[quote=@Fabricant451]
<Snipped quote by Intrepid>


I disagree with pretty much everything in this and it's freaking me out. Both FO4 and FO3 are bad games and New Vegas is a good game because it was made by people that know how to make good WRPGs.
[/quote]

I can agree with your opinion about it being better in the sense that it adheres more closely to a wRPG style. Heck, even just RPGs in general. I just couldn't get around how dull the characters from New Vegas were. I don't feel as though New Vegas put any effort whatsoever into building an attachment to any character aside from the Courier him/herself. Even companions felt blech, with the exception of dark-backstory Boone. I think one could argue for Veronica and Cass too, but still.

Fallout 3 did a better job in this department, but that really isn't saying a lot, considering it is pretty poor as well. Fallout 4, however, certainly builds up the emotion behind the story and attachment to the characters far more than the others. Companions have legit personalities, backstories that actually give you a reaction that's more than a "huh, interesting." and, realistic, non-robotic reactions to your actions in the game. 

That's probably the biggest reason I rate the games in the order that I do. I'm not the kind of guy to get into an RPG just for the sake of it being an RPG. I simply take the whole package and rate it for what it is instead if breaking it down into its constituent parts. I just happen to like the overall result of 4 best... I will say, though, that despite NV being my least favorite, it was still really fun.