I've played through the game twice and that's how i remember it too. it would be nice if he could name a specific instance when the PC talks about Shaun unprompted but my guess is he can not.

The only time the PC talks about it is the main quest, everything else when asked you can dodge the issue or not say it at all. New Vegas literally does the same thing numerous times. Yes you can dodge it sometimes like in Novac but you're still going to be required to talk about the platinum chip and Benny, you still NEED to get the platinum chip eventually whether is by talking to House, talking with Benny or talking with the great khans in Boulder city, there is no way around it that's the only way to progress through the main story. It's the same with the water chip in FO1, the same with the Geck in FO2, same with your dad in FO3. Every Fallout games does something like this.

Playing several characters simultaneously and I've had three go through the Kellogg section and I third that.

Right and again, that's the main story. New Vegas did the exact damn thing, Fallout 1 did the exact damn thing, Fallout 2 did the exact same thing, Fallout 3 did the exact damn thing, every Fallout game did the exact damn thing. It's a recurring theme in the games there is no Fallout game where you had the option to say "I'm not going to tell you what I'm looking for" the entire main story of the game. This is the point I'm making, saying there is an urgency because you're forced to mention something in the main damn story is something each and every fallout game did.

It added the whole extensive building of settlements dimension, if you wanted to engage in that play, even to a small extent, plenty of role-play there. Completely new.

You have the opportunity yes, but you are never made to mention it ever as a motivation for your actions if you don't want to. In FO4, in the vault you promise to find Shaun - establishing your character's modus operandi as tracking him down.

Literally what you say straight away in the vault - there is no option not to mention him. No option. There is always an option not to mention the platinum chip, or that you want it, or that you're interested in it - and you can talk to anyone you want to and still not mention it, because the character that you've made might not care about it. It's not like you have to pvssyfoot around certain characters to avoid mentioning it (Codsworth, and others), because you're never made to say anything about it. This is complete fact, not opinion - fact.

I don't know what kind of blind ignorance you're running with here. You have to mention Shaun at the very least in the vault, you don't have to ever mention the Chip. You have to literally avoid situations in FO4 not to mention Shaun (Codsworth), there's nothing you have to avoid in New Vegas in order to not mention the Chip when people ask you what you're up to or what's motivating you.

My point is as clear as day, and you're being extremely obtuse skipping over it again and again. You must mention Shaun to even leave the vault in FO4 and in many other circumstances, and to progress with the game you have to find Shaun. You can or cannot mention the Chip at any point in New Vegas.

To clarify, FO4:

-> Must mention desire to find Shaun, must pursue Shaun to unlock a single ending to the game.

FO:NV:

-> Do not have to, ever, mention the chip - or Benny, and can complete the game without doing anything with either (you can follow NCR without having anything to do with Benny or the Chip). Benny and the chip do not define the character or their decisions, in any way shape or form, unless you as the player want them to.

Overall:

-> Fallout: New Vegas does not presume any motivations for you character or make you do anything with the opening premise - which you're left to decide if you care about it or not - to progress. FO4 does.

They're really isn't any point in bringing up any of the other points, I've said all that I need to about the idea of total warfare which if Caesar believes the bombs reset civilisation like he says he does is a perfectly valid, if not brutal by modern standards, way of getting things back on track. I get it's irreprehensible by the standards of the real world, but Fallout isn't set in the real world - it's set in a much harsher meaner world. If I'm role-playing a character in a harsh world, that character - not me as a person - can get behind that cruel methodology as long as it produces results.

I know that you think FO4 factions are great, and you won't hear a word against them. For the record I think the FO4 factions are fine, just not as compelling as New Vegas. I guess I should face the firing squad for that, because you just can't handle that someone might prefer the New Vegas factions.

A good point, and probably the reason why I will play FO4 again. However it's annoying to have to get past Kellogg every time to start significantly differentiating my playthroughs from one another in terms of character motivation.

Is that the only example you have? Guess what, your character only says that when they take their spouses ring from the cryo pod and that is not a mandatory action.

To advance the game, you have to mention him more. Besides, your character mentions the desire to open the pod, to avoid it is stupid - however in the future I might just do that to hamfistedly puzzle through a game and consciously avoid the obvious in order to play marginally on my own terms because Bethesda chose to motivate your character in a certain way and have the game all the way up to the Institute really quite linear and focussed around that motivation.

In Fallout: New Vegas you don't have to mention anything about the game's opening - the chip or Benny - to advance or complete the game, as your character might not care for getting involved with Benny or the Chip. Someone please tell me that isn't true, and I'll make a million apologies - but it is.

Why is it so hard for all you people to comprehend I would enjoy that as an option when literally the last game in the franchise gave me that option? Why is it a good thing Bethesda took away that option compared to the penultimate game? What is making people so unwilling to acknowledge this as a key and factual difference between FO4 and FO:NV, and subjectively a flaw, and just move on rather than telling me what I'm saying is false?

I would even enjoy tracking down Shaun in plenty of playthroughs, if that wasn't going to be in every playthrough I ever make with the game. There is no opt-out option, either for pursuing Shaun or for following a faction in general, if I want to complete the game.

Exactly, I don't see why it is Charisma only in game. Plenty of ways to intimidate without any use of Charisma. Nor did I say it was speech only, but that options should have been given in game to allow different play styles besides charisma only. The way the game is setup, a Str 10 Charisma 1 character would be unable to intimidate anyone. Does that make sense? Hell no it doesn't. Likewise, a 10 INT 1 Charisma person is never going to be able to outwit anyone, because that option isn't in game. The main "villian" in the movie No Country for Old Men, Anton, is very intimidating and it has nothing to do with his Charisma, as he is hardly a charismatic person, but cold, calculating, with a gaze of death.

Not sure how that is role play. That is like micromanagement to me, and would be like calling Sim City a RPG. You can hardly interact with settlers, except when they dish out a radiant quest, and they even break immersion when they act like you are a complete stranger, even though you are the one who built the settlement they living in.

Well this thread went on quite long enough. Post limit.