In my opinion not a single person should be shocked by what Fallout 4 is. It is literally Bethesda going:
"Psst guys so since everyone will buy our game anyway no matter what, so lets make it basically the same but add a building mechanic that is terrible and boring so that we can make a mobile game to make extra money."
To me there is no significant difference between Fallout 3 and 4 and should get hate as such BUT if that's what you want then do you, I'm just disappointed in it.

Mate it's a largely story-driven game, it doesn't need to completely change its mechanics every time a sequel comes out. It gets more praise than it's due by the fans and it's not the best game I've played all year, but it's still a pretty damn good game. The significant difference between Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 is that it's in a different setting with different characters and different quests.

You know, I'm just throwing this out there but faggots like you are the reason Banjo Threeie got cancelled in favour of Banjo Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts. You cry about there being no difference but the moment they make any significant changes you'll complain that they ruined the series

Not at all, I've never played a single Banjo game so i have no idea what you're talking about. The best example i have is the Borderlands and Borderlands 2. Games should get better and feel different with each iteration. Fallout isn't different or better. It's exactly the same

Wait Borderlands is the best example of a game changing and updating or the best example of a game that's gotten stale and needs to be changed? Because they're both great games but I'm pretty sure FO3/4 changes more between games than BL1/2.

I think maybe you're judging it a little too harshly and looking at what's the same more than what's new because of all the fanboys, I know I've done that before. Fallout 4 changes and adds plenty, just because they've kept features from previous games doesn't mean it's suddenly a clone.

Banjo Kazooie was one of the best games on the N64, along with games like Zelda and Super Mario 64. It's one of those timelss games that you can always go back to and think "wow, this is a really ******* good game" without worrying about how it's dated.

After Banjo Kazooie came Banjo Tooie. Slightly improved graphics and some cool new moves, but otherwise the same core mechanics. It was a perfect sequel; everything from the previous game but slightly better with a new story.

Then after Banjo Tooie, Rare (the developers) hinted at Banjo Threeie, which was majorly anticipated by fans. After Rare got bought out by Microsoft they hinted at it even more and fed us teasers; after years and years it was finally being made, and fans were ecstatic.

Then Threeie got trashed Banjo Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts came out. To call it a failure would be like calling M. Night Shyamalan's biggest, wateriest turd "a bit smelly." Jontron reviewed it and depicted the disc as an evil demon that needed to be destroyed.

It wasn't too awful a game in its own right, but unfortunately Microsoft did its research. Badly. See, Banjo Kazooie was all about collectibles. Musical notes, little rainboy-coloured friendly monsters called Jinjos, jigsaw pieces, the purpose of each world was to collect all the items. Well in recent years people had gotten sick of collectables, so Microsoft in their infinite wisdom decided to completely change how the game was played. On top of that though they also poked fun at the previous games and made them out to be endless fetch quests that modern gamers weren't interested in, collecting a trillion pointless items (they really weren't, each item you picked up felt significant in its own way and the whole thing was beautifully done.)

Anyway the point is if it isn't broken, you don't always have to fix it. Innovation is fine and good but you don't have to totally change how a game is played just because your old games have been done. <------ Big Banjo Kazooie rant, spoilering because I got a little off track.