I’m biased because it’s the first fallout game I played, but I never understood some of the complaints people had. I really liked having a voiced protagonist and the predefined back story was great, because it came up constantly. It allowed for great role-playing. I played new Vegas and enjoyed it, but the game itself wasn’t really all that fun to me, partially because I feel it’s aged somewhat poorly from a gameplay point of view. But in addition, it felt like your character didn’t have a personality, they just had skills and things they were good at. Compared to four, where you can bring up your dead spouse and child and your prewar knowledge pretty regularly, for example. Obviously the dialogue system could’ve been better but on the whole I think four gets way too much flak.
I’m aware I’m in the minority with my opinion, but it just seems odd to me that I never hear these sorts of criticisms levied at the witcher for instance. Great game and fundamentally a good rpg, but your character is predefined. You can shape it a little but Geralt is ultimately still Geralt no matter what. But I never felt that impeded my ability to roleplay as him. The fact that the character is predefined is a positive to me, because the game can be designed around that fact. The scope is limited somewhat, so the paths you do choose can be better detailed. With new Vegas, the actual personality of your character lives within your head most of the time, and isn’t represented on screen nearly as much. Of course that’s fine, it’s just a very different roleplay experience imo, and I don’t prefer it like most people seem to. Not to say that Fo4 is as successful at it as the witcher was, just something I think about. I wish Fo4 would have leaned into it even more if anything, rather than the middle ground they’re in. Would’ve been cool to spend more time prewar for instance, have that aspect of the character influence more side quests.