I understand your position as well, I think we just need to have more moderate discussions and less going to extremes.

I didn't address the writing and dialogue of the games because those are absolutely getting the short end of the stick in terms of what Bethesda is spending their resources on, but I found the systems that they put work into in Fallout 4 worthy enough of that time spent instead, and I think that says more about my preferences of what I like in a game than it really does about if Bethesda games are "better" or not this way.

I tend to prefer moment to moment gameplay and I found Fallout 4's complex interlocking loop of wanting to build a settlement and modify my equipment, leading to tracking down certain materials and identifying where they may be logically found, to going there on foot, to looting the place systematically and engaging the enemies with the weapons and armor I modified and have personal attachment to, to managing my inventory with an investment and thought that never mattered as much in previous Bethesda titles, etc.

That whole loop and set of mechanics that play into each other added an incredible wealth of what I consider more moment to moment gameplay depth than just enjoying the wider possibilities of dialogue options in past Bethesda titles.

Even at its best good old days Bethesda writing doesn't really compare to other games much more focused on writing (not going to mention New Vegas here because Obsidian is one of those devs better at writing than Bethesda). Bethesda games are always more than the sum of their parts.

My point about Pac Man is more that you don't dislike the game's lack of depth in certain areas just for its own sake, but because you're comparing it to the studio's past. When Pac Man Championship Edition and DX released, those
had favorable receptions because they took the arcadey roots of the franchise to their logical conclusion instead of swapping to more accessible gameplay trends as Bethesda did.

Not an invalid criticism, but not the only thing people should be mentioning in some of these comments as if that's what makes the game "bad".

And if you really think Starfield is going to be Fallout 4 with just a new coat of paint... That's just disingenuous. There's already more than enough changes in new mechanics and systems that didn't exist in FO4 aside from the entire new universe and premise that's more than simply a coat of paint.

I do hear what you're saying though and I appreciate acknowledging some of the parts people skip over thinking about just to hit the low hanging fruit that have been brought up in every thread about a Bethesda game since time immemorial, adding nothing new to the discussion.

Always! Also, the cake is a lie ʘ‿ʘ

I really didn't like Skyrim, Fallout 3, Oblivion, Fallout 4, or 76. Still playing Morrowind and New Vegas though. I could go on about why for a looooooooong time but really don't care to. Suffice to say there are plenty of people (obviously) that are not happy with those games. I bought them all too so that would show up in sales data. Shame on me, I guess. I've been burned enough times that I'm not even going to bother being excited about this one.

two decades is enough to capture Skyrim and Fallout 3.

So a decent but by no means amazing game and a complete turd? Not really helping your case here very much, IMO. The last truly great game Bethesda made was Morrowind, and I will die on this hill.