Fallout 76 is the score it wishes it had on metacritic

Death's Head wrote:Fallout London interested me, until I started thinking how bad the cockney accents will be.

Wouldn't it be all cut glass 40/50s/60s newsreel & movie accents?

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Death's Head wrote:Fallout London interested me, until I started thinking how bad the cockney accents will be.

Wouldn't it be all cut glass 40/50s/60s newsreel & movie accents?

We'll never know

In German!

twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1001883102313156609

When Bethesda announced Fallout: 76 with a teaser trailer this morning, promising more information at E3, it was easy to assume that the new game would be a traditional single-player role-playing game. But Fallout: 76 is in fact an online survival RPG that’s heavily inspired by games like DayZ and Rust, according to three people familiar with the project.

Originally prototyped as a multiplayer version of Fallout 4 with the goal of envisioning what an online Fallout game might look like, Fallout: 76 has evolved quite a bit over the past few years, those sources said. It will have quests and a story, like any other game from Bethesda Game Studios, a developer known for meaty RPGs like Skyrim. It will also feature base-building—just like 2015's Fallout 4—and other survival-based and multiplayer mechanics, according to those sources. One source cautioned that the gameplay is rapidly changing, like it does in many online “service” games, but that’s the core outline.

strawberry float off.

Urgh, that is the worst. Fallout was great, before 4, because of its narratives and it's worldbuilding. Bethesda took that and turned it into an Action RPG with 4 and now a strawberry floating g survival sim with this.

Urgh.

FFS

I suspect they must be using the same engine as Fallout 4, the bastard mutant descendant of Gamebryo that is called the Creation Engine. If that is the case then I cannot see how it can be multiplayer as that engine cannot possibly cope with the strain without becoming even more of a mess than it already is and becoming damn near unplayable.

Seriously disappointed with Bethesda. Fallout needed serious fixing after 4 but instead of addressing it they are going with an online focused cashi-in, it seems.

This game is looking like a train crash about to happen.

I haven’t been excited about Fallout since 3, I think this sounds a great spin on the franchise

*hides under table*

While I think some of the opinions about Fallout 3, 4 and New Vegas are completely mental as the games are so similar, this does indeed sound like gooseberry fool. Yeah the looting and world stuff in Bethesda games is great but it does not translate in any eay to multiplayer game, especially not Battle Royale.

Hime wrote:While I think some of the opinions about Fallout 3, 4 and New Vegas are completely mental as the games are so similar.

Nah. 3 had a lazy main narrative but great sidequests and characters. 4 reduced the RPG elements to little more than the leveling up side of things and took the fiction in a direction that just didn't fit within the universe.

New Vegas was a spiritual sequel to Fallout 2, with huge, branching quests for every companion character, dozens of monster-sized sidequests with vastly different outcomes and an incredibly complex and interesting main plot.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Hime wrote:While I think some of the opinions about Fallout 3, 4 and New Vegas are completely mental as the games are so similar.

Nah. 3 had a lazy main narrative but great sidequests and characters. 4 reduced the RPG elements to little more than the leveling up side of things and took the fiction in a direction that just didn't fit within the universe.

New Vegas was a spiritual sequel to Fallout 2, with huge, branching quests for every companion character, dozens of monster-sized sidequests with vastly different outcomes and an incredibly complex and interesting main plot.

I can't remember any side quests in 3 that was particularly amazing. The world was far more believable in 4 as the cities actually had big buildings that you could explore. I'm not sure what you mean about the RPG elements being reduced to levelling up. Don't get me wrong I still prefer 3 but 4 is still a good game.

New Vegas is good but waaaaaay overrated, the side quests are good but not that much better than 3. I really like the game but it's pretty broken in lots of ways but I'm really glad it exists.

Hime wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Hime wrote:While I think some of the opinions about Fallout 3, 4 and New Vegas are completely mental as the games are so similar.

Nah. 3 had a lazy main narrative but great sidequests and characters. 4 reduced the RPG elements to little more than the leveling up side of things and took the fiction in a direction that just didn't fit within the universe.

New Vegas was a spiritual sequel to Fallout 2, with huge, branching quests for every companion character, dozens of monster-sized sidequests with vastly different outcomes and an incredibly complex and interesting main plot.

I can't remember any side quests in 3 that was particularly amazing.

The Big Town quest? The multi-level Android quest (which fed into 4)? Even the Megaton nuke quest?

The world was far more believable in 4 as the cities actually had big buildings that you could explore.

Yes, graphically it was better. I was talking about narrative consistency within the Fallout universe. It introduced elements that felt more like a retcon that an expansion of the themes and influences of the series.

I'm not sure what you mean about the RPG elements being reduced to levelling up. Don't get me wrong I still prefer 3 but 4 is still a good game.

None of the quests have any branches in 4. No matter which dialogue options you choose it always ends in a shootout. The persuasion skill was used to grab more money. It wasn't a role-playing game.

New Vegas is good but waaaaaay overrated, the side quests are good but not that much better than 3. I really like the game but it's pretty broken in lots of ways but I'm really glad it exists.

It's buggy as all strawberry float yes, but the quests are so very very well written. Take the sidequest for companion character Cassidy. On the surface she's a stereotypically gruff outsider frontierswoman but her quest is tens of hours long and involves subjects such as addiction, emotional obsession and the meaning behind the western idea of family.

The quality of writing in NV is lightyears beyond 4 and even 3 and is the only recent game to match up to the originals. It's an Obsidian game, basically.

I doubt I'll be interested in this. Bethesda's attempt at cashing in on a gaming trend and it's online survival. They're so far behind the times.

They should just sell the IP.

Reading through this thread has killed all the optimism and enthusiasm I had after watching the trailer.

Thanks, GRCade!

Do you not think that some of you are being a touch pessimistic?

Tafdolphin wrote:

Hime wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Hime wrote:While I think some of the opinions about Fallout 3, 4 and New Vegas are completely mental as the games are so similar.

Nah. 3 had a lazy main narrative but great sidequests and characters. 4 reduced the RPG elements to little more than the leveling up side of things and took the fiction in a direction that just didn't fit within the universe.

New Vegas was a spiritual sequel to Fallout 2, with huge, branching quests for every companion character, dozens of monster-sized sidequests with vastly different outcomes and an incredibly complex and interesting main plot.

I can't remember any side quests in 3 that was particularly amazing.

The Big Town quest? The multi-level Android quest (which fed into 4)? Even the Megaton nuke quest?

The world was far more believable in 4 as the cities actually had big buildings that you could explore.

Yes, graphically it was better. I was talking about narrative consistency within the Fallout universe. It introduced elements that felt more like a retcon that an expansion of the themes and influences of the series.

I'm not sure what you mean about the RPG elements being reduced to levelling up. Don't get me wrong I still prefer 3 but 4 is still a good game.

None of the quests have any branches in 4. No matter which dialogue options you choose it always ends in a shootout. The persuasion skill was used to grab more money. It wasn't a role-playing game.

New Vegas is good but waaaaaay overrated, the side quests are good but not that much better than 3. I really like the game but it's pretty broken in lots of ways but I'm really glad it exists.

It's buggy as all strawberry float yes, but the quests are so very very well written. Take the sidequest for companion character Cassidy. On the surface she's a stereotypically gruff outsider frontierswoman but her quest is tens of hours long and involves subjects such as addiction, emotional obsession and the meaning behind the western idea of family.

The quality of writing in NV is lightyears beyond 4 and even 3 and is the only recent game to match up to the originals. It's an Obsidian game, basically.

I'm on my phone so can't really break up the points. I didn't think the writing in NV was all that but I don't disagree with anything you've said. I agree that 4 is the weakest of the new Fallout games but it's still not a bad game.

Buffalo wrote:Do you not think that some of you are being a touch pessimistic?

This is the internet.

Mafro wrote:

Buffalo wrote:Do you not think that some of you are being a touch pessimistic?

This is the internet.

It’s all a bit bleak though, isn’t it? I don’t see why people don’t just wait until Bethesda show the game in 2 weeks time, instead of taking some randomer on Reddit or a Twitter neckbeard’s word as gospel.
Baffling.