Are they saying the only reason it wasn't an FPS was that it didn't have the technology or that the original would have played the same but in a first person view? Either way I must be missing something.
The argument used by many including Bethesda is that first-person is more immersive (because as we all know, opinion = fact). Therefore Fallout would've been first person if the technology existed, but it didn't. But now it does! Inconvenient facts such as FPP being around before isometric are ignored every time.
Actually, they say that it even if there were FPP games, then Fallout wasn't FPP because back then FPP didn't look so good... Duh!
No one ever said that all of us are I haven't read this magazine for few years but form what I remeber this guy is more like racing games fan... No wonder he doesn't have anything against replacing turns with "real action". This is not an excuse
BTW, at Polish science fiction conventions I ended up defending Fallout 3 because most people there were negative about Fallout 3 (which is good) but for bad reasons (e.g. because the lack of SPECIAL even though SPECIAL is in).
I remember buying this issue back in 2007 for the info on F3 and I found the article rather silly, they made some stupid points like that, e.g. you can play this just like a turn-based game thanks to the VATS system. They also reviewed this game when it came out, rated it 8/10 and explained how it's just like the oldschool Fallout. The only thing they actually criticized was... the interface. Also, accidentally spoiled a major plot point in the review