Fallout 76 - Review in Progress @ Gamespot

Found this hilarious comic on the net today also.



Damn you scroll of truth.

Originally Posted by Stingray
Also, Fallout 76 sales are down by 82.4% compared to Fallout 4's, in the UK:
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl…k-games-retail

That's not nearly as bad as I had imagined.

Originally Posted by Archangel
So to you Real Fallout (tm) is aimlessly wandering through empty areas, shooting at same crappy enemies and collecting pointless loot?
Got it.

Have fun then in your Real Fallout (tm).

You asked me to define what I mean by "real fallout" and I said "Bethesda Fallout" so why are you choosing to ignore that?

Originally Posted by Archangel
So to you Bethesda(tm) Fallout (tm) is aimlessly wandering through empty areas, shooting at same crappy enemies and collecting pointless loot?
Got it.

Have fun then in your Bethesda(tm) Fallout (tm).

Ok, thank you. You're a gentleman and a scholar. I'll bet people say you're a really good listener all the time but, to me, it's your deep understanding of what you've heard that's truly impressive.

Aimlessly wandering? yes. Empty areas? no. Crappy monsters? subjective.

Pointless loot? Well, we could get into a big discussion about level scaling in RPGs so lets just ignore this one, but I think good progression involves many aspects and gear is one of the classics and progression is a core part of RPGs. So, no, not pointless.

Now, if you want to know what a REAL Fallout is then look no further than the original two. I think Wasteland 3 will be more my type of real. But the licence holders are Bethesda so what they tell us Fallout is must be correct. It's an FPS game now. It has RPG elements. F76 accurately represents what a Fallout game has been since FO3.

If Fallout is a piece of shit and you only just noticed because they added co-op, which automatically triggered a negative response, then that's on you.

So, what does real Fallout mean to you? Obviously it's different to Bethesda Fallout in your mind too or you wouldn't have deliberately misunderstood and forgotten the definition of "real Fallout" contained within my undeservedly prompt and friendly reply.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Is there anything that's improved in Fallout 76 that can be carried over to the future Fallout 5?

You missed an entry in the series, Couch. The real curious question is just how much of Fallout 4 & 76 will be carried over to TES VI. One copy/pasted, clunky settlement building hiking simulator to rule them all!

Originally Posted by SirJames
You asked me to define what I mean by "real fallout" and I said "Bethesda Fallout" so why are you choosing to ignore that?


Ok, thank you. You're a gentleman and a scholar. I'll bet people say you're a really good listener all the time but, to me, it's your deep understanding of what you've heard that's truly impressive.

Aimlessly wandering? yes. Empty areas? no. Crappy monsters? subjective.

Pointless loot? Well, we could get into a big discussion about level scaling in RPGs so lets just ignore this one, but I think good progression involves many aspects and gear is one of the classics and progression is a core part of RPGs. So, no, not pointless.

Now, if you want to know what a REAL Fallout is then look no further than the original two. I think Wasteland 3 will be more my type of real. But the licence holders are Bethesda so what they tell us Fallout is must be correct. It's an FPS game now. It has RPG elements. F76 accurately represents what a Fallout game has been since FO3.

If Fallout is a piece of shit and you only just noticed because they added co-op, which automatically triggered a negative response, then that's on you.

So, what does real Fallout mean to you? Obviously it's different to Bethesda Fallout in your mind too or you wouldn't have deliberately misunderstood and forgotten the definition of "real Fallout" contained within my undeservedly prompt and friendly reply.

I asked what is real Fallout and you said Bethesda and now you are angry that I assumed you were talking about your Real Fallout. I am not a mind reader, if you suddenly started talking about a Fake Fallout (Bethesda one), you should have said so.

And with that I also answered your question as well.

And no, I didn't notice just now. I noticed with Fallout 3 that I was just getting a crappy reskinned Oblivion (I only managed to play Oblivion for few hours before removing it, about the time I tried to do one of the invading portals). Even FNV I could not stand to play for long, I got fed up with terrible engine and crappy combat less than 15h in.

In regards to the Metacritic user reviews, I wouldn't put too much weight in them. People often create new accounts on Metacritic simply to give the game a 0, whether they've played it or not. This is especially true where a game that's very mixed attracts bandwagon review bombing, more so if it's part of a popular franchise.

Sometimes you'll come across scores from people that gave the game a 0 on multiple platforms, and purchasing a game they heavily dislike on more than one console is far from sensible.

Anyway, if people are enjoying it, why not let them do so? I'm sure Bethesda knows their game isn't being well received by now. No need to get personal with other members of the Watch if they're having fun (vice versa for those enjoying the game, too).

Originally Posted by Ragnaris
In regards to the Metacritic user reviews, I wouldn't put too much weight in them. People often create new accounts on Metacritic simply to give the game a 0, whether they've played it or not. This is especially true where a game that's very mixed attracts bandwagon review bombing.

Sometimes you'll come across scores from people that gave the game a 0 on multiple platforms, and purchasing a game they heavily dislike on more than one console is far from sensible.

Anyway, if people are enjoying it, why not let them do so? I'm sure Bethesda knows their game isn't being well received by now. No need to get personal with other members of the Watch if they're having fun (vice versa for those enjoying the game, too).

I guess we need two topics here, one for all of us that enjoy bashing on this latest Bethesda "masterpiece" and another for few people that are enjoying this latest Bethesda masterpiece.

Meh, media train will blow over. I'm more interested in just how relevant the game will be in another month or so. Fighting the same level-scaled zombies and supermutants, completing carbon copy radiant fetch quests, and having practically no impact upon the world should get old and tedious real quick. Not to mention the pvp griefing.

This game's future lies in private modded servers; the decision to only implement them a year from now is pretty laughable.

Originally Posted by Drithius
This game's future lies in private modded servers; the decision to only implement them a year from now is pretty laughable.

I say the future lies in how many tards are going to buy microtransactions and keep it going.

If its a financial success they don't give a crap about the furor.

But realistically, who buys that stuff within a game? I get that if junior gets his/her hand on a credit card, they might buy a few items, but surely no adult would waste money on such nonsense. It certainly doesn't seem like a build that would sustain a game for very long to me.

Originally Posted by Archangel
I asked what is real Fallout and you said Bethesda and now you are angry that I assumed you were talking about your Real Fallout.

It does not bother me what you assume. I did not like the tone of your reply.

Let's experience the majesty of a conversation with you once more.

Archangel: "Please define real Fallout?"

Sir James: "It's a Bethesda Fallout. Even to its own detriment. Same old engine, same old horrible pipboy inventory, etc. It's very much a big, buggy co-op Fallout experience and not a Fallout MMORPG."

Archangel: "So to you Real Fallout (tm) is aimlessly wandering through empty areas, shooting at same crappy enemies and collecting pointless loot?
Got it.

Have fun then in your Real Fallout (tm)."

Hmm, not very cool. If we were having a conversation about games at a party I'd excuse myself about 5 minutes ago and be feeling pretty embarassed.

So, how do you have a conversation with what I've said? Pretend it's an Ultima game and pick some keywords out of what I've said.

Bethesda
Bethesda RPGs being a detriment to themselves. For eg….
Creation Engine
Pip-boy
Size of the game
Amount of bugs
MMORPGs

These are the topics I spoke about. Replying to me about anything else I didn't say seems sort of pointless. If I were an NPC in ultima I might say "WTF are you talking about?"

The topics you do reply to are:

How empty the world is.
How crappy the enemies of Fallout are.
How pointless the loot is.

I don't think I said any of that. You're trying to put words in my month or be edgy or funny or something. There's even little (tm) in there. I just want a plain reply without the attitude. Got it?

Originally Posted by Carnifex
But realistically, who buys that stuff within a game?

Hundreds of thousands of adults I fear.
Perhaps not for this particular game but the market for sure exists.

Originally Posted by SirJames
The game does need polish but unlike Elder Scrolls Online, which is nothing like Elder Scrolls, there is a foundation of a real Fallout game within F76.

I suspect it is neatly buried in some in-game backyard?

I don't have the game, and have no interest in getting it, but you can earn plenty of Atom bucks or whatever (the store currency) just by playing the game and doing a few in game events.

I despise micro-transactions. But in this case (so far) there is zero reason to get all butt-heart about it when you can buy every single thing just by playing the game. And it's all cosmetic crap so who cares anyway?

There are plenty of reasons to crap on it in it's current state but that ain't one of em. Although I'm sure Bethesda will still make bank on idiots paying real money for stuff they can earn easily in the game.

There will be plenty of very "special" folk who will buy the micro-transactions, I have no doubt. The interesting thing to me is how Bethesda and more specifically, Todd Howard, will respond to the near universal bad reviews and panning of this game. Will they ignore it, and pretend the game is a huge success, and was very well received by gamers? Or will they actually take the feedback and criticism onboard, and maybe even give a mea culpa and admit it was a bad idea to start with? Or perhaps something in between.

The big question I have is will the exec blame the developers or accept responsiblity for this ill-advised mess.

Just wander for a few moment in any big city of ESO and you will see than there is a huge crowd for cosmetic items.
But, it is not only cosmetic items actually. The chests you can buy give also special potions to heal or cure or poison, scrolls to boost your exp, invisibility items, and emotes or poses etc..

All that coupled with houses, furnitures, special events, special boxes and enough random elements to hook you up if you are the betting kind of guy.

Mixing that BS master promises with real gameplay from the actual game was a nasty move.

I'm not a fan of Fallout so I'm looking at this situation from the outside (though I do like the TES series)… seems to me Bethesda needs to reconsider keeping the creation engine. It seems to really be an anchor around their necks. It might really be time to move on. Things like this can ruin a business, even an established one like Bethesda… who is far from too big to fail… I'd hate for that to happen.