It's clear by virtue of its past employment of Little Glenn that GuardianUK is positioned as a mythmaker for those who want to label themselves as progressive and gravely concerned about the world's manifold injustices, and also by virtue of its track record --journalistic content wise, I mean-- that it considers itself a mapmaker (including, by necessity in its meritocratic position, legend creator) for reading the terrifying terra firma's terrors as they lay, all the better to avoid them.
As already said, gloomily but with full resign to the outcome here, I haven't played F4. So I can't review it. But I can read other reviews and see if the reviewer understands the Fallout world well enough to make the review worth my consideration.
The legendary progressive stronghold has reviewed F4 today.
I haven't read the review for the inevitable subtle reminders of what each and every Progressive should believe about the world, technology, nuclear power, or the Fallout world's commentary on all those things from the perspective of a person who is an adult at the turn of the 20th into the 21st Century. I looked only at the review of the game & game-play.
The intrepid scrivener complains that you have to use an unwanted (and, maybe more accurately, unfair) amount of foresight in choosing your SPECIAL attributes, because short-changing yourself on a category early on will make later game-play tough if, for example, you want to use a weapon but it requires more Perception than you have allocated yourself.
I suppose I should not be surprised that from GuardianUK's perspective, soft-Marxist doggerel is essential to video game diversion. It really cannot be overstated: games must provide that No Child Left Behind vibe, a safe space for the game-player, everyone equal, no advantages in any native talent because we're all natively talented and most of all, fungible entities.
I think I have that correctly, but I'll wait to be rectified by the self-appointed paladins of Ultimate Truth.
Perhaps if F4 made every player equal to every other player who chooses to play the game, and furthermore, equal to every NPC encountered in the game, it could earn a 10/10 from GuardianUK. Then you could start out with low Perception but still be able to use that wicked sniper rifle you pick up at Level 10. The choices you made at Level 1 should not hamper your progress. And progress is what matters, because without progress nobody's equal.
If you go back to your 4th grade school class, do you remember every one of your classmates as being equal to every other classmate in every field of inquiry, every facet of human talent, every display of human morphology?
Were there kids who could play a musical instrument almost as if they were born doing so? Others whose talents at mathematics made them seem like little Euclids? How about the ones who could draw or paint as if it took no practice or refinement, relative to your own abilities?
Were there fat kids? Skinny kids? Kids with red hair? How about freckles? Any kids who already had a moustache?
The Fallout series doesn't promise Utopia -- not as an experience in the game world, not as a refinement of the driving plot, and not as a game-playing concept.
It might even be a no-risk proposition to say that a watering-down of the game, in a manner that would raise its GuardianUK review score from 7/10 to 10/10, might leave only the rare few wanting to play it.
I think a different game is in order for GuardianUK readers: one where the game is basically a story told in animation cinema, with minor occasional interruptions for the most routine levels of game-controller-device manipulation. Perhaps L.A. Noire is more their speed.