*shrugs* Perhaps I read too much RPGCodex, GameBanshee and NMA (all hives of "fanbois" after all, eh Dhruin?), and perhaps my own experience of constant CTDs twisted my impressions...fair enough, I'll concede the point, they are known as stable releases.
Does that sound like you are referring to AI? Of course it's hyperbole but "might blow up your computer" suggests their games are dangerously buggy.
It's also obviously a joking remark.
Seriously dude, if someone says "Fiat makes such bad automobiles it's a wonder they don't blow up", do you take it literally, as him claiming Fiat makes dangerous cars?
If we want to talk about design or other failures, I can wax lyrical all day long but I'm really confident the general consensus sees it the opposite of you.
The general consensus? The general consensus, dear Dhruin, is that Fallout 3 is the pinnacle of RPG design. Considering how much credit I give to that, it should be no small wonder the general reputation of the title in any other field is not that relevant.
The odd thing is you'd expect technical stability to be a more measurable factor. But it isn't. All you have is "people say" or "my experience is". It'd be a good mark game journalism is maturing if they put some real time an effort in studies in this department.
Now, to take a step back before everyone starts talking to me like I'm a retarded 8-year old again, when people claim a criticism of a game can be seen as objective they usually mean it has the general consensus behind it. It's no wonder that the places I tend to hang out in as well as my own frustration at CTDs and quest-stopping bugs (I encountered two, without even looking for 'em) skewed my own view of Fallout 3. Heck, I don't think I'll be fully impressed by Bethesda's programming department until they release something that runs fine on my computer (most games do, by the way, I keep it very clean and up-to-date driverwise) and doesn't require a big-ass fanpatch, but general consensus is what it is. I'm also fully convinced Fallout 3 is a good game and significantly better than Oblivion, but a pretty terrible Fallout game, but I could argue that on BethSoft 'till my face turns blue and still get called an idiot for not calling it the greatest RPG ever, or I could state that over and over here and you guys would still pretend I'm a zealot who lashes out at Bethesda and never says anything positive about them, ever...
...
Are we at least agreed that their AI isn't that good, animation department is absolutely horrid, and writing varies from just ok to terrible? Or do we have yet more personal illusions to dispel?
Let me approach it another way - since my definition is apparently different to yours, give me examples of RPGs in recent years that meet your standard on release.
King's Bounty, Mount & Blade (final version, obv), any Avernum game.
Realise, Dhruin, that these things are always impressionistic. I've had no trouble with any of the above games, the only bug I encountered was one in M&B where it would span a siege engine way up in the air for some reason. I've also never heard of people who had problems with these games.
Obviously that's not a scientific method, and if I went looking for them I'd no doubt find them. As I said, I think gaming journalism has a ways to go in these kinds of departments.