This http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/11723096/Fallout-4-interview-Bethesdas-Todd-Howard-on-building-the-apocalypse.html doesn't actually quote Howard directly on the subject, but claims Minecraft was cited as an inspiration.

One of the most significant additions revealed so far for Fallout 4 is the option to build and defend settlements inspired in part, says Howard, by the team playing a lot of Minecraft. You can collect materials in the world, using them to cobble together sheet-metal shacks, upgrading weapons and building turrets.

I think there's more to it than that. If you've played Skyrim then you'll doubtless remember occasions when you get the obnoxious and annoying "force greet" style interrupt where you get dragged into a conversation regardless of circumstance. This resulted in cases where you've got a dragon shouting fire up your a$$ while a random thief or courier decides that this is the perfect opportunity to grab control away from the player and deliver their dialogue. I lost count of the times my PC died cause of this crappy design gimmick. This type of active dialogue system where you don't have control wrested from your grasp seems like a direct response to that type of scenario and should help keep that crap from happening to you as you play the game.

Thanks. Multiple vigorous defenders here kept convincing me that the building has nothing to do with Minecraft. That was after I called the game MineSims: Call of FalloutZ Effect, hehe. Oh well.

I think your rant comes from the basis of good initial observations, but you are just wrong with some of them. Other members have already pointed out some of the pitfalls in your observations so I won't beat a dead horse. But for the sake of us all and the sake of the series, I pray that you are dead wrong.

Ugh, should I really bother responding? This goes against my better judgement.

Most of what you said are assumptions based on very little information. There are some things that we do know that can warrant some concern, but to be this combative, this sure of "how things will be" is downright foolish at this point. To address some of your points:

1) No skill progression - I'm worried here too, but if done correctly, this system could yield better results than previous incarnations. Why? The system could connect character creation and character progression better than any other Fallout game to date. Ya, you heard that right. I was also hoping that speech checks and other options would be tied more to SPECIAL and it looks like I got my wish.

2) No crit chance, less stats - the first assumption is reportedly proven wrong from the dozen quakecon sources saying that the player scored a random crit outside of VATS. Personally, I like that - VATS becomes a controlled environment for those player who are not as skilled at FPS games, while crits can happen outside of it.

4) Power armor isn't power armor anymore - Agreed, but I happen to love and embrace that change

5) Dialogue wheel - two points: 1) Even in F1 through FNV, there were some cases where a dialogue option - in full - didn't lead the conversation where you thought it would. So that point already holds little water. 2) W3 uses a similar approach to dialogue options and it works fantastically there. There are some reasons to worry about the dialogue wheel approach, but I think it's too early to make that call and just plain stupid to assume the conversations can't possibly be good because of the dialogue wheel.

7) Companions can't die - totally fine with this

8) No weapon degradation - as far as I know, it's not confirmed one way or the other. Source please. I will be sad though if it's gone entirely.

9) No hardcoe mode - Your statement alone makes me question your capacity for deductive reasoning. I'm not trying to be mean; it's a really foolish statement.

10) Minecraft and GTA V inspired - Awesome! As far as I can tell, people greatly enjoyed those games.

Final point, you end your post mostly talking about story and narrative. There seems to be a disconnect there if that's your true concern as most of the points you mention have little to do with that element (besides the point about the dialogue wheel). I agree that modern games are moving away from classic RPG systems - good. Without change there is no chance to ever improve something and the status quo eventually becomes repetitive and boring.

Everyone has an opinion. The thing is some of these individuals for whom the RPGs of the day didn't offer any satisfaction, they themselves made great RPGs, is that not so? Why else would someone go out of their way to make something like S.P.E.C.I.A.L, unless they really loved the idea behind it as opposed to what was out then? It was an enormous undertaking based on a deep passion for the genre.

Some of these guys who have a very strict, elite view of the RPG genre might be the ones making your games or developing the next big game in years to come. Nobody ever became successful by rehashing D&D over and over again because that's what people knew and liked at the time of the early 80s. They decided to go their own route and make something truly spectacular like Ultima and Wizardry and even The Elder Scrolls.

Well, like I said, in the post-Minecraft world

Can refer to a lot of games. Saying that the above definition makes something "minecraft" is about at the same level of generalization as patent trolls use to sue every website because they patented the concept "shopping cart".

When you add in the placing of power sources, stringing of wires, and turrets (plus building out of pieces like sheet-metal siding rather than blocks), there's any number of Crafting Games that are far more similar to FO4 than MC is.

Good. Now we just need to get rid of VATS.

That's kind of the problem. "Just a frame inside which anything goes."

It used to promote an experience that spawns from a certain set of characteristics (not one single set, obviously) that combined were unique in what they did; people knew what to expect just the same as when the box said RTS, or 4X, Racing or what have you. Now it's "just a framework for a blank canvas". What does that define? Absolutely nothing.

This list would be better served by stating actual FACTS once the game releases rather than speculating (tho, I will agree most of the speculation being done is not beyond reason).

I certainly agree the game appears to be moving more toward and action shooter than the original RPG styling, but I hate to break it to the OP but things change and you can either accept the potential changes or simply not buy it. I get you feel "betrayed", but you don't own the franchise.....Bethesda does.

I'm sure any Minecraft inspiration had more to do with the fun and creativity involved in building in general than actually trying to replicate Minecraft in Fallout 4. Fallout 3 mods like Real Time Settler was doing settlement building before Minecraft was a thing and proved player interest in that sort of thing. In fact, from what I've seen Fallout 4's settlement building is remarkably similar to certain builds of RTS.

Edit: Er ... did I post this in the right topic? LOL Okay, guess I did. Could have sworn this tangent was part of another thread, though.

Well, to be fair, I think we're just seeing a Bethesda RPG, just like if Bioware made this game, you can imagine that it would be a lot like a "Bioware" RPG in similar fashion to Mass Effect. In one, we have a world simulator, and in the other we have an interactive movie lol. It's a different style within the frame with varying degrees of depth. Still an RPG, but lighter is some areas than what Troika would have envisioned.

A lot of the complaints I see in regards to Fallout 3 and Fallout 4, are the same complaints I've had against TES since Morrowind. If you've played Daggerfall, you'll see a lot of the same problems. These games are wide, but not really deep in any way as we've come to expect RPGs. I just don't think it's Bethesda's strong point.

I don't think this a symptom of the change in the RPG genre per se, but more a weakness on the part of Bethesda.

It defines everything within the frame, that's why there is a frame, so there is some definition. The rest is the consumers job to learn and judge each game if it fits there taste.

To be honest, I think that is a fair description of the term "RPG" at this point. I think a lot of people's view of what RPG means is quite antiquated now. After all, we now have several genres:

Table-top RPG

Classic RPG

Turn-based RPG

Realtime Strategy RPG

Turn-based Tactical RPG

Action RPG

MMO RPG

Rogue-like RPG

So what does it really mean at this point?

I've never heard half of what you listed. There are tabletop RPGs, cRPGs (the c stands for computer, not classic), action RPGs, and action games (FPS, TPS, rogue-like/lite, or whatever) with RPG elements.

Vozda, eat a Snickers.

I have, but these styles have been around forever. People here seem to have a short attention span with these things or maybe they don't know the history of the RPG genre all that well, but first-person was the norm for many years before top-down became popular in the late 90s. Turn-based is still very popular with JRPGs. My point is, none of these styles are very new. All of them are very old. Give it five more years, we'll see a resurgence of top-down, possibly turn-based roleplaying games again, and five years after that we'll probably go back to where we are now.

People's tastes change. Inevitably, after they've had their taste, they'll want to have more.

Ya, to be fair, it's generally not referred to as "Rogue-like RPG", just roguelike or rogue-like. Roguelike (obviously it stemmed from the game, just to be clear on that too) is a sub-genre of rpg or at least a way to describe a sub-genre of rpg. I added "rpg" since it seemed weird not having it within the context of my post. Strategy and tactical rpgs are thing - just check out Fire Emblem (one of my favorite games) or Final Fantasy Tactics.

Well, there are some games that qualify as a Roguelike-RPG. Adventures of an Unemployed Ninja comes to mind.

Know what doesn't change?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Oh god don't tell them Fallout doesn't change...The Old Guard are bitter enough as is that we haven't regressed back to top down isometric.

War. War never changes.

See you gotta drop the line. The line is important.

The line is nothing without the voice!
Also op the elder scrolls has been doing open world games longer then gta or minecraft so I dont get why you think they are copying? It should be the other way around. And also just because a game does a certain feature does that mean other companies cant take notes from it? Well somebody should tell them because they been getting away with this for far to long then!

I don't disagree that the term "RPG" has changed over the years and it means different things to different players. IMO, all cRPGs are to some respect giving the player some level of control over a "pre-made" character that is guided thru a relatively set story. How well the game creates the illusion to the player that this is NOT the case, often shows how creative the developers are at crafting a engrossing game experience. That does not change the fact that along the central plot line, most "RPG" games are well disguised versions of a classic JRPG (set character in a set story). You can deny it all you want but a close anolysis of any cRPG story will point out just how little control the player actually has.

Note that the potential "open world" aspect of many games simply hides the above main plot-line linearity among a vast expanse of side quests and potential world exploration that provides 100s of HOURS of entertainment outside a potentially short main story. Again, how well that world is crafted and other activities are made available as secondary goals is the key to convincing players they are NOT shuffled down the hallway of a main story line by events they have no control over (once triggered), but a simple view of the latest speed-run of your favorite game will make the truth obvious.

That is not to say that each play-thru of a good CRPG is not possible of providing a "unique" gaming experience, but does the final outcome of the story every vary by more than a handful of possible endings? My final take on this is that the enjoyment is in the Journey thru the world and even the potentially linear story, NOT the destination (which can often be a massive let down....see Mass Effect).