So, since you asked, prepare for the incoming rant
I think RPGs are defined by two key genre features. First, the wonder of exploration (be it exploring an intricate dungeon, a complex story or simply taking in the landscape) and second, the character ownership — you are the one creating and determining them character personae. And that second feature goes much deeper than just character customisability or ability points. For example, games like STALKER or Deus Ex (the original 2000 one) are definitely RPGs in my book even though they don't have any skill system or levelling mechanics — the character ownership comes from how you play, which equipment you choose and in general how you approach solving the problems the game throws at you. The genius of Deus Ex for example was that you could either sneak your way though the vents to bypass the locked door, fight the guards to get the keycard, hack the computer terminal or just blow the door up with a rocker launcher. And the game would react to your choices in a non-trivial way, like you could choose to fight a key character or to run away at some focal points, which would determine how the game progresses. Mind, this was more than twenty years ago, and Deus Ex still remains an unsurpassed masterpiece in this category. STALKER's story on the other hand is much more linear, but you can customise your character in terms of equipment/playstyle; and where that game excels is the atmosphere and the joy/wonder of exploration (and also a little bit of fear, since you never know what kind of threat will surprise you when you enter that dark lab basement).
Now to Bethesda. My problem with them is that they have been taking the soul out of RPGs and replacing them with mindless mechanics — at least in my perception. Instead of exploring them environment, you are consuming content. Instead of creating a character you tweak some knobs. The original Fallout (1 and 2) was about exploring and navigating a huge, politically complex post-war world and encountering different attempts on rebuilding society. Bethesda's Fallout is literally some randomly spread out dumpsters littered with rubbish (why didn't anyone clean up in two hundred years?) and human carcasses (because it is not a raider base without some severed heads, right — where did they even get them? where does this supply of fresh human heads comes from, there are like twenty NPCs in the entire game?). Fallout: New Vegas was much better in that department, probably because it wasn't made by Bethesda. But that's one of Bethesda's features: they don't have a coherent artistic vision. They have great artists and great developers, but nobody who would put things together so that it fits and makes sense. It reminds me how in the Oblivion's announcement long time ago Howard spend minutes praising the artists for creating a beautiful 3D model of a salmon filet but the game itself was just a bunch of NPCs running around like maniacs and starting awkward conversations out of the blue because "RADIANT AI". So yeah, Bethesda has long dropped the ball when it comes to creating compelling, immersive worlds.
Another design decision that made it even worse was the automatic level scaling. Have to keep the players entertained and challenged, right? Unfortunately, instead of a challenge (because these games are easy as hell), it only creates absurdity, where every lice-ridden raider suddenly wears heavy armour and wields high-end weapons (since when lowly bandits have access to Enclave tech?) and every grace-forsaken dump is sprawling with super mutants — which are supposed to be these extremely rare, enigmatic generically engineered creatures. The point of an RPG is that you are not supposed to know what waits for you around the corner and whether your weapons and tactics will be enough to deal with it. In Bethesda games all this tension is gone — it's going to be just another plasma rifle wielding super mutant which you will dispatch in one shot using the brain-dead VATS.
And finally, let's talk about character and player actions. In the original Fallout (a 1997 game!), you character attributes actually meant something. Have a low intelligence score and your character won't be able to talk properly and NPCs will treat them as a moron they are. Have a high strength and you will be open that jammed door. Have a high charisma and you will have a unique option of seducing the mafia bosses son/daughter and gain access to their secret stash. In a similar wein, insult that mafia boss in a dialogue and his henchmen will open fire on you. Sure, Fallout 4 also has some skill checks, but they are very rare and primitive for what used to define the genre. And sure, you can choose which faction to side with, but none of these choices feel impactful, it's just something you have to do resp. a thing you click on. There is no weight behind any of these things, it feels mechanical and arbitrary.
So yeah, that's how I feel about Bethesda games and why I think they have taken the soul out of the RGP genre.
Sure, it's difficult, exceedingly so, but I don't think that Cyberpunk's problems come from difficulty. I see it more as the same problem that plagues modern Hollywood — the decision power is wielded not by the creatives but by hedge fund managers. Instead of following an artistic vision to deliver a holistic experience one focuses on making safe choices and return on investment. Cyberpunk seems like a typical victim of "how can we make a game more successful? — Ah, GTA is popular, so let's add cars. — Also Borderlands is cool, so let's add a bit of that. — Also, let's have a heroic story and some eastern mumbo-jumbo, people love that. — Also, it's an RPG, so let's give it an overcomplicated skill system that is rendered entirely obsolete and meaningless by the fact that your weapons have levels and ultimately become useless". That kind of stuff.
And don't get me wrong, there is nothing bad about making safe choices or wanting your game to make money. Strong economic fundamentals are of utmost importance, and every studio needs a sane business person to keep crazy creatives in check. But you cannot create art (and yes, games are art, at least from where I stand) based solely on the financial considerations. Because then you end up with one these engineered projects that just combines some market research to leach money from a target group — often commercially successful, but with no real value. And besides, it is clear that strong and consistent artistic vision can yield sustained success. This is illustrated by the phenomenon of Pixar — where creatives are in charge — which allows them to make truly beautiful, innovative projects. Or, if you want an example in the gaming world — FromSoftware, who make extremely punished games that should be frustrating and hated, but instead are loved and admired, because of how well executed they are. Execution is about belief. You can't make something great if your team does not believe in it. And nobody can believe in a game that just hacks together some "popular stuff". That's simply not fun to work on.
