Uh, overboard much? There're some stupid things in there that betrays a lack of thought (UK->US travel, companions/ending, etc) but it's not a pile of glistening poo. Yeah, maybe they should have copy & pasted the Behemoths to keep with the design? I mean, the subways were boring, but that's no reason to attack them for, uh, not including a lot of Behemoths, which would have been moronic. Or maybe Emil actually can't remember. I mean, this is right down 'your mom' jokes. Next, we can mock him about how they got the exact shade of brown wrong in the Wasteland, and throw in a soil erosion joke. Seriously, it's not like there's a lack of stuff in FO3 to constructively criticise without going nyah-nyah at Emil. It's also nice to hear these kind of afterthoughts from the designer, by the way. The explanations for the companions/ending screwup is the one that makes the most sense, I guess, given what we've got. I think it would be a lot more palatable as a simple "sorry we couldn't fit it in" if the ending itself wasn't so crap and nonsensical to begin with (The magical purifier-which-shalt-explode-if-you-don't-turn-it-on, etc). Fawkes' comment about 'destiny', for instance, would have toed the line of acceptability if you had built an emotional connection with your dad over the course of the game. As it is, the main quest is too short, the time you spend with your dad is extremely annoying, you are shoe-horned into a particular role awash with NWN1-ish heroic language, and Fawkes' comment only serves to reinforce the paper-house feeling of the whole hero-dad thing. Never mind how Alistair Tenpenny's complete lack of backstory, motivation and logical behaviour is passed off as "giving players something to think about", eh. Oh, did anybody think it was weird how they say they wanted to end FO3 because... FO1 and FO2 end as well? What?