Not a contrary review but a contrary opinion piece from Crispy Gamer, which not only reveals a personal assessment of parts of the game that stands in stark contrast to those found in many reviews, but also hinting that fellow critics have been under internal pressure to confirm hype and expectations.

Since Fallout 3 shipped in October, I've kept my secret, fearing that should it get out, the rest of the gaming community, including the considerable Fallout fan base, would grab their pitchforks and light their torches and chase me into the old windmill. When it came time to cast my vote for Game of the Year a few weeks back, I spent a series of antacid-infused days wrestling with whether or not I had the stuff to go against the grain, to stand up to pitchfork- and fire-wielders, and be true to my heart. Mostly I wondered if I'd forsake the little credibility I have in this business by picking something other than Fallout 3.

/../

I know of a least a half-dozen writers who included Fallout 3 in their top-10 lists who, I know for a fact, didn't invest more than three or four hours in the game (if that), and still felt compelled to vote for Fallout 3 -- let's go ahead and say it -- because it felt like the right thing to do. In the end, it seems it's not a question of how much critics liked or disliked the game, but rather an issue of not being able to argue with 1. the developers (Bethesda proved with the Elder Scrolls series that they know what they're doing), and 2. the game's pedigree (the first two Fallout games are already well-ensconced in the canon).