That's exactly my point. I haven't once conflated the two, all of your comments have.
How? The disagreement is if Fallout 4 was a moneygrab or not. Is that correct?
According to you it was because it "Skyrim was a significant technical advancement of Gamebryo, not just in terms of visual quality or so forth, but also in terms of what was possible with the engine. Fallout 4 was a minor upgrade and could have easily been a total conversion mod for Skyrim - there was no innovation and it did nothing new."
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this "conflatng" the effort gone into a game, and specifically the engine, with the quality of the game?
Some very dedicated folks took the pittance of time/money afforded to them and made a fantastic effort. Imagine what the same people could have done with an engine that wasn't merely a minor graphical improvement. Imagine what FO4 could have been with richer story telling technology (dialog mechanics, interaction mechanics, etc.), instead the content team was stuck with the same scripting power available in Skyrim.
BOTH the effort of people who clearly care about the franchise AND the publisher's shameless money grubbing show in the final product.
First rule: make every assumption about the other commenter’s intent. Second rule: never actually directly respond to the other commenter.
It’s like code golf, but to get toxic online interactions out of our systems in a controlled environment. What do you think? :)
