While I think that thinking of something specifically that way seems pretty venemous, I see how one can feel concerned about the success of certain trends in gaming- there's only so much money in the industry, after all, so what succeeds directly influences the priorities of developers. I don't think it's an unfair claim to state that open worlds have been emphasized this generation as a result of the desires/criticism from the past one, and many of us don't like the tradeoffs that have come with that. (This emphasis itself stemming from another trend that sprung up last gen from the success of cinematic, linear shooters that many hated)
The argument is that purchases and positive reception, basically votes, for Fallout 4 or the Witcher 3 or Dragon Age is a vote for massive amounts of content in an open world with shallow RPG trappings over quality gameplay. With Fallout 4, it's also a vote that says these things are so important than even performance of your game doesn't matter. This is a horrible order of priorities to set to many of us, so while hoping for failure isn't something I actively do, I would at least like to see the principles I admire and value in game making succeed more than those I don't. It's not so different in spirit from hoping a political candidate with values you respect succeeds over one who you vehemently disagree with, which is something people do all the time.
For many in this thread, the technical competence of the Witcher compared to one of the Bethesda's titles and the immense difference in the quality of writing between them and CDPR is enough to see FO4 and W3 on opposite ends of the spectrum. They've voiced similar sentiments about being glad to see W3 succeed over it, and, by implication, Fallout 4 fail to it, because, on the spectrum they care about, the two sit on very different ends.
Meanwhile, others of us would just as soon as group W3 with Fallout 4, the quality of its writing being unimportant in the grand scheme of things given the spectrum we care about.
