Fallout 76 is the score it wishes it had on metacritic

Peter Crisp wrote:

Rudolphin wrote:Surely it's more that, if someone else happens to be in your space when you log in, your entire settlement is packed away? That sort of intransigence completely defeats the point of the game mechanically and thematically.

I could be completely wrong here but wouldn't keeping a player and the settlement signed into the game at all times be an absolute nightmare?
Wouldn't you also be stuck with the same people who you initially signed in with as they also have to stay signed in to the same server?

How do other survival games handle this issue as I have zero experience with any of them?

It would! But Bethesda built a game around the concept, and instead of coming up with a decent alternative version just said strawberry float it, pack everything up when there's no space! It's terrible game design.

EDIT:

RPS dug up Bethesda's initial response to the data breach:

https://bethesda.net/community/topic/29 ... tickets/14

strawberry floating hell.

“I love that I can reply to a "locked" thread, about a bug with the bug reporting...“

The incompetence!

What's happened that's made Bethesda essentially gooseberry fool the bed over the past few weeks.

They've went from a company who made awesome, but occasionally buggy games, to something run by the 3-Stooges. It's bizarre.

So people paid $100 (£100? not sure) for a bottle of "Nuka Dark Rum"

So people were expecting a custom glass bottle in the shape of nuka cola (like from the game) - to be fair the marketing didn't seem to show that explicitly (unlike canvas bags) so it might be there fault for OTT expectations.

They're not getting that.



(And irregardless of their expectations....$100 for that? Jesus)

"Rum with Natural Flavours and Caramel Colour". So cheap white rum with colouring added to make it look like finely aged stuff?

The label makes it look like supermarket own brand.
Probably about as high quality too.

Ho-Ho-Ho-tek wrote:Ark Survival Evolved keeps all buildings server side. It means they can be destroyed by other players so you have to hide where it is and/or make it out of stone which takes ages to break down.

DayZ's recently added base buildings are kept server side too. Server side bases are handy as your mates can work on them when you can't and vice versa.

The disadvantage is that you're tied in to that specific server. The advantage is... I'm not sure. There is no reason for camps in Fallout 76 to be persistent when you're not playing the game, and I'd be pretty miffed if I didn't play the game for a week and logged back in to find my base completely destroyed.

I also don't know how persistent camps would work with server player caps. How do Ark and DayZ handle that? If the server is already full but that's the server with your base in it, are you just SOL?

Rudolphin wrote:But Bethesda built a game around the concept, and instead of coming up with a decent alternative version just said strawberry float it, pack everything up when there's no space! It's terrible game design.

I don't follow why packing up your camp if someone has the same spot is bad game design. It was an obvious problem from the moment the game was announced, and it seems the simplest and fairest solution to defer to the existing camp when a placement conflict arises. It's impossible to guarantee zero conflicts at server selection because of people joining friends. I'm unsure as to what other alternatives there really are.

Rudolphin wrote:

Peter Crisp wrote:

Rudolphin wrote:Surely it's more that, if someone else happens to be in your space when you log in, your entire settlement is packed away? That sort of intransigence completely defeats the point of the game mechanically and thematically.

I could be completely wrong here but wouldn't keeping a player and the settlement signed into the game at all times be an absolute nightmare?
Wouldn't you also be stuck with the same people who you initially signed in with as they also have to stay signed in to the same server?

How do other survival games handle this issue as I have zero experience with any of them?

It would! But Bethesda built a game around the concept, and instead of coming up with a decent alternative version just said strawberry float it, pack everything up when there's no space! It's terrible game design.

EDIT:

RPS dug up Bethesda's initial response to the data breach:

https://bethesda.net/community/topic/29 ... tickets/14

strawberry floating hell.

If Bethesda don't start sorting this out we're never going to get Jawa back.

Got this on rental yesterday night I haven't played it yet as I'm still waiting for the 24GB patch to download

Bethesda's behaviour has been quite bizarre, out of character even.

Up until the this whole fiasco I would have had a fondness for the company for being a champion of single-player, narrative driven games in an industry that seems so eager to abandon them in favour of the next, super profitable fad that comes along. Besides, Fallout and The Elder Scolls they have been involved with games like DOOM, Wolfenstein, Dishonored, Prey, Rage and more. They seemed like a publisher and studio who knew what side their bread was buttered and focused on thriving within their niche. Because that's how you run a business! You identify a gap in the market and make it your own. Trying to compete in areas already dominated by bigger, badder players is just dumb.

Then you get Fallout 76, a rushed attempt to jump on a bandwagon just as it departs (presumbely if they developed 76 now it would be a battle royale Fortnite clone as that's what's in these days). Even if they game had been good they still would have been jumping on trend of survival games that has already passed and it isn't even good. They rushed it to market by flipping their own assets, skimping on the narrative and characters that are so core to the Bethesda brand to save time and money and ramping their creaky engine and its unpatched bugs up to elenth levels of shittness.

I don't really understand it. There must be someone way up the corporate chain really pushing to extract more money, faster. Maybe it is just greed or maybe Bethesda's financials are not as good as they let on.

Well 2 hours of gaming 2 hard crashes within 10 mins of each other yeah it's going well.

Playing on PS4 Slim.

Meep In Heavenly Peace wrote:Then you get Fallout 76, a rushed attempt to jump on a bandwagon just as it departs (presumbely if they developed 76 now it would be a battle royale Fortnite clone as that's what's in these days). Even if they game had been good they still would have been jumping on trend of survival games that has already passed and it isn't even good. They rushed it to market by flipping their own assets, skimping on the narrative and characters that are so core to the Bethesda brand to save time and money and ramping their creaky engine and its unpatched bugs up to elenth levels of shittness.

It's more survival in flavour than survival in practice. 76 doesn't play as a survival game, but the survival elements enhance the world immersion. It's similar to how Mad Max had survival-like elements such as refueling the car and drinking water. They were balanced to be plentiful enough that they weren't actual concerns or part of the primary gameplay, but their existence made the game more immersive and added flavour to the wasteland. In 76 food, water and radiation aren't real concerns. I've always had more food, water and radaway than I need and I'm often selling or dropping excess, but I like that the mechanics exist. It's similar to hardcore mode in New Vegas, just without the sleep meter. Again in New Vegas that didn't turn into a survival game with hardcore mode turned on, but it did enhance the immersion of the world. Even with the base building I don't think directly comparing 76 to games like Rust is really helpful because they are primarily different experiences.

On narrative and characters being core to the Bethesda brand, I would disagree. Dishonored's best character wasn't Corvo or Emily, it was Dunwall - the city itself. It wasn't memorable for its narrative, but for its world building. Fallout 4 had very few well developed or memorable characters, and there were only a few good moments in the story/main questline. What it did have was more great environmental storytelling with the small stumbled upon stories in its locations and what the player finds there. The best thing in 76 is probably Appalachia itself, and what it retains most unchanged from previous Fallout games is the environmental storytelling and world building. That's what I'd consider core to the modern Bethesda brand.

So, RPS have finally published their review, and it's a really good one (in terms of writing I mean, not score):

...mercy should be reserved for those who ask for it – and Fallout 76 does not. This game isn’t a noble vision gone awry, or a gleefully reckless creative overstretch – it’s a stolid failure to innovate, resting imperiously on the laurels of a 20-year-old RPG. This crunched-up mascot has beckoned me to street level with a mauled finger, put my ear to its blood-dampened beak, and called me a wanker. And so, alas, the kicking must begin.

...But that’s the saddest thing about Fallout 76: there’s no shortage of talent on display, but it’s all been wrapped around design choices so ugly as to make it meaningless. You can set ten thousand master sculptors to carve a mountain, but if you ask them to make a big sculpture of a chimp’s bollocks, that’s what you’re going to get.

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/1 ... 76-review/

(They didn't like it much)

There's a fantastic deal on Fallout '76 at GAME, just £24.99 on all formats. It's rare to get 50% off the price so soon after launch - bargain.

https://www.game.co.uk/en/games/fallout/fallout-76

Can't think why they are discounting it so much

mic wrote:

HSH28 wrote:

Moggy wrote:It’s not as simple as saying “I’m not paying”, but there is a legal basis for money off/not paying if the food is not of sufficient quality.

It'd have to be really, really objectively bad. As the article states food can be a subjective experience.

I still think you'd have a hard time walking out and not paying after having eaten something you considered to be bad. I can't believe many people ever actually do that.

I’ve done it loads. Because the mains weren’t all served at the same time. Because I found a hair in my burger. Because we didn’t like it. We usually just pay for drinks.

If true you're such a tight entitled bastard.

Rocsteady wrote:

mic wrote:

HSH28 wrote:

Moggy wrote:It’s not as simple as saying “I’m not paying”, but there is a legal basis for money off/not paying if the food is not of sufficient quality.

It'd have to be really, really objectively bad. As the article states food can be a subjective experience.

I still think you'd have a hard time walking out and not paying after having eaten something you considered to be bad. I can't believe many people ever actually do that.

I’ve done it loads. Because the mains weren’t all served at the same time. Because I found a hair in my burger. Because we didn’t like it. We usually just pay for drinks.

If true you're such a tight entitled bastard.

Not really - why should I pay for shitty service given with a don’t-give-a-shit attitude?

I’m happy to pay, and even tip extra for good food and service. But if I find a long blonde hair in my food (ie, not one of ours), then wtf? Or if you’ve unsmilingly dumped my food in front of me when it’s already taken longer than it should’ve?

If you’re happy to pay for bad food and service then YOU, sir, are a mug. I suppose you let all your service providers rip you off too?

#partoftheproblem, etc

Are you still eating the food that isn't brought out at the same time, before refusing to pay for it?

mic wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:

mic wrote:

HSH28 wrote:

Moggy wrote:It’s not as simple as saying “I’m not paying”, but there is a legal basis for money off/not paying if the food is not of sufficient quality.

It'd have to be really, really objectively bad. As the article states food can be a subjective experience.

I still think you'd have a hard time walking out and not paying after having eaten something you considered to be bad. I can't believe many people ever actually do that.

I’ve done it loads. Because the mains weren’t all served at the same time. Because I found a hair in my burger. Because we didn’t like it. We usually just pay for drinks.

If true you're such a tight entitled bastard.

Not really - why should I pay for shitty service given with a don’t-give-a-shit attitude?

I’m happy to pay, and even tip extra for good food and service. But if I find a long blonde hair in my food (ie, not one of ours), then wtf? Or if you’ve unsmilingly dumped my food in front of me when it’s already taken longer than it should’ve?

If you’re happy to pay for bad food and service then YOU, sir, are a mug. I suppose you let all your service providers rip you off too?

#partoftheproblem, etc

A mug

Cool m8, next time my overworked and underpaid server delivers one of our meals to the table slightly later than the rest I'll make sure to kick up a big fuss and ruin their evening by getting them in the gooseberry fool to save a little bit of cash.

Rocsteady wrote:

mic wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:

mic wrote:

HSH28 wrote:

Moggy wrote:It’s not as simple as saying “I’m not paying”, but there is a legal basis for money off/not paying if the food is not of sufficient quality.

It'd have to be really, really objectively bad. As the article states food can be a subjective experience.

I still think you'd have a hard time walking out and not paying after having eaten something you considered to be bad. I can't believe many people ever actually do that.

I’ve done it loads. Because the mains weren’t all served at the same time. Because I found a hair in my burger. Because we didn’t like it. We usually just pay for drinks.

If true you're such a tight entitled bastard.

Not really - why should I pay for shitty service given with a don’t-give-a-shit attitude?

I’m happy to pay, and even tip extra for good food and service. But if I find a long blonde hair in my food (ie, not one of ours), then wtf? Or if you’ve unsmilingly dumped my food in front of me when it’s already taken longer than it should’ve?

If you’re happy to pay for bad food and service then YOU, sir, are a mug. I suppose you let all your service providers rip you off too?

#partoftheproblem, etc

A mug

Cool m8, next time my overworked and underpaid server delivers one of our meals to the table slightly later than the rest I'll make sure to kick up a big fuss and ruin their evening by getting them in the gooseberry fool to save a little bit of cash.

So, staff being overworked and underpaid is my problem how, exactly? I’ve come for a nice meal out which has now been ruined and I’m supposed to just suck it up and pay for it? I think not. Do you equally sympathize with call centre staff working for international corporations?

i think what people are criticising is the decision to pay almost nothing for a minor detraction from the meal (mains arriving slightly separately)