Fallout 76 is the score it wishes it had on metacritic

The Green Screen "acting" pisses me off to much to watch the whole video.

LewisD wrote:The Green Screen "acting" pisses me off to much to watch the whole video.

Agreed. Those bits are cringe worthy.

EDIT; On a completely different topic, last week it looked like Rock Paper Shotgun were building up to a big week of F76 content: they had an official "Apocalypse Day" where they only posted content vaguely related to the idea, and their Twitter feed has been posting fake summaries of Fallouts 5-75 (which were quite funny but have apparently stopped at F70).

As of now though, they still haven't posted a review, and all their F76 guides were quietly snuck out at the weekend.

LewisD wrote:The Green Screen "acting" pisses me off to much to watch the whole video.

Hi-Fucking-Five.

Bloody Taf defending this bollocks. He's always been too chill and accommodating of bad behavior.

Boogie and PewDiePie are some of the best YouTube personalities out there.

Gemini73 wrote:Boogie and PewDiePie are some of the best YouTube personalities out there.

This is your way of saying all YouTube personalities are bad?

Tafdolphin wrote:

LewisD wrote:The Green Screen "acting" pisses me off to much to watch the whole video.

Agreed. Those bits are cringe worthy.

EDIT; On a completely different topic, last week it looked like Rock Paper Shotgun were building up to a big week of F76 content: they had an official "Apocalypse Day" where they only posted content vaguely related to the idea, and their Twitter feed has been posting fake summaries of Fallouts 5-75 (which were quite funny but have apparently stopped at F70).

As of now though, they still haven't posted a review, and all their F76 guides were quietly snuck out at the weekend.

So a half-assed response and things swept under the carpet? Sounds par for the course for RPS.

OrangeRKN wrote:

Gemini73 wrote:Boogie and PewDiePie are some of the best YouTube personalities out there.

This is your way of saying all YouTube personalities are bad?

I certainly hope so.

Angry Joe is absolutely right that gamers are owed decent games. It's the least they can do for the prices they charge.

captain red dog wrote:Angry Joe is absolutely right that gamers are owed decent games. It's the least they can do for the prices they charge.

No one is forcing people to buy games, so nothing is owed

OrangeRKN wrote:

captain red dog wrote:Angry Joe is absolutely right that gamers are owed decent games. It's the least they can do for the prices they charge.

No one is forcing people to buy games, so nothing is owed

But surely if you're paying $60 (or $200 in AJ's case) for a game are you not owed a game that meets most reasonable expectations of quality and performance?

Gamers are owed decent games the same way I'm owed a decent steak when I go to a restaurant. If I am unsatisfied with the product that I have paid money for and believe I've been overcharged or short-changed in some way then I haven't been given what I'm owed.

Where you place the cut-offs for cost and quality varies person by person, but if your £50 game is not worth the £50 you gave them, you should be allowed to be miffed.

Personally I'm a huge coward so would just bear it and treat it as a lesson, but I don't fault people for being unhappy.

captain red dog wrote:Angry Joe is absolutely right that gamers are owed decent games. It's the least they can do for the prices they charge.

Are you owed decent films because of increasing ticket prices? If you buy an album do you deserve to have each track be sublime?

No. It's the same with games. Games cost what games cost, the pricing structure being an entirely different argument, but publishers could charge £200 for a 2 hour game and at no point would the gamer be owed anything.

EDIT:

Gemini73 wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

OrangeRKN wrote:

Gemini73 wrote:Boogie and PewDiePie are some of the best YouTube personalities out there.

This is your way of saying all YouTube personalities are bad?

I certainly hope so.

You're okay Taf, I don't think I've ever watched a PewDiePie vid and Boogie is just that obese chap who screams at the camera. Once was quite enough.

Tafdolphin wrote:

OrangeRKN wrote:

Gemini73 wrote:Boogie and PewDiePie are some of the best YouTube personalities out there.

This is your way of saying all YouTube personalities are bad?

I certainly hope so.

You're okay Taf, I don't think I've ever watched a PewDiePie vid and Boogie is just that obese chap who screams at the camera. Once was quite enough.

Preezy wrote:But surely if you're paying $60 (or $200 in AJ's case) for a game are you not owed a game that meets most reasonable expectations of quality and performance?

No, you shouldn't spend that money on blind faith, there are plenty of accessible sources for information on games that you can check out before buying. There is no standard of quality that a game has to meet, just as there is no standard of quality for music, books or films, partly because these things are subjective. The only reasonable expectation is that the thing is what it says it is so hasn't been mis-sold, and that it actually functions. Fallout 76 is buggy as hell but it isn't unplayable, and spending $200 on a special edition is entirely on him.

Met wrote:Gamers are owed decent games the same way I'm owed a decent steak when I go to a restaurant.

So you agree they're not owed anything

If you buy a steak in a restaurant, the only thing you're owed is that it a) is a steak, and b) is edible. They don't owe it to you to cook it well, they just won't last long as a restaurant if they don't. If you complain and they refund you or cook you a new one, that's not because they owe it to you, it's because they want repeat custom and don't want negative press.

OrangeRKN wrote:

Preezy wrote:But surely if you're paying $60 (or $200 in AJ's case) for a game are you not owed a game that meets most reasonable expectations of quality and performance?

No, you shouldn't spend that money on blind faith, there are plenty of accessible sources for information on games that you can check out before buying. There is no standard of quality that a game has to meet, just as there is no standard of quality for music, books or films, partly because these things are subjective.

No, sorry, this is simply wrong. If you advertise a product as delivering certain things that the person buying that product has the right to expect it to deliver what is advertised. I can't build a car and advertise it as a good drive when it actaully breaks down every other week and left the plant with massive design flaws that cause it to drive erratically and crash. If you bought such a vehicle any reasonable person would demand their money back. There is nothing 'subjective' about reliability. You know when it works and when it doesn't.

If Bethesda PR had launched a campaign stating that Fallout 76 was a buggy mess then, sure, anyone who bought it only had themselves to blame. They didn't do that, however. Todd Howard and the rest of Bethesda went on and about the amazing features of Fallout 76, how the graphics and engine had been improved ("it just works!"), how seamlessly the experience would be (claiming you woudln't even notice the servers). They sold it that way and anyone buying it had a reasonable expectation for it to perform as advertised. It doesn't matter that journalists pointing out the reality. It is not the job of the consumer to make sure the company they are dealing with is not straight up lying to their faces. Not everyone is a hardcore gamer like us who browses review sites with a critical eye.

It's okay if some people like the game but please do not try to defend the bullshit of these companies who straight up lie about the performance of their products. By doing so they are more less cheating people out of their money.

OrangeRKN wrote:

Preezy wrote:But surely if you're paying $60 (or $200 in AJ's case) for a game are you not owed a game that meets most reasonable expectations of quality and performance?

No, you shouldn't spend that money on blind faith, there are plenty of accessible sources for information on games that you can check out before buying. There is no standard of quality that a game has to meet, just as there is no standard of quality for music, books or films, partly because these things are subjective. The only reasonable expectation is that the thing is what it says it is so hasn't been mis-sold, and that it actually functions. Fallout 76 is buggy as hell but it isn't unplayable, and spending $200 on a special edition is entirely on him.

Met wrote:Gamers are owed decent games the same way I'm owed a decent steak when I go to a restaurant.

So you agree they're not owed anything

If you buy a steak in a restaurant, the only thing you're owed is that it a) is a steak, and b) is edible. They don't owe it to you to cook it well, they just won't last long as a restaurant if they don't. If you complain and they refund you or cook you a new one, that's not because they owe it to you, it's because they want repeat custom and don't want negative press.

That's a terrible example. If you have a bad meal/experience at a restaurant then you don't pay your bill or only partially pay it

So we agree then. Fallout 76 is the resturant equivalent of being served an inedible, raw steak after being reassured it was cooked to perfection by a top chef. Sure you could still take a crack at it, but it would be best advised not to.

Have you even tasted it?

You'd think at this point Bethesda would be a little more accommodating.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018 ... by-lawyers