Yea I forgot about Ken Rolston and how he went to work on Kingdom of Amalur. Now that 38 studios is defunct, Bethesda should really try to to get him back. Why did Kirkbride even leave Bethesda again? I also heard from some people that he was actually high when he wrote some of the Lore lmfao.

Though even without Ken and MK, Fallout 3 was still pretty good in the quest department. Sure there was barely any quests at all and the main story has some of the worst writing Bethesda's ever done but the quests were nonetheless fun and had many branching options. Heck even some of the unmarked quests were better than anything in Skyrim or Fallout 4.

A few occasional radiant quests I don't mind but Fo4 is a bit too reliant on them and I would prefer a longer MQ and or more stand alone side quests like the ones at B.H, G.N, D.C, or V81.

I also hate when you get a "help defend X" when you are already occupied with a quest or when you are in a dialogue or in a loaded "cell". Like today:

Yeah, Ken wanted to retire after Oblivion, but a few years later he still wanted to be a part of game development, but he just didn't want to do any actual work or be lead in anything, he mainly acted in an advisory role since. If I remember correctly, Kirkblade's departure details from Bethesda was never disclosed to the public, but there was a bunch of speculation over whether it was a amicable split or that he was fired for drug use or whatever. Whatever the case, Bethesda has stayed in contact as some of his writings were used in Skyrim and he did (does) contract writing work for Bethesda, although unaccredited.

F3 did have some good quests and design, especially looking back after F4...but you have to think that they were trying really hard to capture the old Fallout feeling more so back then since it was their first Fallout game and they wanted to appeal to the old fan base as well as targeting a new demographic. They didn't want the first game they make with a purchased IP to ignore the roots of the series, but with a second game (F4) they felt safer to go their own way with it and do what they wanted to do. Hopefully, with all the controversy over F4, Bethesda will step up and make the next TES/Fallout great again.

My information isn't limited, a site you may know called: Metacritic rounds up all the reviews of movies, tv shows and video games adds them up and divides them by how many reviews released and gives a average score. So I just add all 3 platforms and divide by 3 to get a average of that game across the board. Right now New Vegas has the lowest score of 83(so 84 is even accurate) mean awhile for fallout 4 it ended up 86.333(some what similar to NV) so roughly I rounded up both scores to a near whole. Either way fallout 4 is the second highest fallout game scored between 10 years. I used fallout 1 and 2 for even further anolysis on how those games were rated and interestingly enough fallout 3 was the highest rated fallout ever. So really your logic kinda fails flat when fallout 4 rates similarly to Fallout 1/2

Bringing up or comparing Fallout 1/2/NV to Bethesda games is irreverent here(that's a very different debate), this is in regards to Bethesda and their own games/quality.

I said limited because you're just going off critic scores alone, ignoring the other side of the equation (in hopes to back your argument or just overlooking it, I don't know). Metacritic is a fine website, but you have to look at more than just the critics. User score is more defining and where you will see the difference I'm talking about. Most couldn't care less how critics feel towards something, everyday people/fans are the ones that matter in the end, anyway. The only downfall with Metacritic and other similar websites is that anyone can write a user review and usually a lot of people just jump on the slamming or praising bandwagon so it's hard to find accurate reviews or gauge an average, but you're still able to find a general feeling over time. Steam on the other hand requires purchase before reviewing and is generally a better place to find accurate feedback. So, with that, I don't see how any of that falls flat, my original statement still holds water; F4 is among the lowest awarded and reviewed Bethesda title if you look at the whole picture.

In the end we all feel different towards everything and If you don't personally see the decline in their quality..then we'll just have to agree to disagree here and call it a day.

There is a word for this. stockholm syndrome. You have my sympathy.

Hahahaha - you may be right.

I loved that game. Hardly anyone I know has even heard of it

I never got to beat the game before losing my save and I really think I should replay it again.

While I dislike the art style and found the game to feel pretty linear and world to to be pretty dull, I still think it completely annihilates TES gameplay wise in every aspects. Main story seems better than Oblivion or Skyrims too.

The radiant quests are great for farming Companion approval. Got the infamously difficult Strong to Adore me by doing Minuteman quests over and over.

I don't mind the too much. Garvey's are the only ones that really annoy me. And that's just because you can't ignore them.

He's the only companion I failed to max out. Think I'll try your method. I seem to be able to walk into Cambridge Police Station with him without comment and prefer those quests to the MM ones.

Radiant quest systems are great. They add in a way for players to expand the game their own way, add in features that make factions and settlements seem way more alive then just the ordinary "do one quest then never again" that some games like New Vegas had for stuff that is in the similar way as the radiants in Fallout 4 and just generally good systems when done right which I think Fallout 4 managed to do well.