[Megathread] Fallout 76

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Only this game does come at a cost to us. They only have so many production resources and they have chosen to expend them on this game instead of other games. We could be getting Starfield right now and Elder Scrolls 6 a 2-3 years from now, products (single player sandbox RPGs) this customer base actually wants... The same products that this customer base has come to expect from this developer, hence why we are even here in the first place... To get those particular products, which we can't get elsewhere.

I'm sure the accountants have a better idea of what "this customer base actually wants" than you do. You know, else they would have banked on a different game rather than continuing with a cash cow.

You don't like it? Fine. But don't try to pretend that your opinion is the one, true opinion. You're not that fucking special, kid.

[Sharona]

whats a fallout

[Deleted]

Microtransactions are only for cosmetic items, DLCs are free, servers are free, "for years". All microtransaction cosmetic items are also available through actually playing the game.

No cash grab on that front, then.

[oplawlz]

This is about questioning the direction that Bethesda is taking the Fallout series. 76 might very well end up being a good game, I don't know. I just know that it's not in line with the other fallout games. It's worrying in that it smacks of the "We must add multiplayer to everything" disease that afflicts so many other development teams and games.

This reflects my concerns as well. I REALLY want this to be good, but the whole always online thing is becoming a serious plague in the industry. I've purchased all the fallout games, several on multiple platforms - but for the first time a release has gotten a knee-jerk "hard pass" from me. Hopefully Bethesda pulls it off, but for me at least the hype is non-existent.

[Deleted]

I am personally a bit confused by the pushback that "always online" gets. Aren't people always online anyway? Do people lose their internets so often somewhere on this planet that they've got plenty of time to play games when that happens? Perhaps it's just a matter of perspective, having played MMOs and games like Diablo, and going back to stuff like Counter-Strike (the original) and so on, before that MUDs, and basically having a 24/7 internet for the past couple decades plus. I've personally had some periods, like 2-3 days or something like that, where I've actually lost my internet, but surprisingly, playing games wasn't on my mind when that happened.

Oh well, I don't need to understand it.

[Darkrulerxxx]

Watch live for Todd, plus The Making of Fallout 76 about to drop.

EDIT: It dropped:

Everybody needs to watch this, This will soothe so many doomsayers about this game.

OFFICIALLY HYPED.

[Endus]

Watch live for Todd, plus The Making of Fallout 76 about to drop.

EDIT: It dropped:

Some stuff from that NoClip documentary that should resolve some issues people raised;

1> There's a new faction, the "Scorched", who are semi-feral ghouls. Feral enough to be hostile and non-friendly, but non-feral enough they can still use guns and talk. These are the "raiders" of Fallout 76. So really, just a skin over what we already had, for the most part.

2> There's some really significant biome differences across the map.

3> Noclip says it's not only a much larger map, but a more detailed map, in terms of stuff dotted around it, which is interesting.

4> Some content areas hinted based on real world stuff is a radio "dead zone" and the Presidential nuclear bunker.

5> More clothing options than in Fallout 4.

6> There is story, and quests, but they wanted to focus it more on what the player wanted to do that day. There will be active events, like in a lot of modern MMOs, where you can (I presume) cooperate with other players, even if ungrouped.

7> Crafting seems bigger and more complex; you may have to hunt down and explore for high-end materials, unlike Fallout 4's system where you generally end up with metric fucktons of stuff if you bother looting as you go.

8> Hinted at a "mutations" system, which could be fun; they're meant to be similar to Traits, in that there's a plus and a minus. Can cure ones you don't want. Or make them permanent, if you do.

9> Big focus on making survival and crafting "fun", and not a "chore".

10> Leveling will involve "perk cards", unlocked as you level, can only have a limited selection active. Will tend to push you towards a "build", rather than capping everything or being a jack-of-all-trades.

11> Voice chat and emote wheel for communication.

12> 24-32 players per "server". You can see other players on the map, so it's not going to be a massive surprise out of nowhere to run across them. The map's also big enough you won't be tripping over them. Team limit is currently 4.

13> The nukes are a cyclical endgame concept; the nukes mostly set the target zone to a higher-level irradiated version for better drops and such.

14> There will be microtransactions, but they will ONLY be cosmetics, which will also be earnable in-game. No paid DLC, though there ARE free updates in the pipe and planned.

15> In general, there's a solid attitude that they're throwing a lot of stuff at the wall to see what "sticks", and that they'll need to actively re-tune in response to players; they're interested to see what will come out, but they're also not set in how they've currently set things up, if it's not working out ideally.


I definitely get the impression the game's main thrust is going to be more similar to New Vegas in the sense that there will be a narrative nudge out the door ("It's Reclamation Day, go save the world") and then the game world is your oyster. The main questline may be minimal, but if the content dotted around the map is as quest-rich and detailed as in Fallout 4 without tying into that main questline, I'll actually prefer that. The game will become more open-ended exploration and more organically driven by player agency, rather than following the next blip on your map to clear out your quest log.

[I Push Buttons]

I'm sure the accountants have a better idea of what "this customer base actually wants" than you do. You know, else they would have banked on a different game rather than continuing with a cash cow.

You don't like it? Fine. But don't try to pretend that your opinion is the one, true opinion. You're not that fucking special, kid.

Indeed.

I am sure those "accountants" sat down and thought "despite selling tens of millions copies, our customers obviously don't want single player sandbox RPGs like Skyrim and Fallout 4..."

And then they looked to games like the floundering dumpster fire that is Destiny 2 as an example of the success they strive for and the live service game their customers actually want.

[Deleted]

As far as I understood (and correct me if I'm wrong), they've also got guys from id Software, at least to try and get the Quake netcode into this evolution of the Creation Engine, but I bet those guys have also helped to make the first person gunplay even better than it is in Fallout 4, in which it's pretty decent already.

[Endus]

I am personally a bit confused by the pushback that "always online" gets. Aren't people always online anyway? Do people lose their internets so often somewhere on this planet that they've got plenty of time to play games when that happens? Perhaps it's just a matter of perspective, having played MMOs and games like Diablo, and going back to stuff like Counter-Strike (the original) and so on, before that MUDs, and basically having a 24/7 internet for the past couple decades plus. I've personally had some periods, like 2-3 days or something like that, where I've actually lost my internet, but surprisingly, playing games wasn't on my mind when that happened.

Oh well, I don't need to understand it.

If they're worried that someone will gank and camp them to grief them, they REALLY clearly demonstrated they don't want that happening and have a bunch of levers in place to disincentivize that nonsense, "wanted levels" and the like. So that guy who keeps sniping you will (I'm making this up based on the phrasing) get an increasing bounty on his head encouraging other players to hunt them down.

Also, dying's negative consequences are basically "you respawn nearby at full health, go play". That's it. They're not looting your corpse and stealing your stuff. Same goes for your base; if it gets shut down, you just pop your C.A.M.P. up in a new location and bam, there's your full base again.

And always-online will hurt modding, a bit. But I always avoided the nude mods and overpowered nonsense, mostly. I'm not that worried about that angle.

Really, I think a lot of it boils down to this game being nearly impossible to pirate, if it's always-online.

- - - Updated - - -

Indeed.

I am sure those "accountants" sat down and thought "despite selling tens of millions copies, our customers obviously don't want single player sandbox RPGs like Skyrim and Fallout 4..."

And then they looked to games like the floundering dumpster fire that is Destiny 2 as an example of the success they strive for and the live service game their customers actually want.

Nothing they've shown is really that similar to Destiny 2 in any real respect whatsoever, other than in the loosest possible sense of the comparison. And we're getting into "they have laser guns in it" kind of territory with that.

They're also really clear they're trying something new with a lot of this, but that's a big reason it's a side game and not Fallout 5. It's a side game nobody was expecting a few weeks ago.

[Rendark]

First Fallout 4 was boring, lame and just not Fallout. Now the next one is going to be a multiplayer only Fallout. I didn't think it could get much worse then 4 but here we are.

[Jastall]

Like I said before: I don't have enough faith in Bethesda to not screw this up. They can barely get their single-player titles to work correctly in the first 6 months after launch, relying HEAVILY on the modding community to fill the gaps and correct the shortcomings of their games. Dedicated servers and constant online multiplayer is going to make that MUCH more difficult; further adding to inability to believe that Bethesda can pull this off.

Maybe my opinion will change as we get closer to launch, but I have a hard time seeing Fallout 76 going anywhere good.

This. This is how I feel as well. Single-player RPGs are Bethesda's niche, and even then they are fairly mediocre at it. Why should I believe they can suddenly strike gold in a totally different genre that has way more competition right now, and far more ways to crash and burn? Todd can dream about things until the end of days, in the end it doesn't ''just work'' and I have very little faith in them being able to pull this, especially since I tested ESO twice and found it boring as sin twice.

Maybe I'll be surprised. Stranger things have happened; I thought Alien Isolation would be bad because it was licensed horror game made by a strategy game studio yet it ended up being easily one of the horror games I played. But I still have a lot more faith in Creative Assembly's talent than I do in Bethesda's.

Co-op would have been enough of a new feature for this type of game. I'm ok with them testing some multiplayer features and seeing what sticks. Always online? Leave that shit to the games that already do that.

[Endus]

This. This is how I feel as well. Single-player RPGs are Bethesda's niche, and even then they are fairly mediocre at it.

Phrases like the bit in bold make your entire post laughable. You might not like Bethesda's games, but they're responsible for some of the best-reviewed single-player RPGs of the gaming world.

Here's Metacritic's ranking by metascore; http://www.metacritic.com/browse/gam...view=condensed

They've got multiple entries on the first page. Most of those games were also massive sellers. If top-reviewed games that top sales charts is your bar for "mediocre", your bar needs calibration.

[Deleted]

Yeah I mean it's hyperbole, baseless accusations and subjective statements that are being thrown around left and right so flippantly that makes me personally at least to try and push back a bit, but then when I do that, I'm seen as a "fanboi". Oh well.

[Jastall]

Phrases like the bit in bold make your entire post laughable. You might not like Bethesda's games, but they're responsible for some of the best-reviewed single-player RPGs of the gaming world.

Here's Metacritic's ranking by metascore; http://www.metacritic.com/browse/gam...view=condensed

They've got multiple entries on the first page. Most of those games were also massive sellers. If top-reviewed games that top sales charts is your bar for "mediocre", your bar needs calibration.

I couldn't give less of a shit about Metacritic aggregates if I tried. In terms of RPGs (the genre they are supposed to be good at) their games often have the depth of a puddle, and it's been getting steadily worse with Skyrim and Fallout 4 being open world action games in all but name, the latter especially. They have so few actual systems and yet they still fuck it up with games that need to be fixed by modders before you can even enjoy them. I truly have no idea how they're so popular.

To me, they are mediocre game makers. And that's in their niche. So I really don't see why I should be even close to excited for a game outside their niche, or for one of my favorite single-player RPG franchises to ditch both these appellations. This is like a rated E South Park episode. It just shouldn't happen.

[Deleted]

What I don't get is why people who keep saying, over and over and over again, how a) Fallout 4 is a horrible game, and b) Bethesda is a horrible developer, care one way or another what Bethesda does next, and what Fallout 76 is like. I mean, sure, I'd understand it if it was the game franchise with the games that one has loved the most in the recent times, but if Bethesda is supposedly so awful and Fallout 4 is supposedly so awful, then obviously nobody who thinks that would be expecting Bethesda to make a great, new Fallout game.

So, it's a bit confusing. There's not going to be another Obsidian Fallout. There's not going to be another Black Isle Fallout. All of that is in the past. The time to let all that go was 10 years ago when Fallout 3 came out.

Why keep making oneself feel miserable by reaffirming the thing that makes one miserable, over and over again?

[GennGreymane]

;-; why is everything turning into an online service.... plz save player one. I just want a story.....

[Deleted]

plz save player one. I just want a story.....

You've got Elder Scrolls, Starfield from Bethesda for that. There's 2077 from CDPR. I'm sure there are plenty of other story-driven AAA single player games out there for you to play.

Plus, to me at least, it seems blatantly obvious that you'll also get Fallout 5, back in the single player business, when the time comes.

[Endus]

I couldn't give less of a shit about Metacritic aggregates if I tried. In terms of RPGs (the genre they are supposed to be good at) their games often have the depth of a puddle, and it's been getting steadily worse with Skyrim and Fallout 4 being open world action games in all but name, the latter especially.

System complexity is not how RPG games are measured. Complexity tends to get in the way of narrative, rather than contributing to it. Fallout's always been about the setting and the narrative, and the same is true of Elder Scrolls.

They have so few actual systems and yet they still fuck it up with games that need to be fixed by modders before you can even enjoy them. I truly have no idea how they're so popular.

You should take a moment to try and grasp that your subjective preferences are not objective truths.

[GennGreymane]

You've got Elder Scrolls, Starfield from Bethesda for that. There's 2077 from CDPR. I'm sure there are plenty of other story-driven AAA single player games out there for you to play.

Plus, to me at least, it seems blatantly obvious that you'll also get Fallout 5, back in the single player business, when the time comes.

oh yeah not like there is a larger list of "live service platforms"