*it won't let me post the link so just go to their front page if you want to read the article* Hello guys, as y'all might notice I just recently joined. I am a member of SugarBombed, which you may know is another fallout focused forum that opened not too long ago. Although intelligent discussion is often hard to come by on there because of the amount of bethesda fanboys, once in a while one of their writers (they have their own articles that they publish on the sites front page) will put out a good article that will get me thinking, especially this user named allout. I suggest you guys read it, it's quite interesting. But if you don't want to wade through all of those paragraphs I'll give a brief summary: The writer brings up an article from Kotaku that is pretty much bashing Fallout 4 for not being nearly as good a game or deep an rpg as 1/2/NV, but the writer points out in her review of the game she is actually very positive. He questions why that is, and sums it up as Bethesda's expert marketing and all the hype around the game before the announcement causing people to look past some of the game's flaws initially. He says how this is a good strategy in the short term because sales and review scores, but a bad thing in the long term as many people just 2 months after release are already disappointed. I don't know how accurately I summed that up so once again I just suggest you to read it for yourself and discuss below.