I would be surprised if I can actually enjoy playing a post Oblivion Beth game. I got more joy out of wrecking FO3/4 and Skyrim rather than playing them. Therefore, I can't decide whether to hate FO4 now or later. All the fancy bells/whistles/gimmicks are nulified if the npcs are contemptible jerks and the quest[s]/questline terrible. If this game is made by the same people who made the above three, then I expect that nothing has changed as they will stay in their comfortable rut and regurgitate the same general pattern of game functions and questlines.

For those who played the demo, is the game lighthearted and cheerful like Oblivion or unhappy and miserable like Skyrim?

Are the npcs autonomous as if they were 'alive', as if there were other 'players' in the game [Oblivion] or are they repetitious script puppets with repetitious dialogue, running around in circles [Skyrim]?

Even the villains in Oblivion were likeable, with exception to Jenessa, Mike the Liar and the traveling merchants, I exterminated 2/3 of FO3/4 and all of Skyrim.

nv was not that good the woreld just svcked it had better guns but a closed ending was a bad idea mybe its becose i never played the first 2 fallouts so im not blinded by nostalgia

What is this.

O... kay?

Ok, let me address each question head-on.

1. There has been no demo released for the game nor will there ever be a demo. Based on the E3 footage, it appears more lighthearted. Vibrant colors and crazy costumes abound.

2. The NCS in both games were "script puppets." The NPCs in Oblivion were not other players. I do not recall seeing NPCS running around in circles in either game.

3. I could not find a question mark. Appeared to be more of a statement than anything. We have not seen any main antagonists yet, though the footage suggests the player will fight the Brotherhood of Steel.

I have to point out one important fact; enjoying a game is based on personal preferences and personal views.

Personally, I found Oblivion a lot darker and more unhappy than Skyrim. The Emperor is dead, gates to Oblivion are opening all over the place, the npc you spend a third to half the game helping kills himself to save the world, and that is just the main quest.

Skyrim's main quest...you stop the enemy from taking over the world and enslaving everyone. Not seeing the unhappy, but that is just me.

As far as the stories, there are only so many story lines. How those plots are used makes the difference. http://www.fiction-writers-mentor.com/how-many-plots-in-fiction.html

i hope we can side with the bos they are my favret facsen

So you're going to hate a game that isn't even out yet? Right...

The only advice I can give you is the same advice I give to everybody who is complaining to a large extent this early: Try playing the game first.

NV had a better world than FO3, it actually made sense in the way it was presented and everything was interconnected like a living world should be, and i'v never gotten into the originals.

as for OP, you seem to just be purposefully trying to hate something, i dislike a lot of design choices made by beth recently but i still find things to like in skyrim and i will still try FO4 (and, in spite of all my complaints, enjoy it)

All I know is from Bethesda Softworks E3 2015 conference Fallout 4 demo video is that I can say I feel like I will not enjoy playing Fallout 4 at all, especially 1 day later when Todd Howard said that Dogmeat will not be killable if you have him as a companion and most liekly the essential NPC's system will be again in Fallout 4. Level scaling is in again, which is another thing I hate so much and I'm very happy that CD Projekt RED did not add level scaling to NPC's in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt.

I wished so much before Fallout 4 was announced that Bethesda Game Studios would not add level scaling at all to Fallout 4, yet they still did.

voice i dissagree nv woreld was just down right terebal ther was way to much civilesason i preferd the desolason of 3 if u pissed off the ncr for exsampel urd lose acses to way to many areyas theyd attack u at the strip and when u defended ur self the robots attacked they owned that i88 place and many outher places this isint tes wher ther is a unefiyed goverment its supose to be wast lands wher civilesason is much mroe scaterd id prefer a f3 stiyel woreld or skyrim wher every city had its own crime system when i think wast land i think just that a disunefiyed woreld with litel law like the wiyeld west kind of but more lawless

This post gave me cancer.

ya they should of added the outher side and idk what the topic is so im not sure how we can get on topic this thread is prob gona get locked soon to bad obsideyan didnt have more time the game would of been a lot better if theyd of been able to get more into the legon like they oregonally planed on

"@Voice of Reason: I would tend to disagree. In my opinion, Fallout: New Vegas was just down right terrible. There were way too many built up areas, which disappointed me asI preferred the emptiness and isolation of Fallout 3. For example let's say you attacked the NCR in Fallout: New Vegas, you would lose access to many important areas. They would attack you on the strip, and if you tried to defend yourself the robots would a also attack. They owned many areas that I believe they should not, because they are not even a unified government. I would prefer Fallout 3 or even Skyrims system of each county having it's own judiciary."

EDIT: Please don't take this as an attack! I genuinely am just trying to help clear up some grammar issues for a few people