Fallout 76 is the score it wishes it had on metacritic

jawafour wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:...I can see this dying off extremely quickly.

I like GameCentral - not so much Eurogamer - but, even so, I do feel they went "over the top" with their criticisms. I guess they'd say that they're delivering good journalism by challenging the output of a large publisher and, yes, I accept that... and I'm not going to try and wash over the faults of the game.

This is a slight non-sequitur here but I'm not sure they would. Reviewers aren't there to challenge the big boys in an anarchic fashion, they're there to provide informed opinions on whether a game is worth your money. Every review, without exception, has said that this game is not.

It will be hard for the game to evolve now due to the - whether deserved or not - damage from the wealth of bad publicity. But Bethesda has said that the game will be supported for the long term and I hope they knuckle down and turn this around. There are precedents for this - just look at Square-Enix with Final Fantasy XIV and Hello Games with No Man's Sky - and so there is something to hold on to. I wonder if the required time and money will be granted?

Again, I did mention this in my last post. Both of those games are interesting cases though: NMS's problems were mainly due to lack of content, which they fixed by...adding in content. From all accounts, this is not Fallout 76's problem. Indeed most reviews state that the world is the best thing about it. F76's problems are systematic and mechanical; the systems the game runs on are apparently half baked and not fit for purpose, and are encased in an ageing engine that often doesn't work. FFXIV is the better comparison as it took a literal remaking of that game for it to become successful, and not a little patience from the already passionate user community. For that to happen with F76 would require a huge climbdown from Bethesda, a publisher and developer not exactly known for such a quality, and a rethink of every system in the game from the combat on down. It would also need to be financially viable for them.

Is all this impossible? No, not at all. Is it unlikely? I'd say so at the moment.

They should have launched this into Early Access/Game Preview, it would have stemmed the ire and also provide a reasonable testing ground

Hopefully Bethesda will just abandon the game and not waste time on trying to fix it. Make it free to play a few months down the line, cut their losses and forget about it so they can focus their energy developing a proper Fallout title, ES6, or whatever.

Unfortunately Bethesda are known for being stubborn bastards so I suspect they'll just keep soldiering on with Fallout 76 regardless.

Gemini73 wrote:Hopefully Bethesda will just abandon the game and not waste time on trying to fix it. Make it free to play a few months down the line, cut their losses and forget about it so they can focus their energy developing a proper Fallout title, ES6, or whatever...

Why would anyone hope that the game will be abandoned and "not fixed"?

As for a "proper" Fallout game, this is an issue with perception rather than anything Bethesda has delivered. Regardless of the quality of the game, 76 has never been designed or sold as "Fallout 5" - it is something different. Some folk may not like that "different" and that is perfectly understandable, but there isn't anything wrong about creating something fresh.

jawafour wrote:

Gemini73 wrote:Hopefully Bethesda will just abandon the game and not waste time on trying to fix it. Make it free to play a few months down the line, cut their losses and forget about it so they can focus their energy developing a proper Fallout title, ES6, or whatever...

Why would anyone hope that the game will be abandoned and "not fixed"?

Yeah I thought that was odd also.

jawafour wrote:

Gemini73 wrote:Hopefully Bethesda will just abandon the game and not waste time on trying to fix it. Make it free to play a few months down the line, cut their losses and forget about it so they can focus their energy developing a proper Fallout title, ES6, or whatever...

Why would anyone hope that the game will be abandoned and "not fixed"?

Because then Bethesda can refocus their efforts onto making a good game.

Wasn't this developed by a different team to the Fallout 4 dev team? Also, I tink Bethesda is more than big enough to have a dedicated Fallout single player team as well as this.

This isn't an either/or situation, blows my mind that people can simplify tings down to this. Imagine they have a team to fix this AND have another dev team to work on Fallout 5?

Winckle wrote:

jawafour wrote:

Gemini73 wrote:Hopefully Bethesda will just abandon the game and not waste time on trying to fix it. Make it free to play a few months down the line, cut their losses and forget about it so they can focus their energy developing a proper Fallout title, ES6, or whatever...

Why would anyone hope that the game will be abandoned and "not fixed"?

Because then Bethesda can refocus their efforts onto making a good game.

This. Also, and I have mentioned this before, I/we want this to be an example to such a company that you can't jerryrig some online game out of nothing and expect consumers to go batshit simply because it has a brand attached to it. The servicification of games is just one of the ways publishers are looking to increase revenue exponentially and hopefully Fallout 76, like Battlefront 2, will be a warning to other devs that at the very least such efforts require, you know, thought and care in their execution.

Winckle wrote:

jawafour wrote:Why would anyone hope that the game will be abandoned and "not fixed"?

Because then Bethesda can refocus their efforts onto making a good game.

Oh, Winckle! Seriously, imagine hoping that a game you won't be playing is not improved .

jawafour wrote:

Winckle wrote:

jawafour wrote:Why would anyone hope that the game will be abandoned and "not fixed"?

Because then Bethesda can refocus their efforts onto making a good game.

Oh, Winckle! Seriously, imagine hoping that a game you won't be playing is not improved .

Imagine ignoring the many, many posts in this thread expanding on why people think this and instead responding with a patronising "Oh golly!" response.

Seriously jawa I've said this before, you're a credit to this forum but on this subject you really are conjuring the ghost of Cal.

Taf calling someone else patronizing is rather pleasing.

Tafdolphin wrote:...I/we want this to be an example...

This is, I feel, the crux of the issue now. Some folk - the vast majority, I accept - do not want the game to be improved or to succeed; they want it to be "an example". Regardless of the challenges the game faces and the things that Bethesda "did wrong", there is nothing that they can now say or do that will alter the minds of folk looking to keep it as "an example".

Photek wrote:Taf calling someone else patronizing is rather pleasing.

It's not patronising if the other person genuinely doesn't understand your point. Purely hypothetically, of course.

jawafour wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:...I/we want this to be an example...

This is, I feel, the crux of the issue now. Some folk - the vast majority, I accept - do not want the game to be improved or to succeed; they want it to be "an example". Regardless of the challenges the game faces and the things that Bethesda "did wrong", there is nothing that they can now say or do that will alter the minds of folk looking to keep it as "an example".

You still write as if the game is a plucky underdog who had little chance of success from the start, something that's been ground down by the system and not given the opportunities of its bigger, more conformist brothers.

This is one of the biggest releases of the year, with a budget of god knows how many millions of dollars, a similar marketing budget and a game that has been developed by one of the most famous and respected devs on the planet using one of the world's biggest and most beloved brands in gaming. Any 'challenges' it faces are purely of its own making.

imagine being confused by someone thinking it's a bad idea to try and polish a turd.

Tafdolphin wrote:Imagine ignoring the many, many posts in this thread expanding on why people think this and instead responding with a patronising "Oh golly!" response...

Imagine using "you believe the game can be improved" as a key point of criticism.

Tafdolphin wrote:..you really are conjuring the ghost of Cal.

Imagine linking a member to someone who received a permanent ban from a chunk of the forum. Nice.

jawafour wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:..you really are conjuring the ghost of Cal.

Imagine linking a member to someone who received a permanent ban from a chunk of the forum. Nice.

Much like with the game, some criticisms are justified. You are taking any and all criticisms of the game extremely personally and lashing out at those who disagree. You rarely respond to valid complaints, and dismiss the concept that the game is a terrible example of an industry on the slide out of hand and without comment.

If the glove fits etc etc

It's a strange hill to plant your flag "Stop being critical of the worst AAA release in memory! You just WANT it to fail!"

Photek wrote:Taf calling someone else patronizing is rather pleasing.

I thought you weren't one of those Americanised Irish? The mask has well and truly slipped now, Photek bro!

If I drew a Venn diagram of comprising of people who want this game to be an example and people who think abandoning a game entirely would be in poor taste, it would almost be a single circle.

Taf has his agenda's and god knows he'll stick with them no matter what happens.

If it should have ever been released in this state is a different argument entirely of course.

Preezy wrote:

Photek wrote:Taf calling someone else patronizing is rather pleasing.

I thought you weren't one of those Americanised Irish? The mask has well and truly slipped now, Photek bro!

Spell check must be american on this PC