I do think that on their way to comercialization bethesda has come now to the absolute edge in terms of

postapo feel - its very light

rpg element - very light

replayability / quests - very light

its still a great fantastic game, but they should be careful now

Remember there is paint everywhere in Fallout 4 and you even do a mission in DC involving paint, people are obviously redecorating the Commonwealth so I have no problem with the colour

I just wonder why people do not use even more paint. Especially if the world is depressing I would compensate thiat with more paint

Fallout 3 was perfectly fine. In fact, the green phosphor tint was perfect because it matched the original computer monitors and oscilliscopes of the time period, something that continued until the late 1980s in our world. Most players were fine with this because they understood it. It is only the vocal minority who don't understand the past history who complained, ironic considering people complaining about other elements that supposedly didn't match the "Fallout feel."

Having said that, let me address some of the OP's complaints for Fallout 4.

OP, you are incorrect about the limits of the technology shown, especially the Institute. Pre-war, America had already developed mass market consumer robots with extremely lifelike, sophisticated AI. They simply didn't make them humanoid in shape which is merely a form factor, not anything related to technology per se. Technically, the Protectrons are basically humanoid in shape, anyway (head, two arms, two legs, torso). This technology carried over into military robot adaptations such as the Mr. Gutsy. In our world, MIT has prototype technology used for research projects that never reaches consumers or general use. If you throw the Institute into a much more chaotic world without oversight or social controls, the Fallout 4 outcome is perfectly fitting for the technology shown in the world.

Likewise, pre-war already had developed miniature nuclear fusion batteries that worked in all sorts of mass market consumer goods from cars to robots to handheld devices. Even the Pip-Boy is an extreme technological achievement. In the military, you had Fatman portable mini-nuke launchers, a totally unrealistic technology even pre-war.

However, the game world context is not at all realistic, nor is it supposed to be. Fallout never took itself too seriously. Instead, the game presented various issues and their outcomes in a very general way in order to get players thinking about the issues. The underlying theme of "war, war never changes" is a perfect case in point. Do we have to behave this way where we are always trying to kill each other or are there alternatives for us to choose? Do we really have freedom to choose? How do we best use the technological developments we achieve? Etc.

There have been experiments where an entire area was irradiated to the point where all organic life forms were exterminated. This was done to see how the natural world would deal with the aftermath of a nuclear incident of extreme proportions. Do you know what the first life forms to reappear were? Cockroaches. This is one reason why many scientists have stated that the next era of the evolution of life on Earth will be the Insectozoic Era. Insects work based on survival of the group, not the needs or desires of any individual within the group. They behave according to survival of their entire species and are thus very difficult to eliminate to the point of extinction.

Edit:

One more point that I need to add because it seems to always be ignored by people talking about Fallout 3. In Fallout 3, Bethesda explicitly explained that the Washington DC area had remained a war zone since the bombs fell. This is not unrealistic for such a major target and large urban center. This is a big reason why the complaints of people who claim that there should be more evidence of rebuilding in the Capitol Wasteland make no sense at all. No, there should not be any such thing. The same would be true for any other major urban center that was also a top priority bombing target, assuming that a decent population survived the initial event. Such an area would be a focus of efforts by various surviving groups to relocate to and establish some sort of home or base. These groups would be in constant conflict over limited supplies and other resources, or at least some of the groups would be while others might form alliances (which might eventually lead to backstabbing or other falling out, of course). It would be ludicrous and totally immersion-breaking to see a relatively peaceful DC area even after 200 years. Boston, in contrast, is not anywhere near as high of a priority target, so Fallout 4's take on the aftermath makes a lot of sense. Fallout 3 and the Capitol Wasteland had a broken, torn-apart environment and atmosphere because the war had never ended, to all intents and purposes. Seems that most people just ignore that fact and wish for a totally unrealistic portrayal of the Capitol's environment after a nuclear war.

No, I explained why it felt more apocalyptic to me. 'ram limitations' wasn't one of them!

I disagree, I think it has a big post apocalyptic feel to it. The Commonwealth has that Fallout 3 wasteland feel to it, not as much but it has it in a different way. The main reason though I feel it has that feel is the settlements. If you have ever watched The Walking Dead then you know they have had several "bases", a farm then a prison now a neighborhood surrounded by walls. Fallout 4 gives the ability to cut off your "base" from the rest of the dangerous wasteland, sure there will be attacks but you can fight them off but there is a risk, so it isn't total safety but it's better than being out there and not having the skills to survive and let's be honest without Sanctuary, people like Mama Murphy, Jun, Marcy, hell even Preston would not survive.

When you build houses and places to bring life back to your settlements, none of it is nice, everything is broken, burned and damaged and while it does bring life back it still is a look how rough life is feel.

New Vegas was my favorite game of all time since it's release, I played Fallout 3 for the first time about 2 years ago and comparing those wastelands to Fallout 4's, I would have to say Fallout 3 had the most post apocalyptic feel, then Fallout 4 and then New Vegas. Fallout 4 is my favorite now and the settlement building is a big part of it for me, I think it adds a lot to the post apocalyptic feel that you would see in previous Fallout's and shows like TWD.

If I had to choose between an ugly green/grey or yellow filter I'd choose FO4 everytime. It's not THAT colorful, the only cartoonish textures are the pre-war items because they're too bright.

I would like to see more rain, and darker nights, it's sunny almost every day, and you can see just fine in the dead of night, and the only weather is the occasional rad storm, which is awesome, but most people sleep through it.

I want more rain, because it isn't sunny every day, where the light drops down to about where it is early in the night, dark, but more the rain limiting vision/ hearing than the actual darkness

And nights with rain are gloom to the point you would want too use your light to see where you are going, where the enemies and you can't see each other coming for the pounding rain and darkness,

Just add some not irradiated rain to make things darker more often and I would be happy with fallout 4, because I like the brighter colors in the day, they create a feeling of a bright future, where the colors can shine through, if it weren't for the fact there is only sunshine and daisies.

Do you think a constant war of Raiders, Supermutants, Gunners, Institute,... has no effect all? The commonwealth isn't a happy rebuilding place and pretty sure no Fallout game will show that, simply because the major theme of Fallout is:

War, war never changes.

My point is that there is never a 'constant wall' of raiders. If people have the resources they combine to create larger societies. History shows that the raiders would fight each other and a warlord would emerge on top, creating a unified force (think Caesar in NV). The only example of where people just remained in tiny bands constantly fighting one another I can think of would maybe be desert tribes where resources are extremely limited so that holding together a large society is impossible.

Heh. I tried a "realistic" modern shooter a week or so ago and was absolutely blown away by how monotone brown everything was (for reference: http://news.softpedia.com/images/extra/GAMES/large/OFDRgalscr_005-large.jpg vs. https://labandfield.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/p6210746.jpg location). Last time I checked, the real world has more than a dichromatic color palette. Unless we're role-playing a colorblind grizzled special forces one-man-army super soldier...

So what happens if nuclear bombs drop and suddenly resources are very limited . Boston looks like you describe because "small" groups are constantly fighting about the small remaining resources an yes this looks like had a bit of a bad time a few days ago. Because it still has.

But the point I made in my first post is that there is no sense of resources being in short supply. It's a case of 'show, don't tell'. Don't tell me resources are in short supply when every time I set foot in a raider camp there are turrets and floodlights everywhere. Don't tell me resources are in short supply when there are bits of working power armour around every corner.

I think you've missed my point about the 'bad time' for Boston. Yes, the place is still having a bad time, but the point I was trying to make is that it does not remotely look like a city that has been having a bad time for 200 years.

Which it doesn't necessary have to. We know not much about what about happend in the first 100 years after the bomb. Even the knowledge of the nearer past is very limited.

Unless someone has been going around painting and repairing buildings, I really think it does. Can you imagine what state a building would be in after 200 years without maintenance? Just take a look at the pictures of urban decay in Detroit - and that's after just a couple of decades or so and without a nuclear war.

Be carefull comparing our world with a world in a fictional universe in the year 2077.

Which got nuked by bombs that have nothing todo with our real ones. How they work is like in a bad SF/Fantasy novell of the 50's.

That's Fallout.

I don't know if someone already said this, but think about Fallout 3's location. THE CAPITAL OF THE GOOD OL' USA. A target like that would be nuked by an enemy multiple times just to be sure everything is dead. There's the mass of Downtown D.C Ruins to prove it. That's most likely why the sky is tinted with radiation. Then think about New Vegas. (loved the cowboy feel of this game) Mr. House and his Lucky 38 destroyed most of the nukes before they hit, but some did hit. And there are radiation barrel-filled trucks and dump sites to get even more radiation. Also, aren't there certain areas, the Divide and the Long 15, I think (never played the DLCs, as much as I wanted to), that look the same as the Capital Wastes, albeit more recently nuked. Boston isn't a very premiere target, so there was just a single nuke. That doesn't really explain the mint conditions of the buildings after 210 years.

Just my 2 cents. I LOVE this series. 50s styling with a post-apocalypse setting? Oooooooh boy love it!

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that: it's too often used as an excuse for the developers not thinking things through. Yes, it's a fantasy world and a parody one at that, but it's clearly based on the real world. It's not Skyrim, where anything goes.

I don't think there would be any game at all, if you would bring realism into it... Boston just wouldn't exist anymore

all you would see is a big forest with a river with maybe a few ruins here and there, or maybe even a big desert, depending on how the environment reacted to the bombs

Skyrim is also based on the medieval time of the real world and we still bring tons of magic into it ^^

You're right, there would probably be a few skeletons of skyscraqers, tons of rubble and nature would be creeping back into the remains of the city; but why couldn't a game be based around that? People living in the rubble, under the rubble. There might still be a few buildings here and there that survived to hold the equivalent of places like Diamond City and Goodneighbor. I don't really see why that should be any less interesting or why the stories in such an environment need be any less interesting.

It would certainly look a lot different than FO4's world, for sure. There would be a lot more swords and spears and bows, and a lot less scavanging for subsistence off of the old world junk. Things would indeed be far more like the primitive medieval times in our world, 200 years after a full nuclear war that wasted every major city, all industry and infrastructure. Heh, it would look an awful lot like Skyrim's world, humorously.

I'd definitely play it ^^

Yep but that's not Fallout.

I disagree.

I think some of the best representations of a post-apocalyptic setting that I have seen was The Last of Us and I Am Legend and it was very colorful and even pretty at times.

I think Bethesda should start making some changes to the post-apocalyptic appearance of the world in future titles. I'm hoping that the wasteland becomes overrun by vegetation to the point where cities are covered in green.

When I imagine post-apocalyptic, especially 200+ years after the fall of a huge civilization, I picture nature taking back the world and vibrant colors instead of deserts and bland colors.