Alpha Protocol. It only had 4 dialogue options at a time but it had probably the deepest choice and consequence narrative of any game I've ever played pretty much ever as far as I remember at least. You mostly even only had 3 dialogue stances you could take a time: Professional, Suave, and Aggressive. Occasionally there'd be a 4th option at the bottom if you had a particular knowledge, skill or a veteran character with unique dialogue option. Yet the game was still very well-written with a ton of choice and consequence. They could easily apply this to Fallout: New Sacramento or whatever and deliver a good story with lots of depth. So I think it's not necessarily the system that's at fault, but the writing and execution applied to it. Obviously I would prefer the dialogue system to be like it was in Fallout 2 or New Vegas, but Obsidian has proven if they were theoretically forced to use FO4's system, they could make an insanely deep story with a lot of choice & consequence. This video has spoilers but it shows how different the game can end up being when you're negative versus Fallout 4's "Hate Newspapers" options: This video shows the Marburg conversation in the previous video but choosing more professional dialogue stances, just to see how different the results can be: And of course, this video should give an idea how they can do companion introductions: So yeah, Obsidian is still the best candidate to do the next Fallout spin-off, if one happens at all that is.