New Fallout has been announced.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Meiam:
Why was it bad that the enclave were the one who turn on the water purifier? That wasn't even addressed.

There is a reason, just sloppy in it's delivery.

In Fallout 2, the Enclave wanted to make a modified version of FEV that would "purify" the wasteland. Anything that had been exposed to FEV would be killed. However, since more than 80% of the population of the US has been exposed to FEV to some degree, it would wipe out nearly all humanoid life (ghoul, super mutant, or wastelander) and all mutant wildlife. In Fallout 3, they want to continue this weird scheme. Instead of being an air-borne pathogen... they want to contaminate "Project Purity" with a similar death juice.

Not only is this painfully inefficient, but they don't communicate this fact until very late in the game (after Liam Neeson kills himself). As a result, you can assume Colonel Autumn did a cartoonish monologue detailing the evil plan to Liam Neeson off-screen, or Liam Neeson can read minds and/or see the future. It is entirely left up to the player to fill in this gap in the story.

Meh, Fallout: Bandwagon.

Redvenge:

Meiam:
Why was it bad that the enclave were the one who turn on the water purifier? That wasn't even addressed.

There is a reason, just sloppy in it's delivery.

In Fallout 2, the Enclave wanted to make a modified version of FEV that would "purify" the wasteland. Anything that had been exposed to FEV would be killed. However, since more than 80% of the population of the US has been exposed to FEV to some degree, it would wipe out nearly all humanoid life (ghoul, super mutant, or wastelander) and all mutant wildlife. In Fallout 3, they want to continue this weird scheme. Instead of being an air-borne pathogen... they want to contaminate "Project Purity" with a similar death juice.

Not only is this painfully inefficient, but they don't communicate this fact until very late in the game (after Liam Neeson kills himself). As a result, you can assume Colonel Autumn did a cartoonish monologue detailing the evil plan to Liam Neeson off-screen, or Liam Neeson can read minds and/or see the future. It is entirely left up to the player to fill in this gap in the story.

You can go talk to Eden and be told pretty directly thats what his plan is. Though also that Autumn was against it. But yeah, its reliant on Dad-dude having some completely offscreen experience with the innate details of Enclave plots as to why he's opposed to it. OR some plot rewrite where it wasn't going to magically purify all the water everywhere and instead would give the Enclave control of a pure water source.

So much for Bethesda's commitment to single player games.

008Zulu:
So much for Bethesda's commitment to single player games.

I don't see why you can't do both.

008Zulu:
So much for Bethesda's commitment to single player games.

I think you're getting Bethesda as a developer and Bethesda as a publisher mixed up, Bethesda the publisher has been the one talking about single player games, their #saveplayer1 thing has been about all their games, which they have been pretty committed to, with Wolfenstein 2, Prey, Doom, and dishonored 2 all primarily single player focused. Even just Bethesda game studios still has Project Starfield to announce and FO 76 sounds like it still has a storyline and quests.

Bethesda's marketing sells themselves as committed to not abandoning single player or primarily single player games, I don't think making a single fallout game with multiplayer elements necessarily betrays that commitment. They didn't promise to never make a multiplayer game.

Xsjadoblayde:
Wait, that's not how numbers work, is it? Is this time-cube logic? Fallout 4 feels like last week. Am not sure what is happening to time either.

To be fair, if the teaser is now, it will probably be out in 2 years, so it will be about as long between 4 and 76 as it was between new vegas and 4

MrCalavera:
Fallout Shelter online?

Exactly what I was thinking. With Online only and no free mods, the potential for more E3 Toddlies increases exponentially. I will not be surprised when objective reviewers shows their settlements system still does not work. Even the immersion is going to be a hard sell that close to nuke-day. With little to no naturall mutations yet (scorps, roaches, geckos,etc), just FEV Super Mutants, and more raditiation than anyone can possibly survive for more than a single second's exposure to.

At least they have an excuse to revert to the classic grey-brown pallet, with a side of black. There will also be no reason for them to copy & paste their textures to have a rusty versions.

"It just borks." - Todd E3 2018

Just wait for more paid mod bullshit they keep trying to push with their broken ass games. After the last mess that was Fallout 4, I'm definitely giving this a wide berth.

Still can't believe they gave a fallout protagonist a voice actor with one shit voice and so many bad dialogue options.

Considering they seem to be using a lot of assets from Fallout 4, I'm sure this isn't a "major" project.
I'm still expecting to see their new ip announced at E3.

As for FO76, gonna wait for more. Not gonna criticise a concept.

I'm taking a "wait and see", but I'm intrigued having seen the E3 trailer.

My bet based on what we see is, Vault 76 is a control vault in the sense it's not the subject of a Vault-Tec experiment, but it's almost certainly going to be under Enclave control, either to provide a post-war labor or military force. The Enclave is going to be heavily involved, based on the presence of what appears to be a crashed torus station and the Greenbrier hotel in the trailer; The Enclave's end goal was space colonization (hence the torus), and the Greenbrier is the site of the Project Greek Island bunker which would have been Congress' continuity-of-government emergency site in the event of nuclear war, much like Raven Rock was the Pentagon's.

Now, here's where thing's are going to get interesting...and cool. We see a bucket-wheel excavator in the trailer, and those are predominantly used for coal mining. West Virginia being coal country, after all. What's the Enclave's interest in this region, particularly? The coal -- the Enclave is reliant on fossil fuels, and West Virginia would be a strategically-critical region for them due to its coal reserves. The Enclave's reliant on fossil fuels, rather than nuclear, after all (see, FO2 with the oil rig).

Yes, coal can be turned into liquid fuel. The process is pretty much exactly the same we use for processing tar sands and shale oil in the real world today, except coal has to be liquified first. It's dirty, expensive, dangerous, highly polluting, energy-inefficient, and in the real world cost-effective only for the sky-high price of crude oil, but it can be done.

Now, it'd be cool to play as the Enclave. But, I bet the story will be much more rote, "Enclave are the bad guys, let's go liberate vault dwellers, and save ghouls/mutants". Which, to me, is thoroughly "meh", but I'll still hold out hope to ally with the Enclave.

YEah, he lost me with whatever garbled nonsense he said about servers.

From what I caught, it sounds like some weird drop in/out thing like Watch_Dogs 2 had. (Since he said there are no servers)

Rando multiplayer is cancer, and doubly so in these types of games. Literally no one plays in the official servers who has any kind of choice. Nevermind in some weird shared world nonsense that's probably P2P hosted and prone to the host doing whatever nonsense (or just having a terrible connection).

This E3 reveal is confusing and nonsensical.

"Every character is a person." "Open-world survival, every person a character." Look Toddy, while plenty of players asked for multiplayer, one of the biggest issues with FO4 was the "truncated dialogue system". I'm glad those that asked for multiplayer are getting it. I'm less happy to see you've gone "full sandbox" with your sandbox. One the one hand, you said "groups or solo players on the servers can experience the story", but how? If all the characters are people and the players "decide who are the heroes and villains"... what is the medium of your story? Who are the quest givers? Holo-novels? Did you just side-step the lack of dialogue options by not including any npcs with dialogue?

All I saw was "build a base; loot your neighbors; repeat". If you don't want to be accused of being a "Rust clone" maybe you should not tailor your E3 reveal to look like a Rust clone. Maybe include some story and dialogue in there. You know, issues people heard on the internet. People on the internet say things other than "Bethesda games have a bug or two", you clown.

Redvenge:
This E3 reveal is confusing and nonsensical.

"Every character is a person." "Open-world survival, every person a character." Look Toddy, while plenty of players asked for multiplayer, one of the biggest issues with FO4 was the "truncated dialogue system". I'm glad those that asked for multiplayer are getting it. I'm less happy to see you've gone "full sandbox" with your sandbox. One the one hand, you said "groups or solo players on the servers can experience the story", but how? If all the characters are people and the players "decide who are the heroes and villains"... what is the medium of your story? Who are the quest givers? Holo-novels? Did you just side-step the lack of dialogue options by not including any npcs with dialogue?

All I saw was "build a base; loot your neighbors; repeat". If you don't want to be accused of being a "Rust clone" maybe you should not tailor your E3 reveal to look like a Rust clone. Maybe include some story and dialogue in there. You know, issues people heard on the internet. People on the internet say things other than "Bethesda games have a bug or two", you clown.

I mean, the funny part, is there's nothing in the whole reveal that says you can do anything to a neighbours base. Every shot of a base was either one guy or a 4 person team vs Mutants. There was the Nuke section, but that never showed a nuke hitting a base, just that you could fire a nuke and go get loot based on what was there.

Amidst the gibberish he spouted about how there weren't servers at the start, I thought maybe it had PvP zones you'd go into that had combat then you came back out to your own non-shared instance or something.

Fallout 76 sounds pretty fun if you remember that it's just a side fallout game and not supposed to be fallout 5.

It's like the dancing games the persona series puts out every once in a while

Seth Carter:
I mean, the funny part, is there's nothing in the whole reveal that says you can do anything to a neighbours base. Every shot of a base was either one guy or a 4 person team vs Mutants. There was the Nuke section, but that never showed a nuke hitting a base, just that you could fire a nuke and go get loot based on what was there.

Amidst the gibberish he spouted about how there weren't servers at the start, I thought maybe it had PvP zones you'd go into that had combat then you came back out to your own non-shared instance or something.

"We love dynamic game systems. So we thought: why don't we put multiple nuclear silos on the map and let you... do whatever you want with them." - Todd

That sounds like "nuke your friends" to me (especially considering they killed the players in the cutscene with a nuke). But perhaps this is just Todd messing with us, saying "do whatever you want" is actually "nuke a handful of targets that has minimal impact on the game".

"We know you have played a lot of our games and a lot of online games. But this one really is unique. We have built a platform, 100% dedicated servers, that will support this game. Now, and for years to come." - Todd

It seems your computer needs to talk to Bethesda's servers, or you can't play the game. It could also severely restrict (or entirely eliminate) free mods.

In any case, this particular installment of Bethesda's Quest for Epic Loot does not seem to be my cup of tea.

Redvenge:

It seems your computer needs to talk to Bethesda's servers, or you can't play the game. It could also severely restrict (or entirely eliminate) free mods.

In any case, this particular installment of Bethesda's Quest for Epic Loot does not seem to be my cup of tea.

I'm not going to discount Bethesda being utterly clueless, evil, or incompetent.

But less then 30 seconds on the subreddit for any of the games in the genre will net you an immediate surge of people telling you to play on private servers (which exist even for console now). Also nigh every single game of it has PvE servers. Most of them even have singleplayer as a specific option (however shallow and/or insanely grindy that turns out).

So if Bethesda is actually trying to run this only on official servers with PvP, they're either the worst market researchers in the world, or online was just their stupid plan to conceal DRM.

Seth Carter:

Redvenge:

It seems your computer needs to talk to Bethesda's servers, or you can't play the game. It could also severely restrict (or entirely eliminate) free mods.

In any case, this particular installment of Bethesda's Quest for Epic Loot does not seem to be my cup of tea.

I'm not going to discount Bethesda being utterly clueless, evil, or incompetent.

But less then 30 seconds on the subreddit for any of the games in the genre will net you an immediate surge of people telling you to play on private servers (which exist even for console now). Also nigh every single game of it has PvE servers. Most of them even have singleplayer as a specific option.

So if Bethesda is actually trying to run this only on official servers, they're either the worst market researchers in the world, or online was just their stupid plan to conceal DRM.

Bethesda tried to push paid mods like three times and got slapped every attempt

They just stupid, so probably the former

undeadsuitor:
Fallout 76 sounds pretty fun if you remember that it's just a side fallout game and not supposed to be fallout 5.

It's like the dancing games the persona series puts out every once in a while

That's not really a fair comparison since the Persona dancing games are games of a totally different genre from the main series. Fallout 76 is basically just a Fallout game with Always Online DRM and enforced multiplayer.

Seth Carter:
So if Bethesda is actually trying to run this only on official servers with PvP, they're either the worst market researchers in the world, or online was just their stupid plan to conceal DRM.

Well, it just struck me as odd that they would assure those watching that "their servers were reliable" and would be "here for the foreseeable future". If the servers were optional, why mention their stability when addressing "online multiplayer experiences"?

That does not mean they will host your game, but it does suggest some kind of remote authentication.

Here Comes Tomorrow:

undeadsuitor:
Fallout 76 sounds pretty fun if you remember that it's just a side fallout game and not supposed to be fallout 5.

It's like the dancing games the persona series puts out every once in a while

That's not really a fair comparison since the Persona dancing games are games of a totally different genre from the main series. Fallout 76 is basically just a Fallout game with Always Online DRM and enforced multiplayer.

I would say that multiplayer survival and building is a different genre than single player rpg

There's some overlap, since Bethesda has saddled recent fallout games with building anyways (and there's always survival mods) but since 76 is being made by a different company and is wearing it's differences on its sleeve I can adjust my expectations for it accordingly

Redvenge:

Seth Carter:
So if Bethesda is actually trying to run this only on official servers with PvP, they're either the worst market researchers in the world, or online was just their stupid plan to conceal DRM.

Well, it just struck me as odd that they would assure those watching that "their servers were reliable" and would be "here for the foreseeable future". If the servers were optional, why mention their stability when addressing "online multiplayer experiences"?

That does not mean they will host your game, but it does suggest some kind of remote authentication.

Well there was the initial line "Your character isn't tied to a server. there are no servers. You will never actually see a server"

There's no particular model where that seems like anything but utter gibberish. If you're doing shared world stuff like Watch_Dogs or Dark Souls, you can't have multiple customized worlds merging with risking collision problems. If its just dumping you in random lobbies like GTA:O, you'd be unable to find your own persistent building again unless it was an instanced environment, in which case, there's none of the conflict they mentioned.

At the tail end, he mentioned servers again. And he says "Dedicated Servers" specifically before the assurances. Authentication servers would always be dedicated, they'd never be peer hosted for obvious reasons. So there's no reason to specify dedicated servers for anything other then an actual game server.

Survival games do usually have their own official servers, just everyone tends to shift off them pretty quickly in pursuit of more stable/friendly/challenging/fast paced environments to be found on unofficial servers (and also for mods). The folks that kick around official servers are usually new, paranoid about an unofficial server just turning off on them without notice (which is an issue, if you don't know the host personally), trolls and griefers looking for newbies to prey on, and occasionally streamers or video makers who need to keep up with the official standards and meta for their "Breaking news" update videos and stuff.

Seth Carter:
At the tail end, he mentioned servers again. And he says "Dedicated Servers" specifically before the assurances. Authentication servers would always be dedicated, they'd never be peer hosted for obvious reasons. So there's no reason to specify dedicated servers for anything other then an actual game server.

Q:"Can you play offline?"
A:"You can not. Even if you are playing by yourself, doing quests, you will see other players."-Todd

It's around the 5:50 mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdYtulRRfDU

"There are robots and terminals and holo-tapes..." This is where quests come from. If you see "raiders", those are other players. There are plenty of "monsters" to shoot, but there does not seem to be many opportunities for world building outside of what you see in the environment. PvP IS a core element of FO76, they "don't want it to be griefy, but we want a little bit of drama there"-Todd. VATS has been changed to "real time", so I'm sure that will be "fun".

It still does not seem like my kind of game. It sounds really empty, other than teaming up with xXxl33tHaXoRxXx and ArgonianSlut666 to go murder faceless NPCs #1029-#1112. I guess if you wanted to combine Fallout and Rust, this is probably right up your alley.

All I know for sure is that I hope the game completely, totally, absolutely fails so that Bethesda will learn to never ever EVER try this multiplayer crap again. If sanity prevails this will make the Star Wars Battlefront 2 Lootbox controversy fail look like a fart in the wind compared to the tactical nuke that will be the Fallout 76 fail. If this manages to take off I shudder to even imagine what Bethesda will do to their future games.

Welp, no offline, no npcs, into the bin it goes. Which is such a damn shame since the location and place in the timeline had so much potential, I liked a lot of the art and new enemies too.

The fact they didn't come right out and say what it was going to be from the start combined with how coy they are still being with how exactly the game works has just been rather shitty.

This is why you should set your expectations on a resonable level.
If i was hoping for a proper RPG Fallout sequel this would SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK.
But as a coop, shooty, funfun game, it doesn't look bad. I'm mourning what happened with the main series, but i think i'm okay with Bethesda taking their ideas on a spin like this.

image

A 70s country song that's well known is an odd but welcome departure for the score side of things.

I on the fence about it , 76 excitement will really be down to what the mechanics are and how it plays out. I am not expecting much, a game which is kind of a one off. The only thing am worried about is if this becomes the standard for future Fallout games leading to the death of the single player Fallout in the future.

immortalfrieza:
All I know for sure is that I hope the game completely, totally, absolutely fails so that Bethesda will learn to never ever EVER try this multiplayer crap again. If sanity prevails this will make the Star Wars Battlefront 2 Lootbox controversy fail look like a fart in the wind compared to the tactical nuke that will be the Fallout 76 fail. If this manages to take off I shudder to even imagine what Bethesda will do to their future games.

Doubtful, Elder scroll online is apparently doing well enough for them to keep pumping expansion and such so I imagine 76 will also do reasonably well.

image

I'm gonna love this game, I always wanted a Fallout with coop, screw the haters.

Redvenge:

Seth Carter:
At the tail end, he mentioned servers again. And he says "Dedicated Servers" specifically before the assurances. Authentication servers would always be dedicated, they'd never be peer hosted for obvious reasons. So there's no reason to specify dedicated servers for anything other then an actual game server.

Q:"Can you play offline?"
A:"You can not. Even if you are playing by yourself, doing quests, you will see other players."-Todd

It's around the 5:50 mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdYtulRRfDU

"There are robots and terminals and holo-tapes..." This is where quests come from. If you see "raiders", those are other players. There are plenty of "monsters" to shoot, but there does not seem to be many opportunities for world building outside of what you see in the environment. PvP IS a core element of FO76, they "don't want it to be griefy, but we want a little bit of drama there"-Todd. VATS has been changed to "real time", so I'm sure that will be "fun".

It still does not seem like my kind of game. It sounds really empty, other than teaming up with xXxl33tHaXoRxXx and ArgonianSlut666 to go murder faceless NPCs #1029-#1112. I guess if you wanted to combine Fallout and Rust, this is probably right up your alley.

Ah that interviews new to what I posted.

Taking this on its merits as a survival game.

Only official servers - Hard Nope. Official MP servers are toxic garbage in these games and always have been. This is further backed up later because he does mention the idea of unofficial/private servers, but says they'll be a possibility at some point after launch. So the big AAA publisher apparently can't even manage what random indie studios do, go figure.

That guy interviewing him even keeps trying to pin him down or get clarification, and he's still evasive and contradictory about how the multiplayer actually works. We get "You can play solo" but other people will be in your world bit again. Wiffling between you can choose to opt out of it and then coming back to "Well, we want some drama, so *trails off*". Then switches to the game's not complete yet before a course-correction to "the game's going to always be evolving" (Coming from Ark, that is shorthand for "The game will always be a broken mess and we'll never fix it, just keep piling on")

Though I'm leaning equally into the camp of them having been totally incompetent in market research. Because he's not just vague or evasive, he's outright stuttery like he's never contemplated these questions before.

Meiam:

immortalfrieza:
All I know for sure is that I hope the game completely, totally, absolutely fails so that Bethesda will learn to never ever EVER try this multiplayer crap again. If sanity prevails this will make the Star Wars Battlefront 2 Lootbox controversy fail look like a fart in the wind compared to the tactical nuke that will be the Fallout 76 fail. If this manages to take off I shudder to even imagine what Bethesda will do to their future games.

Doubtful, Elder scroll online is apparently doing well enough for them to keep pumping expansion and such so I imagine 76 will also do reasonably well.

I also highly doubt 76 is going to crash and thus teach Bethesda a lesson either but one can hope. ESO is a perfect example of what could happen if Fallout 76 is a success. It doesn't take a genius to realize that 76 as multiplayer would never have gotten off the ground without ESO's success, there's no way they would've tried it. It's like how EA's sports game put in lootboxes and microtransactions and all that and it took off which eventually led to EA getting the exact wrong messages leading to Star Wars Battlefront 2 and all that came with that among other travesties. In short, Fallout 76 is going to set a bad precedent.

Seth Carter:
Taking this on its merits as a survival game.

We'll see as they release more information. They are creating "incentives and advancement opportunities" for PvP and co-operative playstyles (though PvP and Co-op players must share the same server). This sounds more like a weird social experiment than pure survival. Bethesda has become Vault-tech!

immortalfrieza:
ESO is a perfect example of what could happen if Fallout 76 is a success. It doesn't take a genius to realize that 76 as multiplayer would never have gotten off the ground without ESO's success, there's no way they would've tried it. ... In short, Fallout 76 is going to set a bad precedent.

ESO is a story-driven, hand crafted world filled with NPCs, quests and curated content. FO76 is an empty sandbox in which the players create the majority of the content. The quests are given by a handful of robots, scattered terminals and holo-tapes. There are no communities beyond what the players create themselves. All the other NPCs are hostile.

Regardless of your opinion on ESO and FO76, these two games are completely different. The only common thread seems to be "multiplayer". Multiplayer Fallout is not necessarily bad. Massive Multiplayer Online Social Experiment Fallout is something I would avoid.

Redvenge:

Seth Carter:
Taking this on its merits as a survival game.

We'll see as they release more information. They are creating "incentives and advancement opportunities" for PvP and co-operative playstyles (though PvP and Co-op players must share the same server). This sounds more like a weird social experiment than pure survival. Bethesda has become Vault-tech!

immortalfrieza:
ESO is a perfect example of what could happen if Fallout 76 is a success. It doesn't take a genius to realize that 76 as multiplayer would never have gotten off the ground without ESO's success, there's no way they would've tried it. ... In short, Fallout 76 is going to set a bad precedent.

ESO is a story-driven, hand crafted world filled with NPCs, quests and curated content. FO76 is an empty sandbox in which the players create the majority of the content. The quests are given by a handful of robots, scattered terminals and holo-tapes. There are no communities beyond what the players create themselves. All the other NPCs are hostile.

Regardless of your opinion on ESO and FO76, these two games are completely different. The only common thread seems to be "multiplayer". Multiplayer Fallout is not necessarily bad. Massive Multiplayer Online Social Experiment Fallout is something I would avoid.

You're missing that to people like this, the sins of ESO are that it is MP elder scrolls (how dare those mp cretins touch their elder scrolls) and that no recent ES game obviously means ESO is at fault, not that people continue to rebuy the re-remastered Skyrim .

So the breakdown of how they're different types of MP is irrevelant to those who wish it to underperform.

Redvenge:

Seth Carter:
Taking this on its merits as a survival game.

We'll see as they release more information. They are creating "incentives and advancement opportunities" for PvP and co-operative playstyles (though PvP and Co-op players must share the same server). This sounds more like a weird social experiment than pure survival. Bethesda has become Vault-tech!

Todd Howard may be enough of a veteran that he knosws to say "We're looking at" and "sometime after launch", but successive interviews have seen him tacking on and reframing this thing at a level to rival Sean Murray.

They've not been totally adverse to hyping game mechanics before, but they did tend to actually be mechanics and features that actually existed.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here