FO4 is still a RPG. They could just have a mode that replicates The Sims moving interface. And would put FO4 back in line with FO1/2. I'd actually like this for the building mode. The tone and characters are still there.

Skyrim was the Ocarina of Time of the last console generation. I can't put into words how greatly I enjoyed exploring that world. No cutscenes, no mandatory linear path, no QTEs and no Navi/Fi or anything similar to hold your hand. It's simply an adventure game in its purest form.

The world is about as full of life as it can possibly be considering you're in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. I love all the little stories and evidence you find of other survivors who have long since died. Really brings the whole world together. I have like 50 hours played (have barely had time to play the last week) and I have barely scratched the surface in terms of factions and story.

They're not terrible games, they're just pretty terrible Fallout games - well, at least FO4 is terrible, FO3 is about what Alien 3 is to Alien and Aliens, not terrible, but not really good. Bethesda just never quite figured out what Fallout in its core is about, or if they did, they didn't really care much.

As for genre - not sure if you meant Bethesda changed the genre of original IP, or genre as a whole has changed - if latter, not really, there are still cRPGs made quite similar to FO1/2, just like there are still action-WRPGs made similar to what they've been like 10+ years ago (Witcher 3 being prime example of it) - it's just that some devs have chosen to water-down their games in order to attract mainstream.

But, even with a change of genre from turned-based party cRPG to action-based solo (+companion) WRPG there was no particular reason for Bethesda to strip it out of so many things that made Fallout what it was...but you know, from business perspective who can blame them, it's much easier to make Oblivion with guns than to actually put proper effort in changing your design philosophy to keep IP you acquired true to its roots.

A lot of people can't handle that.  They want the game to take their hand, lead them around, and to tell them what to do next.  They want the game to absolutely define the character they're playing and they want that world to revolve around that character.  Otherwise they stand there for awhile and say, "I'm bored, when is the next cutscene?"  Fallout/Elder Scrolls is for people with imagination who like to discover rather than follow a rail.

The experience varies greatly depending on how you play it.

Go off by yourself to discover interesting stories (eg Cabot family, USS Constition, Covenant, Silver flash etc) and get lost in the world with all the background details and stories provided in the terminals.
Or follow Preston's let's free one settlement at a time by clearing the same set of ghouls or raiders over and over. Even sending you to repeat places to help defend settlements.

Fallout NV offers a more consistent approach, yet the map is more interesting to explore in F4. The main story is interesting enough so far yet I've mainly been busy building stuff.

The fun is in the details you find, an old racetrack with the horses replaced by robots, an automated shopping mall still waiting for a new manager to arrive, a silly ghost story with cheesy jump scare sounds while exploring the haunted building. Paranoid characters, petty rivalries, companies cutting corners, office banter, crazy failed experiments, psychopath kidnappers, deluded cults, the world is rich in detail. You just have to look for it. Go in, shoot everything that moves, run out, yeah weak game.

I've only recently started traveling with companions. They give some good backstories as well after a while. Too bad the lone wanderer perk is so overpowered that it took me to lvl 50 before checking out this part of the game. Anyway still finding new things after 130 hours. (half of that is building)

I'm having more fun with it than with Witcher 3.
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=210713&page=1#

I'd argue the opposite. Fallout 4, as much as it's changed the gameplay compared to previous games, is more Fallout than 3 was. 3 gets a lot of love because of nostalgia but it was a god awful Fallout. I'll name one example of many: BoS. 4 is much less an RPG and I have some big problems with that at times but as a whole it's a much better game. The world feels more cohesive here to me, the sidequests are fun and there are more than a small few of them, et alia. The story is about as bad overall but I genuinely like the fact that I've been conflicted with which side to choose, even if that's because it's bad. 

It's firmly between 3 and NV for me in terms of my opinion; NV was exactly what Fallout would be nowadays while being a good modern game, and it will be hard to pass it in my eyes. I like some changes (Karma needed to go) but I miss some key things Obsidian did with NV (a trackable Reputation meter for all the areas would be lovely). The DLC will decide it for me but NV is such a high standard. 3's still fun too, don't get me wrong - I've put 500 hours into it, but I couldn't go back after NV. 

Oh, by all means, NV is supperior to both FO3 and FO4, but that is to be expected given that Obsidian made it.

As for FO4...I don't know, the more I play it, the less I like it. Sure, there are some things that are decent enough, some things are somewhat better than FO3, but a lot of things are not - overall, at least for me, game is tragically blend and repetitive (not that FO3 was much better).

Maybe I was too optimistic that Bethesda would actually put some effort into making proper Fallout setting, you know, something that has great places like Glow, Necropolis, Vault City, NCR, Klamath, Den, Mariposa, New Reno...actually I can take any location from FO1/2 at random and the chances are it will be better than anything they've come up with.

For me, Bethesda's renditions just feel so off with the whole Fallout universe - sure, the paint is kinda there, but when you scratch undertneath it's completely different story...I mean, it's 200+ years after the war and there isn't anything even resembling Shady Sands, let alone some of the more developed settlements.

Anyway, for some reason I didn't have a problem finishing FO3, despite hating what Bethesda did with IP, but I guess FO4 with further dumbing down just put a nail in the coffin...lvl42 at the moment, I'm still playing it, but it's becoming quite tedious (apart from ocassional funny comment from KL-E-O or P.A.M., both belonging more in KOTOR alongside HK-47 than in Fallout).

I think it's the same when I played Fall out 3 and got bored of it due to the lifelessness. However I think Fall out 4 is spectacular so far. I agree Bethesda have a tendency of making lifeless characters but even with that it's a huge world to explore and I haven't had dull moment yet in all honesty.

It's a good game still but FO3 was better. Also, it's not really an RPG anymore.