[Megathread] Fallout 76

[GennGreymane]

Interesting spatial analysis I saw on reddit about player density; https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/com...er_density_in/

Basically, assuming the "four times the size of FO4" refers to navigable space, at worst you'll be spread so thin there'll be two of you in a section the size of the Far Harbor map. And that's before you consider that people will be teamed up, which further reduces density.



I don't think it is comparable. I think the major ways it's different are exactly the reasons those games never "clicked' with me.

then don't use the comparison.

[Endus]

then don't use the comparison.

I really didn't. I brought up those two games as games that failed to be what I was looking for, and pointed out how the significant differences between them and Fallout 76 might mean that Fallout 76 is.

[GennGreymane]

I really didn't. I brought up those two games as games that failed to be what I was looking for, and pointed out how the significant differences between them and Fallout 76 might mean that Fallout 76 is.

whats different?

[Endus]

whats different?

Contiguous world, where Destiny 2 had multiple separate maps.

A map that's full of content to explore. Destiny 2 is basically empty, other than a handful of non-repeatable caches, which are more about jumping puzzle completion than anything. The Division had some lore to locate, but it wasn't repeatable for any purpose, so the entire leveling map became irrelevant at max level, basically.

Solo-friendly experience. Both Destiny 2 and The Division had a heavy focus on groups, particularly Destiny 2, at high level. Nothing about Fallout 4 describes anything like group-required dungeons or raiding, which to me is a plus.

Customizable gear and complex crafting. Destiny just had drops, and The Division was drops plus random lottery machines.

Heavy focus on setting. The Division had this in the leveling process, but then it basically ends.

Gear-based progression. They haven't announced anything but I assume Fallout's progression will be open-ended without an (effectively achievable) level cap. Both The Division and Destiny 2 got you to max level and then the "real progression" starts, with gear progression. Which I hate. Because it's a lottery.

Character customization. We don't have full details, but perk cards already look way more flexible and complex as a system than the character systems of either The Division or Destiny 2. Especially the latter.

Enemy variety. I'm pretty sure we've seen greater enemy variety just in the trailers for Fallout 76 than existed in either of the other games.

I could probably come up with more. They aren't remotely the same, and that was my point.

[GennGreymane]

Contiguous world, where Destiny 2 had multiple separate maps.

A map that's full of content to explore. Destiny 2 is basically empty, other than a handful of non-repeatable caches, which are more about jumping puzzle completion than anything. The Division had some lore to locate, but it wasn't repeatable for any purpose, so the entire leveling map became irrelevant at max level, basically.

Solo-friendly experience. Both Destiny 2 and The Division had a heavy focus on groups, particularly Destiny 2, at high level. Nothing about Fallout 4 describes anything like group-required dungeons or raiding, which to me is a plus.

Customizable gear and complex crafting. Destiny just had drops, and The Division was drops plus random lottery machines.

Heavy focus on setting. The Division had this in the leveling process, but then it basically ends.

Gear-based progression. They haven't announced anything but I assume Fallout's progression will be open-ended without an (effectively achievable) level cap. Both The Division and Destiny 2 got you to max level and then the "real progression" starts, with gear progression. Which I hate. Because it's a lottery.

Character customization. We don't have full details, but perk cards already look way more flexible and complex as a system than the character systems of either The Division or Destiny 2. Especially the latter.

Enemy variety. I'm pretty sure we've seen greater enemy variety just in the trailers for Fallout 76 than existed in either of the other games.

I could probably come up with more. They aren't remotely the same, and that was my point.

Most of what you are saying is either speculative, or assumptions based on very vague statements. I am also glad you admit in parts. We dont know how solo friendly it is, I mean Monster hunter is solo friendly, if you are okay with taking a lot of extra time on monsters rather than maybe 10 minutes in a group, we dont know how customization this gear or crafting will be... most of the FO4 stuff was basic and boring and most of the gear upgrades will prob play out similarly to other games, like destiny or the division.

not sure what you mean on focus of setting.....
we saw bats, weird mutant, sloth, maybe a moth man. So variety... neat.
will the one big map change that much compared to other games? Especially with the lack of NPCS/quests.

Endus, step off the high horse and get in line for more information like those who are skeptical. Dont FO4 Overhype yourself.

[Deleted]

step off the high horse and get in line for more information like those who are skeptical

There's a huge difference between being honestly, objectively skeptical, and then just being automatically against everything you see because of reasons.

Personally I can say that I watched every single interview that came out, listened to every single word, read the Variety interview, and based on all of that plus some 2000 hours of gaming experience with survival brawlers and probably around 1500 hours spent in Fallout 3 and 4, the game is looking a lot better than the likes of Rust, Ark, Conan Exiles, 7 Days to Die and so on, and is going to offer me the kind of Fallout experience I'm hoping for, and expecting from Bethesda. Can you honestly say that you've arrived in an informed opinion, and aren't just embittered by the fact that you didn't get a single player Fallout? Because based on all that you've been posting lately about "saveplayer1" and whatever, it sure seems like that's all your opinion is being colored by.

Perhaps it's not Endus, or I, who are on a "high horse", but rather you're in some ditch of misery somewhere and you're trying to drag us down there with you. I can say for my part, that's not happening, but I can't for the life of me fathom what you're getting out of trying to ruin other people's excitement and enthusiasm. Doesn't seem like a very cool thing to do.

[GennGreymane]

There's a huge difference between being honestly, objectively skeptical, and then just being automatically against everything you see because of reasons.

Personally I can say that I watched every single interview that came out, listened to every single word, read the Variety interview, and based on all of that plus some 2000 hours of gaming experience with survival brawlers and probably around 1500 hours spent in Fallout 3 and 4, the game is looking a lot better than the likes of Rust, Ark, Conan Exiles, 7 Days to Die and so on, and is going to offer me the kind of Fallout experience I'm hoping for, and expecting from Bethesda. Can you honestly say that you've arrived in an informed opinion, and aren't just embittered by the fact that you didn't get a single player Fallout? Because based on all that you've been posting lately about "saveplayer1" and whatever, it sure seems like that's all your opinion is being colored by.

Perhaps it's not Endus, or I, who are on a "high horse", but rather you're in some ditch of misery somewhere and you're trying to drag us down there with you. I can say for my part, that's not happening, but I can't for the life of me fathom what you're getting out of trying to ruin other people's excitement and enthusiasm. Doesn't seem like a very cool thing to do.

I can honestly say it because I dont have to use bluster. And no, im not in some ditch of misery. And it seems you are simply the exact opposite of what you dislike, while simultaneously exhibiting the same behaviors. You might as well post in Gen-OT, You will shut down any criticism regardless of merit, just like those you cartoonoishly broad stroke as being against everything without reason.

[Deleted]

You will shut down any criticism regardless of merit

I think we have a huge gap between the bars we set for what is considered merit and what is not.

[GennGreymane]

I think we have a huge gap between the bars we set for what is considered merit and what is not.

I agree
/10

[Jastall]

Honestly the issue with the voiced protag was that it probably was a difficulty that led into the issue with the dialog system as a whole

say nice
say mean
say sarcastic

and more often than not.... the choice didnt reflect the words that were spoken. Plus conversations were much lighter and more bland

as for quests in FO4 other than the Cabot house, Nick's entire life story, and far harbor, the quests were not very memorable.

That's not a voiced protag issue, that's a Bethesda issue. Bioware (eventually) made it work with Dragon Age and Mass Effect. CDPR made it work with The Witcher. It depends on how many resources and work you actually assign to the project, and if you write around it. They couldn't be assed to pay attention to their writing in FO4, that's the issue, not the protagonist being voiced.

Didn't help that the male VA was just boring and bland. Courtenay Taylor did a far betetr job as the female VA so I ended up playing a female character.

[GennGreymane]

That's not a voiced protag issue, that's a Bethesda issue. Bioware (eventually) made it work with Dragon Age and Mass Effect. CDPR made it work with The Witcher. It depends on how many resources and work you actually assign to the project, and if you write around it. They couldn't be assed to pay attention to their writing in FO4, that's the issue, not the protagonist being voiced.

Didn't help that the male VA was just boring and bland. Courtenay Taylor did a far betetr job as the female VA so I ended up playing a female character.

The difference is also that the Protag in Witcher is Geralt the one in ME is Shepard, while the Fallout protag is a custom character.

Bethesda could have double downed on the voiced protag you are the protag and this is who they are, while leaving behind some elements of RPGs or they coulda just gone with the older system they had done prior. instead they did a watered down compromise of both

[Karrotlord]

I agree
/10

I'm sorry but you've posted nothing of merit in this thread. You been disproven multiple time but continue with your baseless conjecture and general shitposting.

[GennGreymane]

I'm sorry but you've posted nothing of merit in this thread. You been disproven multiple time but continue with your baseless conjecture and general shitposting.

Whats wrong with someone being concerned that the game will have similar problems to other service games like Destiny or the Division?
Whats wrong with someone being concerned that the game will not have a lot of quests or good narrative since it seems every human you meet other than the overseer is a player?
Whats wrong with someone being concerned with Todd Howard giving the games as a service narrative during the conference?

[Jastall]

The difference is also that the Protag in Witcher is Geralt the one in ME is Shepard, while the Fallout protag is a custom character.

Bethesda could have double downed on the voiced protag you are the protag and this is who they are, while leaving behind some elements of RPGs or they coulda just gone with the older system they had done prior. instead they did a watered down compromise of both

Well Dragon Age Inquisition had a character you defined and s/he was voiced. There were some criticisms, but overall the effect was far better than FO4's especially in the DLCs.

I do agree what they ended up choosing was a watered down compromise. Not only that, but the backstory they chose for these characters destroys lots of roleplaying opportunities; it makes no sense for a strictly gay/lesbian person to be happily married with a child. It makes no sense for a male to be a pacifist since he was a soldier. It makes no sense for a female to be dumb, she has a law degree and while you don't need to be a genius for that, you do need a minimal amount of intelligence. To say nothing of how said female character can somehow operate and repair things like Power Armor right off the bat.

All that in the name of a dialog system even worse than ME1's, and that (again) needed mods to be made even remotely usable.

But hey, worry not, because the next game will jettison most of that useless shit anyway. Who needs interesting factions, well developed NPCs, or choices and consequences when you can get some random Radiant quest out of a robot and go blow 20 Ghouls up with a rocket launcher. That's why we play Fallout, right?




Right?

[GennGreymane]

Well Dragon Age Inquisition had a character you defined and s/he was voiced. There were some criticisms, but overall the effect was far better than FO4's especially in the DLCs.

I do agree what they ended up choosing was a watered down compromise. Not only that, but the backstory they chose for these characters destroys lots of roleplaying opportunities; it makes no sense for a strictly gay/lesbian person to be happily married with a child. It makes no sense for a male to be a pacifist since he was a soldier. It makes no sense for a female to be dumb, she has a law degree and while you don't need to be a genius for that, you do need a minimal amount of intelligence. To say nothing of how said female character can somehow operate and repair things like Power Armor right off the bat.

All that in the name of a dialog system even worse than ME1's, and that (again) needed mods to be made even remotely usable.

But hey, worry not, because the next game will jettison most of that useless shit anyway. Who needs interesting factions, well developed NPCs, or choices and consequences when you can get some random Radiant quest out of a robot and go blow 20 Ghouls up with a rocket launcher. That's why we play Fallout, right?




Right?

Thats what I assume the quests will be based on what we are being told. THats exactly why we all play fallout!

Kill 20 ghouls!
current objective 4/20

Inquisition did a good job on it, you are correct in that. It did help that there was a lot of characters around the main character to really flesh them out. which was a good narrative trick, character by association.

[Endus]

Whats wrong with someone being concerned that the game will have similar problems to other service games like Destiny or the Division?

That it has very little in common with those games, other than that it's always online. The same can be said of Diablo 3, for instance.

Whats wrong with someone being concerned that the game will not have a lot of quests or good narrative since it seems every human you meet other than the overseer is a player?

That they've specifically said there's a lot of quests and similar side narratives as in other Fallout games. That Fallout games have never needed human NPCs to be the sources of quests, making the lack of non-PC-humans a complete non-factor in this regard.

Whats wrong with someone being concerned with Todd Howard giving the games as a service narrative during the conference?

If you watch the Hines interview, "games as a service" has been the mantra at Bethesda for years, and applies to how they've proceeded with Skyrim and Fallout 4, already. It means they see provision of that game as an ongoing interaction with their fanbase, not a "here's the product, GTFO" attitude like some developers.

- - - Updated - - -

But hey, worry not, because the next game will jettison most of that useless shit anyway. Who needs interesting factions, well developed NPCs, or choices and consequences when you can get some random Radiant quest out of a robot and go blow 20 Ghouls up with a rocket launcher. That's why we play Fallout, right?

I'm never going to understand why folks like yourself will aggressively ignore everything the developers are telling us about the game, to make up shit like this, and act as if your terrible fantasy is the game being talked about.

It isn't. Howard clearly said otherwise. As did Hines. You're making shit up to make yourself angry, because what you're getting angry about isn't what Bethesda has revealed about Fallout 76.

[GennGreymane]

That it has very little in common with those games, other than that it's always online. The same can be said of Diablo 3, for instance.



That they've specifically said there's a lot of quests and similar side narratives as in other Fallout games. That Fallout games have never needed human NPCs to be the sources of quests, making the lack of non-PC-humans a complete non-factor in this regard.



If you watch the Hines interview, "games as a service" has been the mantra at Bethesda for years, and applies to how they've proceeded with Skyrim and Fallout 4, already. It means they see provision of that game as an ongoing interaction with their fanbase, not a "here's the product, GTFO" attitude like some developers.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm never going to understand why folks like yourself will aggressively ignore everything the developers are telling us about the game, to make up shit like this, and act as if your terrible fantasy is the game being talked about.

It isn't. Howard clearly said otherwise. As did Hines. You're making shit up to make yourself angry, because what you're getting angry about isn't what Bethesda has revealed about Fallout 76.

Incorrect, it will be a games as a service

You are under the assumption the quest givers will all be robots instead.

Thats not what games as a service is to most gamers, to most gamers it means micro transactions, broken promises, broken launches (bethesda already does this), and plenty of other negative things that plague other games.

Im not making up anything, you already admitted you are speculating and assuming. I said I am waiting on more info. More concrete info. Not words. Not "yeah there will be quests, but like no npcs to talk to" no I am waiting for some more gameplay reveals, some more details, screen caps, and for the people paying to bug test, for them to provide info.

[derpkitteh]

todd howard did just confirm in a recent interview that if you're looking for deep quest lines with a bunch of dialogue and characters, you're not going to find that in 76.

but he did say that it does have just as rich of a world to explore and find things in, like lore in terminals and shit.

[GennGreymane]

todd howard did just confirm in a recent interview that if you're looking for deep quest lines with a bunch of dialogue and characters, you're not going to find that in 76.

but he did say that it does have just as rich of a world to explore and find things in, like lore in terminals and shit.

But endus said

That they've specifically said there's a lot of quests and similar side narratives as in other Fallout games. That Fallout games have never needed human NPCs to be the sources of quests, making the lack of non-PC-humans a complete non-factor in this regard.

[Endus]

Incorrect, it will be a games as a service

You are under the assumption the quest givers will all be robots instead.

Thats not what games as a service is to most gamers, to most gamers it means micro transactions, broken promises, broken launches (bethesda already does this), and plenty of other negative things that plague other games.

Im not making up anything, you already admitted you are speculating and assuming. I said I am waiting on more info. More concrete info. Not words.

You literally made all that about "games as a service" up. It isn't based on anything Bethesda said. It's you jumping to unwarranted conclusions, and ignoring what Bethesda has said.

Look at the Hines interview I linked;

"Fallout 4 and Skyrim as games as a service for us, right, they have ongoing support that we provide for them. This is gonna be that to the umpteenth degree, where we're constantly checking and monitoring."

What little we know of microtransactions is that they'll be cosmetics-only, all DLC and such will be free. And the cosmetics will be attainable in-game, so microtransactions are only one path to earn them.

So you're stating things that go directly against what the devs have said. You're making stuff up to be angry about, rather than listening to what Bethesda is telling you about the game.

- - - Updated - - -

But endus said

Two completely different things. You don't need heavy dialogue trees for questing. Also, I haven't seen the specific interview derpkitteh's talking about, so I don't know his exact wording.