I'd argue that they have devolved. Today's "RPGs" certainly offers a lot less in terms of roleplaying than anything I remember from 10-20 years ago.

I think it's evident in the way they promoted the game, citing numbers that were supposed to be impressive while completely foregoing things that really should have mattered. Instead we got "this many voiced lines!", "this many weapon mods!", "this many armor pieces", "this many locations", etc., without knowing what that actually means. All the while people who knew the series must've been asking themselves "but what about my choices, my karma (or equivalent), and people's reactions to my actions and choices? Will one faction hunt me down and kill me if I cross them or ally with that faction." Not much reported there.

So you are an experienced and accomplished game developer yourself? You speak as though you have detailed knowledge of the game development process, and indeed, as if you have worked as a designer in charge of a project at a relatively high level.

Can you tell us a bit about your portfolio?

Uhhh...all the things he mentions were in FO1, 2 and NV. Beth didn't really need to reinvent the wheel or hire Masterbrain-game-designer to compliment the FO4 shooter with some actual roleplaying features. Just take a peak at previous games and draw some inspiration. But let's see your portfolio since you appear to be in the know.

What have I ever said that makes you think I would seem to be "in the know?" I have no experience with game development and I'm not attempting to rebutt any of evil's claims that Bethesda is lazy. I'm merely trying to establish evil's credibility. Does he have the sort of real world experience that would make him an "authority" on the topic?

My point was that, he, and a lot of you whiners are constantly making statements that you may or may not have the actual realworld experience to back up. Stating categorically "what would have been involved" for the developers of FO4 to make the game you wanted them to make can be done either with or without sufficient knowledge to back up such a statement.

If it is true, then evil's statement that "Bethesda is lazy" is a criticism that has some empirical basis to it. If it is just rantings of someone who actually knows nothing about game development, then it is little more than rude speculation.

How many people in your life have admitted that they're 'stupid' or 'dumb'?

We also routinely pay the majority of athletes next to nothing, the peak earners such as Usain bolt or Tiger woods that earn 8 figure salaries seem to engender a stereotype that all athletes are exorbitantly payed.

As for your last line, I never claimed that they didn't. I propounded that if there is a continuum or a spectrum of intelligence among gamers (or among the populace at large), then there has to be a 'lowest common denominator' by definition. When we consider that BGS develops games where your intelligence is rarely, if ever required, and that the premise of failure is rarely if ever existent then we can surely infer that these games are catered towards the lowest common denominator, among other demographics.

John, I doubt you have the faintest hint of what "intelligence" actually is and the fact that you seem to think you know all about it--and how it relates to game design--only serves to make you look like a fool.

Can you enumerate what is IN FO4 but was NOT in those games? Can you actually describe the development process relating to these comparisons and contrasts? Do you have any notion of how there are or are not tradeoffs in terms of time, staff-capacity, money and other resources between the presence or absence of any of these features? Are you confident that the absence of these features are going to have any impact on the financial or critical success of FO4, or would you simply retrort that "popularity is not equivalent to quality?" To which I would retort, "and bankruptcy also does not promote quality, even if it is suffered as a result of striving for excellence." An old buddy of mine from grad school who was an Army Ranger told me something years ago as I was struggling to finish my dissertation, he said "Perfection is the enemy of excellence." He was right.

Perhaps I should have specified more as in NBA athlete, or even included famous actors. Nevertheless, we are hardly scientist-idolizers here in the U.S.

As far as the 'spectrum of intelligence' goes, you are assuming that highly intelligent people want games that require lots of intellectual effort rather than playing something more mindless like Bejeweled. Many just want something that allows them to relax their minds so they will be fresh for their next day's intellectual work. I might even hypothesize that those requiring "intellectual" games are those who may have less opportunity to explore intellectual pursuits in real life, and thus wish to make up for that need somehow in-game. In any case, I don't believe we can at all assume that people who enjoy more casual games are stupid, or automatically less intelligent than those who demand high degrees of complexity.

Great post, and as you've said neither of us are blinded by nostalgic feelings towards the originals.

I played Fallout 1 and 2 after I finished new Vegas, my criticisms of Fallout 3 aren't predicated on my aversion to change, or my obdurate ideals about the series that were tenderly crafted by the original games. Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 are bad Fallout games, not because they show up poorly in the refulgence of my rose tinted glasses, but because they are evidently inconsistent with the original ideals of the original Fallout games.

You don't need any prior attachment to the series to see the arresting differences between the old and new Fallout games, think of Fallout 3 and 4 what you will, but nobody here can plausibly suggest that they represent a natural progression from the original games.That's not nostaliga talking either; I dislike Fallout: Tactics and Fallout 2 has probably the weakest mainquest in the series.

Relates to game design? When did I make such a correlation between the two?

I suggested that BGS makes relatively vapid experiences, I never questioned the complexity of their development process; and I wouldn't want to.I'd be feigning knowledge when I have none to offer.

Congratulations, your army buddy quoted Voltaire. If you've read any of my posts on these boards you'll know which items I'm missing in FO4 that were already included in the previous games. I'm not a programmer, nor a game designer, but logic dictates that something that has been done once can be done again. In fact, it could be done even better as you now have the advantage of hindsight. Instead of taking that advantage and running with it, it appears it was thrown overboard to make room for some features that caters to the fans of instant gratification. Sadly, that is not related to laziness, but rather a conscious decision to drive this amazing series in a direction I hate seeing it go in exchange for a few dollars more.

I agree with you that people in intellectual disciplines may seek casual games as form of relaxation, but they would only pad out the number of people playing casual games, unless you're suggesting that candy crush is primarily played by the leading intellects of society?If not the generalization still holds.

I also cant imagine that many people who ardently play Candy Crush or COD are also active players of chess, or strategy RPGs for example.That's not to suggest that there are no Candy Crush players that also play more abstruse games, but the generalization that they typically don't would still hold.

The whole premise is still rather dubious in all honesty, we're presuming that many of the most intelligent are employed in exigent jobs, that fully taxes their cognitive abilities; therefor seeking relaxation in casual games.

It would be interesting to study this, and substantiate the argument either way.

In the meantime, we shouldn't assume one's level of intellect based on liking or disliking Fallout 4 or other Bethesda games.

*breaks out the popcorn and early shoves it into his face*

Ohh man, this has already gotten good.

Then it's probably best not to bring it up. Because you know...dancing all about it like that makes it seem as if that is exactly what you are saying and it comes off as fairly insulting to others John Henry. All best left unsaid.

In fact, it's gotten insulting enough in this thread to close it.