Am I the only one who has this, along with the rest of the game's aspects, squarely in the "do not care" list? I never cared much for the individual aspects of a video game. All I care about is IF I can have fun with that game.

What I'm talking about is how do you fit the 4 response scheme to talks like you had with Caesar? And yes, I get your issue with my counter argument, that talk I referenced was mainly expository (which you said when it wasn't expository FO4 characters did better in) - however that's part and parcel of them problem. How do you have deep and meaningful dialogue (or better yet, a meaty dramatic expository monologue - like all dramatic media since the dawn of time) when you can only respond in one of four ways? You have to limit the your interactions with the series main agonists/antagonists to accommodate for the four response format and them constantly wanting to interject - which is terrible for conveying drama and relevant/powerful/meaningful story.

Really, you completely fell for my straw man by acting like what I was saying was incomprehensible rather than addressing me out right - presumably to insinuate my points were wholly ridiculous rather than tackle them head on. However, if you would have tackled them head on you might have realised the player character in New Vegas only has one response to the "Hegelian Dialects" rant. Whoa, I just foiled myself, only no...

See, in normal life, I have either a nuanced response (i.e. my thought processes wanting to produce a situation of more than four responses) or a binary response (yes/no, etc.). The Hegelian Dialects idea really only required two responses, "What is Hegelian Dialectics?" if you didn't know what it meant or "Go on" if you did - I'm happy for you to argue why more responses are necessary but additional responses in this situation would be incredibly trite, arbitrary and forced. However, in the FO4 scheme, to fill their quota another two dialogue options are required (on top of the vocalisation interrupting the key scenes as I mentioned previously).

Now let's cut to a complex situation - a friend tells you an immediate relative of theirs has died out of the blue. If you can tell me four thought processes that encapsulate all your possible responses to that complex issue then you have me thoroughly beat - but the point is, which Bethesda really dropped the ball on, is that people either act with responses A and B or in situations requiring something a little more it's usually A, B, C, D ,X ,Y, Z. We as humanity never have a perfect, "oh I literally can think of only four things to say right now" moment - it's either two choices or a whole damn lot. Either way a forced four choice system is moronic and only made to fit the buttons of the controller.

I find they gave me more options over previous games in most cases but OK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KSb4wVBAGo

Skip to 3:15 cause the rest won′t really interest you.

That's how I feel also

I never played 1 and 2, I dislike isometric more than I dislike politicians. I was referring mainly to the later ones and TES games. Wow! That guy could lose any argument just based on his personality.

I know people have devalued this word but I find it more immersive. I love my character actually interacting with other characters. More choices are always better BUT as Someone who played his first RPG on 1976 ( original D&D) I roleplay just fine in this game and my characters easily have different personalities with what I've been given.

Ultimately for either of us it doesn't come down to logic but preference. I know when I go back to Skyrim, the one thing I reallt miss is the voice and the interactivity it brings. As one poster said. It makes the character more real for me.

Yeah he rubs me the wrong way. I almost want to disagree just because of it. I think it's because he is the living stereotype of a PC elitist

It′s not about the guy, it was more about the visual compairson...but hey, whatever

Oh I'm not saying he 100% wrong. I only think he wrong when he say Fallout 4 turned out this way because it's on consoles and calling console gamers peasants.

What I'm having trouble understanding is how you think the four-topic limit interferes with meaningful dialog, or "meaty expository monologues" - never have I felt like the game arbitrarily had me interject or interrupt what an NPC was saying just so that I could make a comment. And, yes, in real life we're not limited at all in how we can respond, and I can't give you four responses that perfectly represent everything a human could say in a situation - but what game does that? Most RPGs I've played, whenever they give me a chance to choose how my character would respond, I get three or four options - what game makes a habit of giving me character choices in almost every conversation, and on average offers me more than four?

And, hold up... you were trying to trick me with a straw man argument? Why?...

Same here. Half/Full-Unvoiced protagonist is getting old and makes the world to be not alive.

I liked it personally, and i think it made the dialogue better than in fallout 3 (granted a lot of fallout 3 dialogue was cringe worthy, i think having someone actually read the lines cut down on that considerably in fallout 4). They picked quality actors for the protags.

It seemed a little weird at first but I've come to like the voiced protagonist.

The voiced protagonist worked for what Fallout 4 was. Fallout 4 wasn't designed for you to make your own characters with their own motivations, backstories, and voice. The Fallout 4 protagonist is like playing the GTA V protagonists. You can go anywhere and do anything and even make choices but you're ultimately playing the developer's characters. Now, I like GTA V. And, once I accepted what Fallout 4 was rather than what I wanted it to be, I came to enjoy it as well, mostly because I love Fallout's world. That being said, I really missed aspects of the old. Like Jojobobo said, you can't have deep questions about character motivations or backstories. I can't ask a certain Fallout 3 character about how she ended up where she was. I can't delve into the philosophy or history of the Brotherhood with Maxon like I did with Veronica. I can't hear about the Institute's scientific goals for the future like I could with Mr. House. I can overhear Institute scientists debate with each other the ethics of Gen 3 synths but I can't engage them in that debate. Everything is voiced and cost money so dialogue is utilitarian to a very defined end: making quests

I hate the voiced protagonist. Thankfully, I am on PC so I don't have to listen to it. Unfortunately they wasted development resources that would have been better spent on a new variety of Radroach.

Are you joking. Radroaches are the weakest of enemies, and I would rather they actually use resources for things that do not die with a single hit from anything.

Me too. Even outside of dialogs the little comments your character makes when picking a lock ect.

Voice acting can be good. But many Times i saw/heard Dialogs and all 4 Options had the same Content or atleast almost the same. What is the Problem here? No Money, no Time, no Mood, No Creativity? Whatever it is i dont want see it again because this is lazy Work.

Storie telling itself can be much better with Text because Voice Acting is just Time and Money consuming. Fallout is here a good Example because of a few just copied Dialogs and less Choices (my Opinion), and the biggest Reason why this RPG Game became more to an Shooter as everything.

I liked asking a half hundred questions when talking to a person. I can't now. Voiced protagonist bad.