Fallout 76 is the score it wishes it had on metacritic

jawafour wrote:Yeah, I kinda agree, guys. I'm as vocal as anyone when it comes to releasing incomplete games and shovelling in additional payments.

My view is perhaps clouded because I like Fallout games and I like much of Bethesda's output. On that basis I'm extending a fair amount of leeway to Fallout 76... there are aspects I'm concerned about but, for me, the potential remains exciting.

I'm genuinely jealous of your enthusiasm sometimes jawa. I grew up on Fallout, it shaped the games I enjoy and indeed the way I imbibe narrative. But I don't see any of that legacy here, nor even of Skyrim. I see a Fallout 4 multiplayer mode that they want to sell for full price.

On the plus side, for me at least, it makes my decision to stop buying new releases altogether a damn sight easier.

Tomous wrote:...By the time they've got it to a decent state, the reputation of the game will already be significantly tarnished. No Man Sky is a good example, which released to a lot of criticism but 2 years later, following updates and patches is supposedly a much better experience. I can't help but feel it would have sold better if it had released to the praise it's getting now.

That's a great example, Tomous; there is a risk that initial negative publicity can overshadow any future improvements that are delivered. Once a reputation is set, it can be hard to change it.

In my mind I think I am accepting that this game is "live" and that it will have some issues. I believe that Bethesda will promptly modify and improve aspects as situations arise, but I accept that this is probably a generous viewpoint for a £60 game.

Tafdolphin wrote:...I see a Fallout 4 multiplayer mode that they want to sell for full price.

Yeah, I can understand your viewpoint, Taf. I think the game is suffering a little because a lot of people hold the Fallout franchise in high regard and this is something a bit different. Whereas the previous games in the series were vast, rich single-player experiences, the online, multi-player tack of '76 feels pretty much the epitome of the new "live service" style of gaming that the major publishers are dreaming of. It seems like something that could face challenges but also deliver something fresh. I don't know if these first steps into a new style will receive support if there are big obstacles early on, though.

jawafour wrote:Yeah, I kinda agree, guys. I'm as vocal as anyone when it comes to releasing incomplete games and shovelling in additional payments.

My view is perhaps clouded because I like Fallout games and I like much of Bethesda's output. On that basis I'm extending a fair amount of leeway to Fallout 76... there are aspects I'm concerned about but, for me, the potential remains exciting.

Going back on something we briefly discussed elsewhere in the thread Jawa, did you ever fire up Conan Exiles?

Gemini73 wrote:Going back on something we briefly discussed elsewhere in the thread Jawa, did you ever fire up Conan Exiles?

I haven't, Gemini... shamefully, beyond playing the opening hour, it has sat in the backlog pile. I plan on updating my "currently playing" list, though.

jawafour wrote:

Gemini73 wrote:Going back on something we briefly discussed elsewhere in the thread Jawa, did you ever fire up Conan Exiles?

I haven't, Gemini... shamefully, beyond playing the opening hour, it has sat in the backlog pile. I plan on updating my "currently playing" list, though.

I'm not sure how 76 will pan out, but given your interest in it I think Conan will scratch that 'survival, build a base' itch of yours should 76 turn out to be a turd.

Jawa, I don't think this is how a live service should work. Splatoon is a good example of how it should-the game is released finished but low in content. Over time new content is addedto keep people coming back and the experience fresh. Here, it seems the game is going to be released unfinished and the early adapters will play with bugs and errors until it is finished. The are acting as free beta testers for Bethesda and paying for the privilege.

Tomous wrote:Jawa, I don't think this is how a live service should work... Here, it seems the game is going to be released unfinished and the early adapters will play with bugs and errors until it is finished. The are acting as free beta testers for Bethesda and paying for the privilege.

I wonder if that Twitter post from Bethesda was a little naive... I feel they meant it as a "Hey! Our new world is really exciting and we'll be constantly looking to improve how some aspects work!". However, it has come across as "Hey! Our new game is not complete and you may find lots of bugs!".

I feel that Bethesda has a great track record of delivering fun games but, yeah, for people who aren't such fans then it does feel like something to hold off from until things are clearer (or, fixed!). I'm kinda going in with my eyes open that not everything is going to be perfect; I'm excited about the potential rather than the launch position. On that basis, and because I'm an admirer of the Fallout universe, I'm comfortable to support it.

Now watch out for my ranting when it bombs and the price is reduced to £30 before Christmas .

Tomous wrote:Jawa, I don't think this is how a live service should work. Splatoon is a good example of how it should-the game is released finished but low in content. Over time new content is addedto keep people coming back and the experience fresh. Here, it seems the game is going to be released unfinished and the early adapters will play with bugs and errors until it is finished. The are acting as free beta testers for Bethesda and paying for the privilege.

If Fallout 4 is any indication, a lot of bugs won't ever be fixed.

jawafour wrote:

Tomous wrote:Jawa, I don't think this is how a live service should work... Here, it seems the game is going to be released unfinished and the early adapters will play with bugs and errors until it is finished. The are acting as free beta testers for Bethesda and paying for the privilege.

I wonder if that Twitter post from Bethesda was a little naive... I feel they meant it as a "Hey! Our new world is really exciting and we'll be constantly looking to improve how some aspects work!". However, it has come across as "Hey! Our new game is not complete and you may find lots of bugs!".

I feel at pains to point out that Bethesda is a multi, multi-million dollar company with a fully stacked and professional marketing and PR department.

If they've made such a cack-handed post like that it's not through naivety, it's from necessity.

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Tomous wrote:Jawa, I don't think this is how a live service should work. Splatoon is a good example of how it should-the game is released finished but low in content. Over time new content is addedto keep people coming back and the experience fresh. Here, it seems the game is going to be released unfinished and the early adapters will play with bugs and errors until it is finished. The are acting as free beta testers for Bethesda and paying for the privilege.

If Fallout 4 is any indication, a lot of bugs won't ever be fixed.

You can add Fallout 3 and Skyrim to that list.

Tafdolphin wrote:I feel at pains to point out that Bethesda is a multi, multi-million dollar company with a fully stacked and professional marketing and PR department.

If they've made such a cack-handed post like that it's not through naivety, it's from necessity.

Haha, yeah, Taf, I freely admit that I am giving Bethesda... perhaps not quite a "free pass", but a fair amount of leeway. I like their games and, despite a few warning signals arising for '76, the setting and the potential are enough to keep me positive.

I see that the first Xbox One BETA session will start tonight at midnight and run through to 4am. Apparently Bethesda intends to push the setup in terms of player count; they want to maximise the system in places to validate limitations. Regardless of that, I'll be interested to discover what players think of the game :-).

Gemini73 wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Tomous wrote:Jawa, I don't think this is how a live service should work. Splatoon is a good example of how it should-the game is released finished but low in content. Over time new content is addedto keep people coming back and the experience fresh. Here, it seems the game is going to be released unfinished and the early adapters will play with bugs and errors until it is finished. The are acting as free beta testers for Bethesda and paying for the privilege.

If Fallout 4 is any indication, a lot of bugs won't ever be fixed.

You can add Fallout 3 and Skyrim to that list.

Indeed.

Actually, what has their QA been like with ESO?

I don't deny the bugs in Fallout 3, Fallout 4, Skyrim or ESO... but, man, they're some of my favourite gaming experiences!

I love their games too, Jawa, but their quality control is for gooseberry fool. Even with all the necessary patches, including unofficial ones, my asshole still puckers up tighter than a snare drum every time I fire up FO3 or Skyrim.

This voice acting gets a decidedly "you tried" rating

Who'd have strawberry floating thunk?

Fallout 76 desperately needs private servers
https://www.polygon.com/2018/10/24/1801 ... ce=twitter

For Fallout 76, the issues are slightly different. The world feels extremely well-detailed. It’s a place with characters, with nuance, and with mysteries to explore. It’s just that it’s also full of other people and online features that I find distracting. Simply casting that all aside in favor of private servers, even ones that rely on peer-to-peer connections, is likely to be a tall order for those working hard to build the game.

Here’s hoping that Bethesda makes the decision to prioritize private servers, despite the challenges that will create. I, like many who have enjoyed the Fallout series over the years, value the solitude that single-player games provide. So far, Fallout 76 just isn’t doing it for me.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Polygon wrote:For Fallout 76, the issues are slightly different. The world feels extremely well-detailed. It’s a place with characters, with nuance, and with mysteries to explore. It’s just that it’s also full of other people and online features that I find distracting. Simply casting that all aside in favor of private servers, even ones that rely on peer-to-peer connections, is likely to be a tall order for those working hard to build the game.

Here’s hoping that Bethesda makes the decision to prioritize private servers, despite the challenges that will create. I, like many who have enjoyed the Fallout series over the years, value the solitude that single-player games provide. So far, Fallout 76 just isn’t doing it for me.

It sounds like the reviewer hadn't realised this is really a multiplayer game. Fallout '76 definitely isn't Fallout 3 or 4. It feels odd to complain about the presence of other players in an online multiplayer game.

EDIT: Perhaps I sound a little defensive there, but I think my point is valid. I'm gonna go and search out other opinions on the BETA to get a better idea.

I've just searched out and read / watched a few opinions about the BETA. Man... there's a huge variety of views out there!

Generally it seems to look and play reasonably well although many folk are saying that they prefer the single-player style of gameplay. Personally, I'm intrugued by the idea of a multiiplayer Fallout but I'm now unconvinced that the style of gameplay on offer here is going to appeal to me. I'm not crazy about the new "craft and eat" survival-styled gamplay over the more usual exploration and mission-led gameplay in Fallout. Doing that in tandem with other players and... I'm really not sure. There are positive aspects but I'm now cautious.

I was up for Day One on this but I *think* I'm gonna hold off. I get the feeling that continuing my Fallout 4 adventure is going to appeal to me more than the style of gameplay on offer in '76.

jawafour wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Polygon wrote:For Fallout 76, the issues are slightly different. The world feels extremely well-detailed. It’s a place with characters, with nuance, and with mysteries to explore. It’s just that it’s also full of other people and online features that I find distracting. Simply casting that all aside in favor of private servers, even ones that rely on peer-to-peer connections, is likely to be a tall order for those working hard to build the game.

Here’s hoping that Bethesda makes the decision to prioritize private servers, despite the challenges that will create. I, like many who have enjoyed the Fallout series over the years, value the solitude that single-player games provide. So far, Fallout 76 just isn’t doing it for me.

It sounds like the reviewer hadn't realised this is really a multiplayer game. Fallout '76 definitely isn't Fallout 3 or 4. It feels odd to complain about the presence of other players in an online multiplayer game.

EDIT: Perhaps I sound a little defensive there, but I think my point is valid. I'm gonna go and search out other opinions on the BETA to get a better idea.

What he's saying is that the MP aspect does not work in tandem with the usual Fallout experience, which is exactly what 76 is trying to do. I think it's a perfectly valid criticism.

Then again, I too am biased. I really don't like the idea behind this game.