Well, yes, biggie, obviously. And if you're good, this mercenary faction is hunting you. Just as you exchange a house at Megaton for a flat at Tenpennies. Wow, big consequences.

As I said, outrage over an issue being around since Morrowind.

Yes, and now in FO4 you cannot even kill dogmeat...Such improvment.

one think is to been evil or good, other think is anarchy and chaos. LOL and that what ppl want form what i read from forums, LOL on NV u coundnt join raiders faction. Not event the Legion that is the evil choice let then join. There is a line normaly game dont cross, and when i find a raider group that kill ppl on a supermarket, i will not join then when they try to do the same to me, no meter if im good or evil.

Then go to DC, if you feel like it, and shoot up the population. They dismember just fine. If that's what you're missing, be my gues. I tried it, after being caught thieving.

The argument that "other games didn't fulfil the choice and consequence quota so it doesn't matter" is correct, but that doesn't end the debate. Nor should it.

The ideal is to offer a good/evil/murky playthrough AND for that to make a difference. Thats the bar to reach for. Just because past games didn't do it fulfillingly, doesn't mean it should never be done.

Why would you want to kill a dog?

Outrage? I didn't start the tread. But to say FO4 gives you the option to be evil is hilarious. I just have the feeling we're going to have less and less choices every future TES/FO installment, that's all.

TES never really did have many choices, atleast not with dialogue. So to what are you refering here?

Good/evil is the wrong question to ask from the get go. The right question to ask and the issue at hand, is the world not reacting to anything you do, in any Bethesda game for the last 14 years. That's where they're at fault. But, as I said, I'm not holding my breath.

This question is pointless. The question is why can't i kill a dog. Not even after the MQ part.

Good or evil are the most simplest and binary of choices to get the world to react to your decisions. I would say start there first.

No what's hilarious is the blatant ignorance that it's the exact opposite. I'm sorry you aren't happy unless evil is cliche mustache twirling makes no sense at all evil that hasn't existed since the 1920s in old, bad films where the villain is just some guy strapping a lady to a railroad track because "evil"

More like for convenient since people complain about it being a problem with Dogmeat die so easily. It's not that it's evil to kill dogs, you can kill all the animals in this game like cats, it's that it's annoying to have the dog wander to a landmine unintended and blow himself up. On the other hand, you can kill all your other companions though.

Serious rewording of question: What game (not Bethesda game) really reacts to your actions?

Answer: Except for Japanese visual novels and adventures as well as hybrids of those genres, no game reacts to your actions in any significant way. Never has, and probably never will, at least as far as other genres than the ones mentioned are concerned. Why? Because the reason that Japanese visual novels and adventures (and hybrids including their elements) offer different paths/consequences to player actions is because the focus of these games is on story and character. Enormous amounts of time and resources are spent writing all the different paths/consequences, as well as plotting out the entire game on very complex flowcharts. The game content includes beautiful graphics and audio, but the visuals are usually still or very limited, not fully animated 3D environments. That's the trade-off if you want games that react in different ways to your actions.

Try making a game and you'll see what happens when you try to do full 3D interactive games with many different paths/consequences. You'll never be able to do it (and you'd go out of business just trying to do it due to the expense).

Here is another note: the concept of "good" or "evil" is subjective. Raiders don't think they are evil, for example. They simply make one choice of many to survive. Games that attempt to claim that "this is good" and "this is evil" are hilarious because there is no such thing as an objective definition of these concepts.

You can play evil in FO4 or any other BGS game. Go for it. Define what is evil and play accordingly. Now you're playing evil. Pretty simple.

BTW, Todd has explained many times that the reason they cannot include content such as killable children is because no place would sell their game if they did. People have to remember that the gaming industry and general consumer market has changed since the 1980s and 1990s. Gaming gets a lot more attention from politicians and various different social groups, many of which are very hostile to the industry and its consumers. It is not possible for companies to include content that creates major problems with legal and political foes, let alone negative public image. This wasn't as much of a problem when gaming was more underground. Do you really want the federal or state government to dictate what BGS or other developers can and cannot include? That's a real threat and almost happened already, many times. Similarly, developers cannot get away with including proprietary content without paying for the right to include it, unlike back when gaming was much less prominent.

BGS is smart about these issues by strongly supporting modding of their games. This way, the consumers can create whatever content they want without Bethesda being liable. They only offer the tools, not what is done with them.

My point is that the future installment's will have less and less options overall if this trend continues.

Cardboard approach. D&D approach. But that's not D&D. I would already be happy if people stopped treating me like the new dung collector in town.

Well, I'll be laughing having fun with my selfish bastard character. I agree there is tremendous room for improvement but i actually find your statement kind of both funny and sad.

Your point is wrong though.

What trend? Fallout 4 and Fallout 3 seems to have an equal amount of what is considered evil choices.

all of that is wrong. not even going to explain why, I've done it in the past and you just carry on talking about japanese visual novels for some reason

Did you even try to read my comment? I said that people want "REACTION". If i kill off diamond city, preston should strip me of the general title and forbid me from coming to any settlement, or at least something. It's funny because the game already let's you do evil thing it just doesn't recognize it.

Most of the games don't rub into your face, you're a nothing by launching snide one liners at you. Even if you happen to be their faction leader. Most of the games don't treat you like a total stranger, again by repeating useless one liners, if you're already well aquainted with a certain group.

Bethesda games always did and probably will do for all eternity, if they didn't change their ways within 14 years.

So? It would be offering more content than what we have and it would be appeasing the evil playthrough crowd by enforcing their choices. This is a win/win.

No what you're asking is the game react to literally everything. "Oh I killed a dog REACT" "Oh I punched a baby REACT" "Oh I swam naked in the water source and threw around radioactive waste REACT" you expect a very large game to react to every little thing, shooting up a settlement is of course not going to be reacted because Bethesda doesn't have infinite time or resources to make such a feature possible, you're also doing something that not a lot of people actually do. No game does this, not a single game lets you just shoot up a settlement and everyone instantly reacts to what you just did.

Again, your point is wrong and bad, you're just grasping at every straw you can to make a bad point.

Well ok, be selfish and ignore quests or however you're playing. You know what's sad? The fact there is a "Bounty Wall" and the "Reward" is the loot you get from the place. I mean really?