A choice where I can choose to kill x or kill y isn't a real choice by itself. Most quests are designed to be just kill something or go to a location with a lot of hostiles to get something. If you are satisfied with that then that is fine.

Radiant quests should be the exception not the rule.

Here is the "correct" way (IMHO!!!):

1. They should only be used in small doses
2. There needs to be wider varity
3. They shouldn't be forced on us over and over
4. They are no replacement for real quests

Again look for my posts here search for a layered system. I already suggested a doable way to handle location evolution better there. Would still be a lot of work.

Also if keep bashing enemies then these enemies should become rarer overtime (not vanish everywhere of course) certain save zones should naturally come into existence especially if they are around MM settlements.

They overdid it this time (again).

Not killing each other is hardly diplomacy. I already said the most you can do to keep factions from killing each other is to do nothing with them.

Minor Spoilers!

Actually in NV lots of quest could be done without spilling blood, using sneak, persuasion and a bit of logic.

And there were at least twice as much possible ending for those quest comparing to Fallout 4.

Not the goal, but a possibility.

Possibilities is what makes an RPG an RPG.

For example I wish having 10 charisma and Intimidation perk be enough to calm down villagers in a certain town as they know I've already killed their whole trained militia minutes ago.

Or even better: having everyone in said militia killed without being seen makes them unable to know I'm the one who did it, and then not being hostile against me.

Not doing a quest isn't the same as having different ending for said quest: one is aknowledged by the game (which help for immersion), the other is not.

Totally disagree. A pat on the head for finishing in a certain way is entirely unnecessary to immersion and is my least memorable experience of any computer game.

Deciding when to bail from a quest is about owning responsibility for the consequences of your decision.

You never really own responsibility until you give up all attachement to acknowledgement for what you already know you've done.

More to the point, the real world never acknowledges anything for reasons that are even remotely relevant to the individual's choice to act.

In this sense, having some endings which go entirely unacknowledged makes sense and also good immersion because, sometimes, the best thing to do for everyone results in one fading into the background and being forgotten for decades or even centuries before people even realise the potential significance of ones actions - and history is full of enough examples to suggest that for truly world-changing achievements, this tends to be the rule rather than the exception. And, in keeping with reality, you don't get to have a say in whether the type of choice you'd like to make comes bundled with fame or anonymity.

3) Again I sort of disagree here. In a real world situation if a potentially well-fortified position opened up you would move in and take in. I understand your point and agree that certain elements should never respawn, and I definately agree that pre-war loot should not respawn. I doubt peaceful people would ever gain the opportunity, or have the balls, to take those territories, because they dont have the power or ability to hold off super-mutants and raiders, not without some backing from a powerful force.

5) I agree with you, but some times the skillchecks felt like a very easy alternative. It could be 'go kill a hundred or so enemies that way' or 'oh this guys hurt his knee, can you take a look at him'.

Bethesda in general need to evolve their questing methods to truly introduce challenge in every method. Having high charisma should never be a simple 'ok I like you, go ahead and take that item', instead it should be a path of its own that truly involves some player input. I do like how New Vegas did it, I remember one quest where you could trick someone into killing a bunch of humans and making the rest of the quest so much easier, that sort of skill check is fine because it still requires player input.

6) Yes but can you see anyone outside of the minutemen not resorting to immediate violence when interacting with another faction. The BoS especially would open fire immediately when making contact with the Railroad or Institute due to years of conditioning to hate anything that technologically advanced. In that sense I think the lack of diplomacy is fine, what isnt is the lack of diplomatic/non-combat approaches to completing their respective questlines.

I cant disagree with the idea of more diplomatic involvement with the settlements, and the potential to sway the main-quest using those settlements. Sounds like it would have been an interesting approach to questing.

Hell yeah. We could talk the Legate and General Oliver into submission by passing increasingly difficult speech and barter skills checks in the endgame. Legate Lanius can even be persuaded by heeding Ulysses advice. I mean how awesome is that?

Minus you can't make the game aknowledging you're bailing out of a quest.

For example when the Bos gives you the quest about destroying the railroads, you:

-Can't refuse the quest.

-Are hostile to the railroads automatically.

The only way to get out of it is to load the game before that.

Beside, you say you prefer to let it go, why not?

Every possibility adds to roleplay, but consider that for many people kill or ignore aren't the first 2 solutions which comes to the mind of someone when being faced with a situation.

EDIT: besides, not having the game progressing isn't a roleplay ending, it's just pretend.

Like saying every factions in the game are at peace because you don't do their quest so they cannot shoot each others.

I was thinking about the "save zones" I mentioned when the settlements are build up and MM patrol the areas around the settlements. I can easly see scavengers and ambitious buisnessman try to make you use of left over equipment/ recourcess or that they just want a roof over their head once the SS has changed the Commonwealth.

The Ticket Excavation for example has many potential settlements nearby from where they could draw both workers and protection from. It could be a great place to sell building materials from.

Only a few locations should be used that way since it is still the Fallout universe. The NCR in the west has started to produce things as well by the time NV starts. They farm enough to export, they produce at least ammo and guns and they have an extensive trading network to feed their (manu-)factories and to distribute the products from their factories. Raiders have been mostly driven from the land during the process of carving out the borders of the republic. I don't see why we shouldn't have that in the east as well even if it is to smaller extend.

I'm speaking of the earlier one. The one about "encouragement for someone who needs more confidence". (I always try to use examples from the early game to avoid spoiling anything.) Unsavory characters -- sure! The violent option makes a simpleton's sort of sense and is surely the shortest distance between 2 points, but is that really the only option they could have provided? Can't do this without details, so:

Bethesda has always been more about exploration, open world, and player choice being the crux of their games, rather than crafted narrative being the driving force. Fallout is a bit of a different beast. I think both their narrative and script (meaning dialogue and character development) has improved greatly in FO4! But the overall feel is still a bit ham-fisted. Plus, Fallout is a series that was originally guided by powerful narrative. Even in the '90s, the writing was impressive for the limited technology. Characters held weight, and NPCs were not black-and-white. I think the amount of work done on the Fallout games needs to be split more evenly between world creation and story elements. It can't simply be a cut-and-paste of the Fallout universe into The Elder Scrolls mechanic.

And I loved the conversation about how baseball is played! I tried two different responses on two different playthroughs and laughed both times. That's the sort of tongue-in-cheek fun that used to pepper the original Fallout games!

I really support this mechanic, actually. Some people have decent luck with RNGs. It adds flavor and spice. Others (like myself) are quite literally cursed when it comes to any sort of "chance".

I once lost 12 rolls in-a-row during a game of Risk while on the attack. And not only that, I rolled at least one "1" every time. Every. Time. I thought that was amazing, until the next time I played...when I lost 17 rolls in a row...rolling at least one "1" every time. In games that require chance, even with "skills" upwards of the 90th percentile, I will normally lose every single random check. People are often amazed watching it. I've been told numerous times that it's not possible, that I'm using trick dice, that I'm doing it on purpose somehow -- it's hilarious.

When it comes down to it, the things games "roll dice" for are really not up to chance. (I'm living proof of this. I know I can't take chances -- so I don't.) When people have a skill, they just get things done. It's not "trying", it's "doing". People who don't know how to do something "try". I think it was Knights of the Old Republic 1 that introduced the "automatic win" concept with force powers or persuasion in dialogue. If you had the skill, the dialogue option appeared. If you didn't have a higher skill than the NPC, you could not convince them; if your skill was higher, you could. Simple as that. This immediately felt more realistic to me.

Plus, as a game mechanic -- it works better. After putting hard-earned points into a certain skill, I expect so see my gameplay permanently change, not occasionally get what amounts to a surprise bonus at random times for random reasons with no direct control over it. That's...not how things work.

I was playing yesterday and suddenly I saw a merchant (Trashcan Carla lol) on the road. Damn, almost threw my hands to the sky and thanked God for seeing anything but an enemy.

Awesome.

Yeah, I think I confused TW3 and ESO.

How is that even possible?

You better go and revisit that ending. They aren't submitting. They are picking up their marbles and going home with a promise to return to the game tomorrow. They haven't been defeated, it is just their nap time. They aren't cooperating, They still hate each other, and now they both hate you, also.

You cannot be a pacifist in NV. Not possible.

And I've yet to run in to an Indie game that doesn't look like it was animated by a 5 year old with dislexia and the plots... oh, wait, there are plots?

Just had some bad experiences with Indie games. Too many platformers, Goat Simulators and ones with graphics that look like they came from 1983 (and I was there in 1983, so I know that they're even worse, actually).

Well... my characters in both games have purple hair and shoot things? Oh! And I'm drunk.

Maybe not pacifist, but you often had several options on how to solve a quest, something I miss in FO4. Beth had done a lot of things right, but quest design is something they should improve in the future