, you're right - to criticise is easy. To imagine is not. In fact, I could have criticized Morrowind from my first impressions, I could have torn the game apart, because I CAN see it's flaws if I want to - but I didn't want to. And the game, that with your approach would be just medicore for me suddenly became on of three best games I've ever played.
And I didn't say you can ignore all. I said you can shape the game - not fully, but still, you can shape it to be better. As well as I previously said writing in Fallout 3 is not really good and it indeed is one of the things you can't shape. I criticise Fallout - mostly for things that can't possibly be ignored, because they're thrown right under your nose. And I praise Fallout - for things I can become in the game and all the possibilities it gives me.
No, I don't seem to think, I'm pretty sure of it, because I do it - I must say though it requires a lot of immersion and some games are just not able to achieve that. Then again, you CAN use your imagination to raise immersion if you know how...

I've used power of imagination, and my Ford Fiesta '88 turned out to be a newest BMW! Yay!

You're one of the guys that take gun, go out, steal car and then shoot people around the road, cause you did it in GTA, aren't ya? :D So much for mixing reality and games :D

Flip that around - you have to pretend because it's not FUN otherwise. Also, that is still meta-gaming, i.e. thinking outside the game's rules and world, the very opposite of immersion, and it still doesn't have anything to do with roleplaying.

...Are......are you serious?

Answering the original question of this thread, people just love to rant, is all.
I even understand people who point out flaws in Fallout 3, and there's certainly quite a few, but if it wasn't Fallout no one would care. Everyone would say it's a cool post-apocalyptic CRPG with a very low challenge, short main story and the issue that you can't send Fawkes instead by the end of the game.
Judas and moonfear together managed to come up with a list of about 50 flaws in the game, including the unintelligible "jumping" (am I to think there shouldn't be jumpiing in a game where you control a human person?), the subjective "oblivion syndrome" (I'm pretty sure you didn't call it Dune 2 syndrome first time you played Warcraft) and even the silly "Todd Howard was involved in it". When you see a list of complaints about even stating they "made it real time" you gotta know they're making shit up.
So yeah, there's flaws, and the game suffers from exceedingly high expectations from Fallout 2, which had a seriously longer main quest, about thrice as many cities and an arguably better ending.