The best games change how the experience is played in major ways. Halo 2 revolutionized multiplayer not only in Halo, but all first person shooters. The Witcher 2 and The Witcher 3 each were massive overhauls of the previous game. The Arkham games evolved the experience by adding open world exploration and the inclusion of the batmobile. Far Cry 4 and Assassin's Creed Unity added online coop vastly changing how those franchises were played. Each Mass Effect game saw major changes in terms of the RPG mechanics, the shooter gameplay, and how storytelling was approached. Even each Dragon Age game is uniquely different as each has its own unique characteristics the others do not share. The point I'm making is that these sequels aren't just basic upgrades. They try to truly make a new experience that is superior to the previous one.

Mass Effect 1,2 and 3 aren't that different. They are very similar. I can't speak on the others but Mass Effect 3 wasn't some big step up from 2(I would argue it's a step down)

my eyes

On the contrary, they are quite different, especially the jump from 1 to 2. The entire combat system was overhauled. ME1 was a straight RPG with a focus on exploration with the Mako. All of those features were stripped in ME2. The RPG element was largely removed in favor of a third person shooter system. Exploration with the Mako was cut and largely the game was put on rails. ME3 was certainly a major departure from ME2 with the addition of multiplayer and how that actually impacted the ending of the game. I'll just assume you haven't played the Mass Effect trilogy in a while, but each game was drastically different from the other. The only consistency was really BioWare storytelling.

All these games except maybe Halo are terrible examples of the point you are trying to make. These games just upgraded feature from previous games, and never went into a new and mind-blowing direction, for which you claim Bethesda must do.

I never played the Witcher 1, but from Witcher 2 to 3 things were merely upgraded. Whether it was combat, storytelling, or the world itself. The only difference i can make is it went from being split into sections to being truly open world, which is just an upgrade. The only difference i could tell from the Batman games from Arkham City to Arkham Knight is the Batmobile. Far Cry for is probably the worst example because that game is not much different than Far Cry 3, which had online co-op in it also. AC Unity merely took the co-op missions from Black Flag and upgraded into single player with different objectives.

Never really played the Mass Effect series too much so i can't really say anything on it. The Dragon Age series really just upgraded from its predecessors, and in the case of DA 2 it downgraded. Sure DA Inquisition has more open worlds compared to the others, but those instanced were vastly emptied with generic quests that got boring a lot of the time. The combat was upgraded from auto attack to the player having to press the button for each hit, the storytelling remained the same. DA Inquisition allows crafting but most of the stuff you craft are duplicates with minor differences in appearance especially in the armor.

Honestly, if I wanted to just play Fallout 3, I'd just play Fallout 3... I can't speak for everyone, but I didn't want an upgraded Fallout 3. I wanted Fallout 4. Something new and something that could stand on its own as something unique. The voiced protagonist will help achieve that, but there is little else here really moving the mark forward in any meaningful way.

Actually, yes, really. You aren't arbiter of what constitutes sufficient advancement, at least in the reality we're all forced to share.

Fallout 4's shooting mechanics were overhauled as well. They are a major step up from Fallout 3. There is a voice protagonist, which is a huge risk for Bethesda. They got rid of weapon and armor condition. Changed PA from just an outfit to more of like a walking tank. They implemented a crafting system, and settlement building system. The settlement building is a new feature not found in Fallout 3.

The crafting system is entirely different then 3 also. Instead of finding blueprints and parts to build one weapon, you can mix and match a plethora of parts to make one gun vastly different than another with the same base weapon. The changed skills and perks making it so the skills system is in the perk system. There is now a layered armor system which is not seen in fallout 3.

From your comparison with this game to Mass Effect and saying how ME did not just simply upgrade and change mechanics from previous iterations to the next one and Bethesda did is faulty at best.

I'll just assume you never played any of these games. The Witcher 1, The Witcher 2, and The Witcher 3 are all drastically different. They don't share any similarities besides some characters overlapping in the three games. Every aspect of The Witcher franchise has changed dramatically with each game. Also, a game that was linear segmented into chapters that goes open world is not an "upgrade." An upgrade suggests such a feature existed before and it was merely improved upon. On the contrary, CDPR completely revolutionized the entire gameplay experience by going open world.

Again, City added open world and Knight added the Batmobile. Two major innovations that drastically changed the way the Arkham games were played. Far Cry 4 and ACU added true coop, something that had never happened in the previous games. Yes, Far Cry 3 had multiplayer coop, but it was a separate experience not part of the actual main game that was terrible. As I indicated to the poster above about Mass Effect, each game is drastically different. The same is the case with Dragon Age with all three games being incredibly different in terms of game play and even storytelling. DAO had a silent protagonist with a design similar to KotOR. DA2 was more like Mass Effect and was a personal story focusing on one city for the span of ten years. DAI went open world spanning multiple nations and overhauling combat and exploration. Whether it worked effectively or not is subjective and does not undermine the revolutionary features these games added.

I don't know what coop you are talking about in Black Flag. It had the same lame multiplayer every AC game had since Brotherhood until Ubisoft scrapped it. ACU literally was the first AC game with coop.

Again, besides the voiced protagonist, nothing Fallout 4 is doing is really revolutionizing the game play.

Meh. I played Witcher 1 and 2 and didn't find the features were separated by anything "revolutionary". Then again, I didn't think that was a strike against the series.

I dispute the premise that Fallout 4 required "revolutionary" I the first place.

I agree with you OP, Fallout 4 doesn't have the wow factor for me like Oblivion. As striped down as they made it in the actual game, the Radiant AI and the random conversations were quite shocking coming from Morrowind. I do expect great innovations from Bethesda, being the in-house studio of a strong independent company... they have virtually all they need to push the envelope and bring innovation to the genre.

WIll I play the [censored] out of it and will I enjoy it? Of course. But I still expect more from BGS. New gen hardware, they already said the last gen was "powerful enough for their needs for Skyrim". A few years later and with more powerful hardware, there's still long loading times plaguing the seamless experince. Am I disappointed? Yes. The next TES will probably bring small increments of progress in a few areas, like Skyrim did after Fallout 3, but for innovation I wouldn't hold my breath.

Ironically, this same year CDProjekt managed to pull off a huge, risky leap from Witcher 2 to Witcher 3, including the capital transition to an open world rpg, a transition many feared would destroy the focused and compelling narrative of the series.

What I find odd is you are telling me all these games I've listed are not "revolutionary" and rather are just "upgrades," yet you haven't played half of them and really know nothing about them. Considering I have played and own all these games extensively, I'm just going to have to disagree with you.

Fallout 3 had a FPS mechanic. It just wasn't very good. Fallout 4 is merely polishing that experience. It's not a revolutionary new feature. Yes, I've indicated the voiced protagonist is actually a revolutionary feature that is getting mixed results among critics. Removing armor condition was already the case in Skyrim, so this is not a new feature. Also, I'd question removing features to be the case of a "new feature."

Power Armor being changed is interesting, but it doesn't revolutionize the game play, especially since you can only use it sparingly due to the rarity of fuel to power it. BGS games have always had crafting and player housing. Neither is new. Settlements are just merely an expansion of what BGS has been doing for decades. The same is the case with crafting.

Morrowind had layered armor, so that's merely a feature that was removed that is now returning. Perks and skills being simplified or "streamlined" as BGS likes to say happens with each new title they release. Just to give you some insight into how BGS develops their latest games, Fallout 3 was not the major inspiration for Fallout 4. Skyrim was. BGS always uses their latest game to determine what things they should do differently as its always the most recent and relevant interpretation of their open world sandbox.

ME1 was an RPG that had poor combat and open world exploration that was arguably not very compelling. ME2 was a third person shooter with some RPG elements and was a linear on-rails experience. ME3 kept the basic formula of ME2, but then completely changed that dynamic with its multiplayer that even impacted the story of the game. Yes, each game was drastically different from the others in varying ways.

Asided from the voiced protagonist, what has BGS done in Fallout 4 that is actually "new" to their games? Exactly. They haven't done anything new this time around.

I'm willing to agree that FO4 is probably the "safest" game Bethesda has ever made. However, I don't consider that a bad thing.

I LOVED FO3 and really enjoyed Skyrim. From everything I've gathered from the reviews, FO4 is a more detailed, better looking open world game than FO3 and it has more content. That was my highest priority expectation for FO4.

There are some mechanics and design decisions I don't agree with. I miss the armor/weapon degradation system. I miss the old holster mechanic that displayed your weapon on your person. I miss the old dialogue system. However, none of these things are gone forever.

Mods, mods, and even more mods.

In the end, I'm fairly confident that I will LOVE FO4 as much as, if not more than, FO3. I'm okay with that.

Are you sure you played TW1 and TW2? The TW1 was an awkward mouse click for combat based on timing to execute combos. The game was also incredibly linear with not a lot of choices to make (really came down to either joining the Scoiatel, the Flaming Rose, or being neutral). TW2 and TW3 are gigantic leaps in every respect from TW1 and to not see how the gameplay has revolutionized with each game is to not appreciate how utterly impressive it is to see a series evolve so much in the span of only eight years (TW1 released in 2007, TW2 in 2011, and TW3 in 2015).

I never stated Fallout 4 "required" revolutionary features. I just stated BGS has a history of adding something revolutionary to their latest game to really change up the experience. Arguably the voiced protagonist is that feature, but it has been receiving mixred reviews with was inevitable.

My sentiments exactly. Even though Oblivion was largely a shell of what it was intended to be, it was still a dramatic shift from what was possible in Morrowind. Radiant AI literally was a game changer, faults and all.

I'm still going to love Fallout 4. BGS is my favorite studio and I'm a svcker for their games (I pre-purchased Fallout 4 and bought the season pass already). I just expect more from BGS is my point and a lot of the reviews just are a bit surprised how safe this game feels. That's not necessarily a bad thing, just a little disappointing.

It really is disappointing to see load screens between interior and exterior cells still being a thing when games like TW3 and DAI have largely removed them. Hopefully cities are at least more open and are not enclosed in their own cells as well.

In terms of innovation, I think CDPR's TW3 takes the cake. Most ambitious game I've seen this year and probably the only one that might beat Fallout 4 for me.

There are a lot of flaws in your logic. Every example you gave had no revolutionary features in them. What you are claiming are merely upgrades from FO 3 to FO4 are the same things or better than what the games you provided above have done. In the Witcher combat was not drastically changed, either were potions, storytelling, or exploration. Sure the Witcher 2 was segmented but you could still explore the areas they put you in, Witcher 3 upgraded that by removing the borders from the sections allowing you to move freely. The games were not as drastically different as you claim them to be.

Far Cry 3 co-op is the same as 4. You and your friend can go around and explore the world, you can't do the quests, just go around and kill thing and explore. There is little difference between those two games. With most every other game on that list nothing "revolutionized" one game from the other.

DA: Inquisition is not open world. It is not different from Origins in the case that you pick a part of the segmented map and go there and explore the area and do the quests. You can't say story from one game to the next being different is being revolutionary, and expect the story of FO 4 to have the exact same story to 3.

Most of your points are merely upgrades or changes nothing "revolutionary" as you claim they are, and what you claim Bethesda isn't doing with this FO 4. As a said in a previous post of some of the changes they made from 3 to 4.

And AC Unity is not the first AC game with co-op. It is the first one with co-op in the singleplayer world, but Black Flag had a co-op mode in the multiplayer which is what essentially the co-op in AC Unity is. You and your friend(s), have an objective and find a way to complete it. I don't know how can see those upgrades/changes in those games as revolutionary but not in FO 4.

The way the power armor is utilized is revolutionary. It's what I'm looking forward to the most. The combat and third person animations are also improved, from what I hear. I don't give a damn if they do anything new or not. They could have just retextured FO3 and I would have been completely fine with that.

It's funny how when someone disagrees with you, you instantly claim that they never played the game they do not see eye to eye with you on. Sure we both have different opinions of the changes in those games and FO4 as being "revolutionary", but you have no idea what others have played and what they haven't. So you shouldn't instantly assume that the other person didn't play the game and you have because their view on it is different than your own.

Again, I ask why you are trying to tell me whether these games are revolutionary or not when you haven't even played half of them? It's absolutely ridiculous you are suggesting there weren't drastic changes with each game in The Witcher franchise. You don't know what you are talking about. My only advice is to sit down and play each one and compare each of the feature sets and how they are all different in each installment.

You obviously do not own Far Cry 3 and Far Cry 4. I own both. Far Cry 3 is a separate coop that is not in the main game with short missions and a different story. It is not related to the main story at all. Far Cry 4's coop is literally integrated into the main game and is a part of the main story. It's not separate. You can do everything in Far Cry 4 coop besides the main story. Again, you don't know what you are talking about.

DAI is a pseudo-open world, whereas DAO and DA2 were both linear, on-rail experiences. Yes, different storytelling approaches can change how the game is played. DAO was the classic storytelling approach of going to different locations before getting to the finale. In DA2, you see how your actions shape on city over the span of ten years. DAI switches things up by doing storytelling with a more open world approach that its predecessors did not have. As far as storytelling in Fallout 3 and Fallout 4, I have read reviews stating the stories between both games are strikingly (and disappointingly) similar.

An upgrade is taking an existing feature and merely improving upon it. A revolutionary change is adding a feature that never existed previously in any iteration. Your failure to be able to distinguish the two is why you cannot differentiate when BGS is revolutionizing the game play and when they are just improving it from previous games.

Coop in the single player world is revolutionary... It never existed in AC before... That's a drastic shift in game play. You just don't get it. Now you are pulling petty insults because you are wrong and don't want to admit it. Conversing with you clearly has expired its usefulness.

If all you want is a retextured Fallout 3, there are mods for that already. BGS doesn't need to develop a game for seven years to just repackage something they already sold us.

You were the one who indicated you never played TW1, you've never played the Mass Effect trilogy, and you haven't played various other games I listed. I'm merely pointing out that you having an opinion on games you've never played is ridiculous. Again, I'm more than happy to have a civil discussion on these games if you actually played them. Otherwise, your opinion means nothing because it's worth nothing.

You're not being very civil now haha. I've played all of them except Witcher 1 and Mass Effect 1, and parts of ME 2.

I've done nothing to attack, defame, or insult your person. I merely have pointing out having an opinion on games you've never played is worthless.

Again, you cannot truly have an informed opinion of the innovations in the Witcher Trilogy and the Mass Effect Trilogy without playing all of the games. I highly recommend you play TW1, ME1, and ME2 in order for you to understand how CDPR and BioWare evolved the experience in their sequels. They aren't just "mere upgrades." Not to mention, they are some of the best games of the last generation. You do yourself a disservice by not playing them.

That's a very very negative thing for me. If that's what you call an upgrade...

Removing a feature is not an innovation. Removing a feature is just removing a feature, which I think he fails to understand.

Condition was far from perfect, but it could have been tweaked to a medium everybody would have approved of. Outright removal of the system was unnecessary and merely takes away part of the interest of surviving in a post apocalyptic world.

The thing I find amazing, is the fact that tomorrow morning I'll be playing the game, people will be complaining on the boards, but I'll more than likely be enjoying my shiny new toy.

Indeed... Or they could have integrated it into a customizable mode with other survival features. People who are like "I found them troublesome, pewpew new shiny power armor" could have just skipped it.

Congrats, amazing.