Would you name some?
More specific to FO4... what ones would apply to FO4.
I'm not sure we all share the same (or similar) concepts for the terms "roleplaying opportunities".

Additionally:
This is the absolute last thing that I would want in a roleplaying game.

Why on Earth should a game like Fallout target the average consumer?

The Fallout series was almost like Vegemite in a 'Strawberry Jam' market. Everything was favoring realtime gameplay, and even FPP gameplay.
They had to fight for it not to be converted to realtime as a competitor for Diablo and the like.

Vegemite is a rather niche market, and simply wouldn't BE Vegemite if made with strawberries and cups of sugar.
(But of course it cannot sell like berries and sugar.)

Bluntly put...Fallout is not supposed to BE a mass market favorite, and to make it one (as was done with FO3), is to effectively gut it of all that made it what it was, and just use the name for notoriety sake.

Fallout was always open world, though (and it's not something that's related to being or not being turnbased).

As an offnote (because it is), turnbased is making something of a comeback as we speak. Not dead, never died to begin with (even if Final Fantasy may have, I wouldn't know, nor care).

The point was that much of the old way of doing things that the original fallout had, people do not want anymore. Not to say it didn't have it's charms and things I would want to see in.

The point is, that you thought I stated I wanted turn based play in Fallout, which if you knew anything about my posting habits, is the absolute last thing I want for Fallout. Don't try to spin this into something it's not.

I think a lot of people here will be happy with a Fallout New Vegas that returns to the trademark open world and exploration of Bethesda. Sadly, there are a small but extremely vocal section of people here who talk about how the game shouldnt be a "hiking sim", and sadly will just buy the game every time while complaining very loudly, achieving nothing but a high post count.

In Skyrim the game adapts to any lifestyle your characters want to lead. Straight mercenary doing bounty hunting and monster slaying jobs, wandering hero walking the world and solving the problems of every small village he comes across, a assassin who carefully plots out the murder of those people he doesn't like, acting as a stealthy vigilante who accumulates a high body count from the unsavoury figures in the land.

Also the "Live another life" thing is on the box as one of Skyrim's features, so again, the game advertises exactly what it is about, and its up to you if you want to buy that game or not.

Yes, Barrets is right here. Sadly there are people who are just mad it isnt turn based, but Barrets is not one of them.

I agree. I think there is a schism where one group of people want to be farmers and do trivial things and others that want a focused combat heavy, story heavy, choice and consequence filled experience where playing sims isn't the main focus. I definitely prefer the latter, and I would despise seeing this motto carried to Fallout.

No, you thought that's what I was referring to. I was not even referring to open world. I was referring to the old ways and the new. That's the root of the comment.

Some mention of the Midwestern Brotherhood of Steel. If not the Barnaky Ending, please something other then "mutants and humans holding hands and singing kumbaya."

I wouldnt call turn based the "old ways". There are many turn based games like the old Fallouts floating around right now. I just wish some people would direct their energies to playing those, instead of never accepting that a transformation has taken place with Fallout.

This would be similar to what might happen if the Vegemite brand was bought Sarah Lee corp, and re-formulated as cherry preserves.
(Of course you have to have something on the toast...and if that's all there is, well... I can see buying it, and being discontent with it.)

Does it really? Or does it simply not matter what the player decides or how they develop their PC?

No argument there... but I didn't buy it as an RPG.

"Fallout" means RPG though. The series was one of the best examples of RPGs.

Skyrim doesn't do a very good job then. The "choices" are so superficial and there is very little opportunity in character building due to the lack of real, gameplay affecting choices, consequences and lack of weapons, armor and styles of combat.

Most of the "RPing" that people do, most of the choices they make, most of their character's personality and abilities is in their heads; they imagine it, very little is supported in Skyrim's gameplay and quests.

Real choices should be introduced in Fo4, not the same route as the superficial and shallow excuse for an RPG Skyrim is.

That's easier said than done. Some of those fans have been playing Fallout since the very beginning and only want to see it return to what it originally was meant to be about. There's nothing wrong with them wanting to have their voices heard in wishing for Fallout to return to what it was originally meant to be about. The problem seems to be that their opinions on Beth and their version of Fallout can be a bit...harsh at times.

The latter.

Those are relatively rare then. I've not seen everything posted on these forums, but unless my idea of harsh is very different, I have not seen a lot of harsh opinion; just disagreement or lamentation; missing mechanics, issues with the writing, and lost potential and such.

*To me, "harsh" would mean viscous derision. That's not the same as saying they don't understand a something, or don't want to.

Obviously Bethesda would want to keep the crowd they bolstered with Skyrim, and by looking at the Skyrim forums it becomes clear that the direction Fo4 might unfortunately take is gutting every meaningful, depth filled choice.

I would expect that. I am of the impression that this improves marketability on a global scale; and also: the more harmless you make it, the less likely it will offend non-gamers. The more empowering you make it, the more likely it is to please the larger audience. (Assuming the player thinks it more fun to play Superman than Oliver Twist.)

Damn. Now you are starting to make me think I should wait to buy Fallout 4 till well after it comes out. I don't think I have it in me to do that. Of course I plan to be here for the whole wild ride from announcemnt to release so hopefully I will be well informed by the time it comes to pre-order/buy it.

You are describing Oblivion pretty accurately. Much of what you describe has been in TES since the start, and if you don't see it in Oblivion or Morrowind, then I am afraid that you are falling in the same trap that I fell into when I was lurking these forums around Oblivions development and release. Give it long enough, and you will have people lamenting that Skyrim was so much better than the new TES's, which they say are devoid of many of the same things you describe, but I think the only thing its really devoid of is time to accumulate happy memories of the game.

Ive been playing Bethesda games since Morrowind, and I have zero interest in TES:O. Again, it is not made with the ideals of what I like in mind, but there are many other people who do like it, and I am not going to try and deprive them of their game by making sweeping changes to it.

Well then it sure is a hell of a problem if it happens with each game. That just clearly shows the dumbing down trend in full force. If it continues then the next TES will have less choice than Borderlands, it just might already now that I think about it.

What do you truly gain from preordering a game like TES or Fallout (unless you're going to drop over a hundred dollars on physical items)? All I've seen given away for pre-ordering are useless items that don't last beyond the first ten minutes of gameplay before they're obsolete.

It's not like other games where you get an additional 30-90 min of exclusive gameplay. I would honestly suggest to anyone who looked at Skyrim or Fallout 3 on hindsight and thought it was shallow compared to the earlier iterations of the series to wait until a bit after release. You're almost guaranteed to get the game $20 cheaper if you wait a month (many stores have those early sales) and you can make sure it's a product you want without sacrificing anything.

That being said, I would hope they would take notice of how people did look back on hindsight and saw how shallow Skyrim was. I don't know a single person (personally) who didn't go back and criticize the game for what it was. Even plenty of Bethesda and die-hard TES fans thought so.

I'd say this is normal here; twice burned and all... Does not every TES game (and FO game now) support less skills, and less impact on the world than the previous one(?), and of the choices made by the Player? (Both of the world reaction and of character development?)

"Happy memory" implies remembering it fondly from yesteryear ~~not from Yesterday as the case can typically be here.

Every single time that someone talks about "dumbing down", I post this video, since it goes into a lot more detail in its run time than I could in a single forum post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEI4yS7sFEw&feature=kp

Is it any better than this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JweTAhyR4o0

It is plain for everyone to see what is happening. Some just like it while others don't (though it isn't written in stone the group liking wouldn't like anymore if the dumbing down wasn't happening; or even if it was but on a smaller scale).

Considering that it is a direct response to the sort of opinions in that video, and picks it apart by looking at the reality of the games with logic instead of nostalgia goggles, I would say so.