A few notable quotes:
This article is not a test. Just an "introduction for things to come". Why? Because the conditions under which I had to play this "RPG" were not acceptable: sixteen hours in a row in a luxurious hotel on an almost finished build, Bethesda asking to see my screenshots in order to "approve" them...These factors, going from obnoxious to truly scandalous would have made my review biased or even dishonest. Well, I mean a little more dishonest than what I usually do. But have no fear, even though I was deprived of my screenshots, I'm not deprived from my opinion. Condolences: Fallout 3 is a sluggish device, soulless, not exactly terrible, actually almost enjoyable, but totally forgettable because of uncountable dishonest compromises.
He's being extremely critical and mentions basically nothing positive (although, there's a chance the translator skipped parts of the preview). But I do kinda like this honesty, negative parts of games are rarely mentioned in other reviews and previews. It sounds like he's exaggarating but some points seems extremely likely (like the "dungeons", something I quickly got tired of in Oblivion). And he's got a very good point about the conditions he were expected to review the game. The same thing has been done with other AAA titles, and there's no doubt that's not an ideal way to review a game.
Most locations you can discover are "raider dungeons". City ruins are copy-paste of the same and only model, here and there flavored by the same and only model of tricycle (the very poetic "Red Ryder") and even worse, the main quest will get you through an Hellgate London-ish nightmare in which you had to pass through kilometers of underground for hours and hours.