FNV had choices/consequences that changed how the game played drastically (work for NCR/Mr. House/The Legion/Or yourself) meant entirely different paths, endings, and role playing experiences. F3 had choices regarding slaves that changed how you played depending upon which "side" you chose.

And I'll start any discussion I want any time I want, just like you can, thank you. But it's not only me that believes 2 being less than 3 is written in stone. That I'm afraid has been true for literally centuries.

But I do just want to say that your passion, my nephew's review and OFP's excellent points have all made me reconsider my "I'm not interested in purchasing" original stand. After all, Civ IV is not an RPG at all but is an excellent game. Gothic 1 and Gothic 2 don't have as much "RPGness" as many games, including the Fallout series, yet are two of my favorite games of all time. I think it was an unfair emotional over reaction to just reject F4 based on the fact that they did away with one of the significant parts of what made the Fallout series great RPG's. I think F4 could be a great game even with less "RPGness" than the previous releases in the series and I should judge it that way instead of solely on it's losses.

But it does still hurt emotionally, as the Fallout series was also one of my favorite all-time series and the skills system was part of why.

F4 takes the same approach as NV, though nowhere near the level Obsidian did. Slaves in F3: not really (Paradise Falls) and once again, coming with a DLC (The Pitt), not the base game. Such decisions made it into F4 as well, though regrettably mostly as facade.

Restricting the facts to those you see supporting your position != a discussion. That's just ranting, sry. I'm only interested in participating on a discussion, not a rant.

F4 is a great game, though not a great RPG - and I'm saying this as a Bethesda fanboy. They improved across the board compared with F3, yet still failed adding much substance to it. Apart from factions and how you can handle them, there's little more RP added. And I guarantee you'll find it appalling, on how many occasions they blatantly missed it - I know I did.
.... and still I've put already over 200 hours in it, as the gameworld is that freakin' good.

The dialogue-thing was weird. Even console gamers hate it, which leads me to think the developers took a short-cut. They ran out of time to do it in the previous way because that would require more dialogue text...and more money.
So they made this ugly-looking thing instead. Either that or they completely failed with their test group.

It's a terrible game. I haven't even found any DRM free version of it.
A Linux port isn't in sight anywhere either.

Good game, not great. Doesn't feel like a Fallout game.

What's Fallout 4? I don't rent games.

Pretty much. It's a decent open-world shooter / junk collecting simulator with lots to explore and build, I can see why it's appealing to a lot of people. But I found it about as deep as a puddle and insulting as a Fallout game.

I gave it around 6 - 8 hours before the dialog system, voice acting and story annoyed me to the point of completely quitting.

people are stupid kids:
https://www.rt.com/news/326272-gamer-russia-lawsuit-fallout4/

How is the level scaling?

Not that bad, it's not noticeable at least.
You don't get a room filled with 20 deathclaws instead of 1 raider when you go from level 21 to 22.

I don't have it but my friends say it's good as a open world, shoot & loot game but its RPG elements don't satisfy many of them. Also, some of them think it's not really another Fallout but just a game in the Fallout universe.

More wondering whether you meet level 22 Deathclaws instead of level 21 deathclaws when you level from 21 to 22

Not that I've noticed, it seems more like you're more likely to meet a 'special' or 'legendary' deathclaw than before.
But you'll still encounter regular deathclaws.
It isn't super noticeable, although at level 50+ you do meet more super mutant overlords then when you were level 10.