You're not wrong to say it's based on opinion, but some of your points don't really add up. The minimal conversation options aren't due to the character being voiced - see Mass Effect. They're due to the writers taking a more active hand in crafting the protagonist than the more "blank slate" approach in previous games. I'd argue this led to good and bad - mostly bad in my opinion, but that's all it is, right?

You can argue until the cows come home that FO4 allows for diversified builds, but you're missing the point entirely. Almost none of your build choices have any impact on the actual dialogue and role playing, and conversation - which I would argue is the key to any top notch, proper role playing experience - is about as impactful as it was in Skyrim.

Your 1000 hours logged in New Vegas simply means you played a lot of New Vegas. More than me, as it turns out! If that's true, then you have to know deep down in the gut of your gut that game was miles ahead of FO4 is the pure role playing and writing department. This is a discussion that has almost universally swing in favor of NV. Google "The writing in FO4 is so much better than in New Vegas," then Google the opposite. There's a thing called consensus. You have a minority opinion if you truly think FO4 is the game with better writing.

It doesn't make you wrong! There's no wrong in the subjective, right? I just don't see why it's so difficult for some to acknowledge a game's relative strengths and weaknesses. I think Fallout 4 is objectively a more stable, mechanically sound product with better gameplay. I think Fallout New Vegas is comparatively clunky, but has some of the best writing and true role playing in any game I've played, and I've played a lot of them.

Different strokes for them different folks though, I suppose.