Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/29 17:12:57


Post by: feeder


Bethesda with a new teaser tweet

New Fallout?

F3 remaster?

Switch port?

Skyrim for the pip-boy?


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/29 17:54:58


Post by: Voss


Truthfully, it will likely be something stupid in the vein of the 5 re- releases of skyrim. So fallout *4* remastered or VR or some even worse console platform.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/29 17:57:02


Post by: Tannhauser42


I would be surprised at a Fallout 5 so soon, without even a new Elder Scrolls in between. Guess we'll see soon enough. I wonder if it will be an all-new engine?


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/29 17:58:40


Post by: greatbigtree


If they're going for a new game, I really hope it's along the lines of New Vegas 2... with the older interface. I couldn't stand town building and crafting in a way that needed me to pick up EVERYTHING I saw.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/29 18:02:55


Post by: feeder


 greatbigtree wrote:
If they're going for a new game, I really hope it's along the lines of New Vegas 2...


Yeah this is my big, unrealistic hope too.


I couldn't stand town building and crafting in a way that needed me to pick up EVERYTHING I saw.


I liked the building aspect, but the whole "I'll just make this dirty shirt and teddy bear into a sleeping bag" required a little too much suspension of disbelief.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/29 18:04:34


Post by: Voss


Well, they've been pretty active about denying a new elder scrolls game for the past year, probably to avoid confusing the issue with the mmo

On the other hand, often when they give out big specific denials like that, they're lying... Up until for the for real announcement.

But presumably the Bethesda studio (as opposed to the zenimax studio behind the mmo) has been working on *something* for the past couple years. I'd hope it wasn't just iterating versions of skyrim


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/29 18:33:10


Post by: Pacific


I would love for a version of Fallout 3 to appear on the Switch..


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/29 18:34:29


Post by: Valhallan42nd


I'd be glad to get a new main story DLC, or new game with the new engine.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 01:32:34


Post by: Ouze


My body is ready.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 06:56:11


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 greatbigtree wrote:
If they're going for a new game, I really hope it's along the lines of New Vegas 2... with the older interface. I couldn't stand town building and crafting in a way that needed me to pick up EVERYTHING I saw.
But everything has to be Minecraft!

This time it'll be Fallout Battle Royale though as we drift further and further away from what made Fallout so good.



New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 06:59:14


Post by: BrookM


Yeah, not feeling it either. F4 was in my personal opinion rather disappointing and more generic than the previous games.

I'd say, "I'd love for Obsidian to take another stab at things" but I'm not sure if I'm ready for yet another buggy release..


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 08:22:21


Post by: Crazyterran


Call of Duty: Fallout. Campaign Takes place during the great war, goes through the major battles and things like Deathclaws getting developed, and ends with the nukes dropping.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 08:46:23


Post by: Paradigm


Obsidian have tweeted that it's nothing to do with them, but that's exactly what they would say if they were about to release New Vegas 2 and couldn't say!

If it's a Fallout 3 remaster, I could go for that so long as it's totally remade in the FO4 engine, particularly the gunplay but I'd not say no to the expanded weapon mod systems or settlements either (though I'm not sure they'd really be able to implement that into FO3's map).

Anything to do with a Switch port is of no interest to me, so in my perfect world this is a brand new game or at least a full remaster of 3 or NV...

I've seen suggestions of a Fallout answer to ESO being thrown around, but that is not something that'd really appeal to me either, I like the idea of expanding the setting in that way but the MMO trappings of repetitive and generic quests put me right off ESO.

Still waiting on a Fallout game set outside America... England would be an interesting one with guns being far rarer, and Australia could be a nightmarish land if the rads get to the wildlife (though I imagine the civilisation might be a bit more intact, I don't believe it got directly nuked, did it?)



New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 10:46:37


Post by: Nostromodamus


I wouldn’t expect a Fallout game set outside America, as cool as it may be. 50’s Americana is such a central theme to the series, especially as it progressed.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 13:07:11


Post by: Geifer


 feeder wrote:
I couldn't stand town building and crafting in a way that needed me to pick up EVERYTHING I saw.


I liked the building aspect, but the whole "I'll just make this dirty shirt and teddy bear into a sleeping bag" required a little too much suspension of disbelief.


I had a good laugh when I scrapped a lead pipe and got steel out of it. Still makes me smile to this day.

I like the settlement mode of Fallout 4 in principle. I played Fallout 3 thinking wouldn't it be cool if I could start my own little settlement and restart civilization. Seeing just that in Fallout 4 was great. Even if I'm more the Lone Wanderer type and played Fallout 4 the first time without building any settlements outside getting Garvey and his merry band started in Sanctuary Hills. I found that to be a perfectly viable way of playing and thus never got the impression I had to pick up EVERYTHING. If you go full Minuteman (and let's be honest, you don't go full Minuteman) and commit to rebuilding every settlement in the Commonwealth, sure. That's basically the only way it's going to work. I think the flip side to Falliut 4's weakish story is that it's one big sandbox and you can play it any way you like. Don't like settlements? Screw them. Perfectly good way to play.

My big issue with sandbox Fallout 4 is that stuff only happens when you're there and doesn't, like, at all, when you're not. In my opinion a more fitting approach would have been to make the foundation of settlements a city builder sim system where you give directions to your settlers and they do the scavenging and building over time. I hope we'll get something along those lines in future Fallouts (or Elder Scrolls games).

Got to be patient with Bethesda. In Morrowind I "evicted" someone and had a house to stash my stuff. In Oblivion you could buy a house and sets of interior decoration. Skyrim's Hearthfire allowed for a much more modular approach to building your own longhouse. Fallout 4's settlements are the most modular and sophisticated version of this to date, and I have no doubt that they're going to look at what worked and what didn't and implement an improved version in a future game.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
I wouldn’t expect a Fallout game set outside America, as cool as it may be. 50’s Americana is such a central theme to the series, especially as it progressed.


While I wouldn't mind getting expanded lore (especially with regard to Wasteland Warfare or possible future RPG efforts, homebrewed or otherwise) on the state of the rest of the planet, I think America is big enough for many, many Fallout games to come. I'd expect at least the answer to the question whether New York has turned into ghoul central, how Florida is an even bigger hellhole after the bombs or why the nuclear apocalypse was bigger in Texas. Also, Canada. Plus with Bethesda's focus on the East Coast, that leaves a lot of the west unexplored outside of New vegas (and the decades and even a century old Fallout 1 and 2 stories).


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 14:25:11


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Paradigm wrote:
Obsidian have tweeted that it's nothing to do with them, but that's exactly what they would say if they were about to release New Vegas 2 and couldn't say!

If it's a Fallout 3 remaster, I could go for that so long as it's totally remade in the FO4 engine, particularly the gunplay but I'd not say no to the expanded weapon mod systems or settlements either (though I'm not sure they'd really be able to implement that into FO3's map).

Anything to do with a Switch port is of no interest to me, so in my perfect world this is a brand new game or at least a full remaster of 3 or NV...

I've seen suggestions of a Fallout answer to ESO being thrown around, but that is not something that'd really appeal to me either, I like the idea of expanding the setting in that way but the MMO trappings of repetitive and generic quests put me right off ESO.

Still waiting on a Fallout game set outside America... England would be an interesting one with guns being far rarer, and Australia could be a nightmarish land if the rads get to the wildlife (though I imagine the civilisation might be a bit more intact, I don't believe it got directly nuked, did it?)


Same, the gunplay in F3/NV feels really clunky after 4. As for ESO, I got in the beta and the combat felt off, especially archery. I quit and de-installed once I saw people queuing to murder a single bear. That isn't the Elder Scrolls anymore.

If we have to do one outside of the States, make it China, the archnemesis. US troops in power armor got stranded there once the bombs fell so it could make for some amazingly different yet familiar gameplay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Geifer wrote:

My big issue with sandbox Fallout 4 is that stuff only happens when you're there and doesn't, like, at all, when you're not. In my opinion a more fitting approach would have been to make the foundation of settlements a city builder sim system where you give directions to your settlers and they do the scavenging and building over time. I hope we'll get something along those lines in future Fallouts (or Elder Scrolls games).

There is an amazing mod called Sim Settlements for F4 that does mostly that. You plop down a wood/steel/concrete special platform/plot and assign a settler who build their own house and upgrades it depending on how well their needs are met. It has this for farms, houses, industry, just a bunch of variations. It has a bunch of submods too.

Just stealing their description:

Sim Settlements is a Mod for Fallout 4 that allows you to build zone objects that tell the settlers what type of buildings to create in different areas of your settlement and they will do so. Includes a progression system, a more interesting settler needs system, and rewards to help settlements matter more. This mod aims to completely change the way you think about settlements. You'll now be able to create detailed, living places with minimal effort. The ultimate goal: making every settlement a unique and awesome looking Fallout city, with perks and rewards that help you at every stage of the game.


Another recommendation is the scavenger beacon mod. You can craft beacons and drop the in any place you can store items, you can store all your gathered junk out in a mailbox or desk and then drop in a beacon. Then you get a settlement prompt where it has to go to and 'settler NPCs' come to get it and its in the settlement inventory in 24 hours (the NPCs are for show, it gets teleported so you don't lose it to AI stupidity) together with the retrievable beacon. It cuts out an absolute ton of backtracking because you fill up with heavy junk.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 14:42:52


Post by: Nostromodamus


Livestream showed trailer for “Fallout 76”.

Make of that what you will...


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 14:46:05


Post by: Kanluwen


It's because you're in Vault 76.

With Jonathan Frakes...


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 14:56:51


Post by: Voss


The music seems like a clue to location\theme.

It was apparently worked on at Bethesda and in their acquired studio in Texas (which used to be Battlecry, who were working on some sort of hero shooter).

So. Hmm. Maybe some sort of FPS pacify-the-mutated-natives shoot em up type game. Or an ARPG like diablo, but that looked like the FO4 engine. (But I am on my phone, so salt that)


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 15:03:21


Post by: Kanluwen


Someone on Twitter posted a screencap from another Fallout game.

Vault 76 was a "control vault" to be opened and recolonize the surface later.

Unfortunately we did not get Vault 77, one man and crates full of puppets.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 15:10:10


Post by: Voss


Huh, a real vault and not a twisted science experiment vault? Not sure how to feel about playing it straight. Though that does reinforce my pacify the natives vibe.

Though I would like to know soon er rather than later if its a standard fallout (exploration, lite-RPG), a shooter, arpg or tactics game, or something really horrible like an mmo.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 15:55:27


Post by: Nostromodamus


 Kanluwen wrote:
It's because you're in Vault 76.

With Jonathan Frakes...


None of the other Fallouts were named after their Vault.

2076 was the year before the nukes dropped.

I wonder if it will be a vault building/management game leading up to the exchange?


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 16:10:23


Post by: Voss


They weren't, but this one clearly is set in vault 76. The radio in the video talks about it and the guy and is in a 76 jumpsuit.

The exact timeframe isn't clear, but it is indeed set in that vault.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 16:18:27


Post by: Geifer


Voss wrote:
They weren't, but this one clearly is set in vault 76. The radio in the video talks about it and the guy and is in a 76 jumpsuit.

The exact timeframe isn't clear, but it is indeed set in that vault.


I just saw a screenshot of the Pip-Boy that shows the date 27 Oct 2102.

Edit: Too dumb to get the date right on first, second, and third try...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Sim Settlements is a Mod for Fallout 4 that allows you to build zone objects that tell the settlers what type of buildings to create in different areas of your settlement and they will do so. Includes a progression system, a more interesting settler needs system, and rewards to help settlements matter more. This mod aims to completely change the way you think about settlements. You'll now be able to create detailed, living places with minimal effort. The ultimate goal: making every settlement a unique and awesome looking Fallout city, with perks and rewards that help you at every stage of the game.


Another recommendation is the scavenger beacon mod. You can craft beacons and drop the in any place you can store items, you can store all your gathered junk out in a mailbox or desk and then drop in a beacon. Then you get a settlement prompt where it has to go to and 'settler NPCs' come to get it and its in the settlement inventory in 24 hours (the NPCs are for show, it gets teleported so you don't lose it to AI stupidity) together with the retrievable beacon. It cuts out an absolute ton of backtracking because you fill up with heavy junk.


Cool. Thanks for the tip. Might have a look if I'm not suspiciously occupied with a different Fallout for the foreseeable future.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 16:27:50


Post by: BrookM


The teaser in question:




New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 16:40:33


Post by: Formosa


http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Vault_76

Just in case anyone wants to know.

Also, VVVVVVEEERRRYYYY pumped for this


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 16:46:30


Post by: Voss


 Formosa wrote:
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Vault_76

Just in case anyone wants to know.

Also, VVVVVVEEERRRYYYY pumped for this


Mark me as somewhat interesting depending on what exactly it is and if its higher quality than the FO4 DLCs (which were largely bad, except for the brief attack from the mists at the start of far harbor, which was nicely thematic)


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 16:48:40


Post by: Paradigm


More Fallout is probably a good thing, but there's too little here to start being excited just yet...

On one hand, with the earlier date and a less 'weird' Vault as a starting point, we could be looking at a FO4-engine game about returning to the surface, attempting to set up the new civilisation and seeing how the world changed. Big focus on settlement building and survival, less rad-powered monstrosities but more robots, remnant factions, rival survivors ect which could be a really cool take on it. Resources are more scarce, competition more fierce, and the society we see by the later Fallout games has yet to emerge, leaving a lot of room for competing visions of a post-nuclear America that you as the player have to navigate.

On the other hand, it could be a Fallout-themed city-builder or something similar to Fallout Shelter for all we know...


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 16:50:17


Post by: BrookM


It would be interesting if they finally do something closer to post-war than the usual stuff, at least now the plethora of apocalyptic logs, stocked supply cupboards and clothed skeletons will make sense now.

Also, no Brotherhood of Steel!


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 17:03:44


Post by: Voss


 BrookM wrote:
It would be interesting if they finally do something closer to post-war than the usual stuff, at least now the plethora of apocalyptic logs, stocked supply cupboards and clothed skeletons will make sense now.

Also, no Brotherhood of Steel!

And much rejoicing at that. Hopefully no supermutants either.
They really didn't need to drag everything over from the original game, regardless of how little sense it made. Give me a break from deathclaws as well.

Ghouls would be really interesting at 20 years on. No real understanding of what's going on, and no sense of immortality yet. Maybe even an intermediate, less gooey, stage






New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 17:04:59


Post by: feeder


Ok, I'll admit it. I'm super excited. What will Vault 76 be?


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 17:09:03


Post by: Geifer


 feeder wrote:
Ok, I'll admit it. I'm super excited. What will Vault 76 be?


The Fallout version of Sim City Online.

Yeah, that's the big question, isn't it? I love Bethesda's RPGs and wouldn't mind more of the same, but I also think the setting has plenty of opportunities for a genre change.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 17:46:44


Post by: BrookM


I wonder how much will be retconned or shoehorned in this time around?


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 17:48:37


Post by: feeder


Be interesting if you end up becoming the founder of BoS or NCR or similar


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 17:49:20


Post by: BrookM


Errrrr, no. Not unless things get radically retconned.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 17:50:33


Post by: feeder


Isn't that the question you just asked?


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 17:53:26


Post by: Geifer


 BrookM wrote:
I wonder how much will be retconned or shoehorned in this time around?


Everything! We'll get all the retcons in one handy package!

Or, if this turns out as I think it will, it'll be too removed from the existing settings and only provide new information, perhaps with the odd continuity error instead of retroactively inventing new power armor.

 feeder wrote:
Be interesting if you end up becoming the founder of BoS or NCR or similar


If I had to guess I'd go with "similar". Vault 76, by its number, sounds very far east. Like, West Virginia east.

Far from the BoS and NCR, both in space and time.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 17:53:40


Post by: Formosa


Voss wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Vault_76

Just in case anyone wants to know.

Also, VVVVVVEEERRRYYYY pumped for this


Mark me as somewhat interesting depending on what exactly it is and if its higher quality than the FO4 DLCs (which were largely bad, except for the brief attack from the mists at the start of far harbor, which was nicely thematic)


Dont get me wrong, FO4 was the worst of the series with one of the best DLC's of the Series, I am not expecting this new one to blow me away, but I loves me some fallout.

[Thumb - prec.jpeg]


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 17:56:55


Post by: BrookM


 feeder wrote:
Isn't that the question you just asked?
Derp!

But it would feel weird if the BoS was not founded by Maxwell and the NCR by Tandi.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 17:59:07


Post by: Formosa


 BrookM wrote:
 feeder wrote:
Isn't that the question you just asked?
Derp!

But it would feel weird if the BoS was not founded by Maxwell and the NCR by Tandi.



Tandi didnt create the NCR, I did, through my puppet Tandi.... LONG LIVE THE VAULT DWELLER!!!


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 18:10:46


Post by: vonjankmon


As much as I love Fallout I will not be buying this one right out of the gate, FO4 was just...bland with a story so bad and full of holes that whomever wrote it should, never, ever write again. Seriously the Institute are basically the sock gnomes of the Fallout universe.

Step 1) Science
Step 2) Make Synths
Step 3)...
Step 4) Profit!

I am really hoping that this game is basically Bethesda's apology for FO4.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 18:14:40


Post by: Geifer


 Formosa wrote:
 BrookM wrote:
 feeder wrote:
Isn't that the question you just asked?
Derp!

But it would feel weird if the BoS was not founded by Maxwell and the NCR by Tandi.



Tandi didnt create the NCR, I did, through my puppet Tandi.... LONG LIVE THE VAULT DWELLER!!!


Wait! I'm the Vault Dweller! And I didn't found the NCR. I founded a village full of morons.

Yeah, ok. You can be the Vault Dweller. I'll be in the bottom of a glass if you need me.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 19:02:05


Post by: feeder


Fething online MMO by the sounds of it.

Well, the feeling excited for the morning was nice, anyway. :(


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 20:48:31


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 feeder wrote:
Fething online MMO by the sounds of it.

Well, the feeling excited for the morning was nice, anyway. :(

That's a bummer. The only thing that can save it is if multiplayer is optional, although single player is probably going to suffer if aimed at multiplayer.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 21:48:28


Post by: Voss


Sounds a bit more like a online survival game like Ark or DayZ.
Which... uh... I guess if you like that kind of thing, and want yet another one with a fallout paintjob on it?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2018/05/30/bethesda-announces-brand-new-fallout-game-fallout-76/#1d9a1c432c4b

So based on what people are picking up/deducing, on October 27th you can fight the interface to build crappy bases in West Virginia while thousands of naked idiots with axes try to gank you and steal your stuff.

More news to come at their E3 conference on June 10.


--
I kind of hope this isn't true. While many didn't like the changes in FO3 or FO4, I suspect most would rather see more of the same rather than see it spiral further away from a RPG.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 21:57:24


Post by: Paradigm


Depends how it goes if that is the case. A big problem with a lot of these sandboxy survival type things is crappy graphics, rubbish animations, clunky systems ect. If it's built on the Fallout 4 engine and mechanics then that eliminates a lot of those issues...

On the other hand, can it solve the issues with aggressive players, difficulty of actually getting set up ect?

I kind of like the idea of a shared Fallout 4-esque open world where a few buddies and I can work together on building a society through FO4 settlement mechanics, killing dangerous creatures and dealing with threatening human factions, making the wasteland a safer place. Conversely, I don't like the idea of a more hostile world where every player is out to kill and rob every other one. So a single-player world I can invite some friends into, I can absolutely see myself getting into, a world full of random players who will kill you for your Vault Suit is far less appealing.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 22:08:42


Post by: Disciple of Fate


An online survival game wouldn't be Fallout, just Rust/ARK/DayZ with a Fallout reskin. I hope it is open world co-opish, but I seriously doubt that it will be.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/30 22:30:41


Post by: Eumerin


I think Conan Exiles has non-PvP servers. And I know you can have your own private server for that game. Fallout 76 might do something similar.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/31 00:06:42


Post by: Wyrmalla


Hey a new Fallout game. Maybe they won't screw it up this time.

Oh, its an online survival game? Moving on...

I wonder what the main studio's working on if the rumour it was developed by another is true? Honestly, another Rust style game doesn't sound appealing at all. If they're taking the worst elements out of Fallout 4 and turning them into their own game then I'll have to pass. Settlement building with even less substance in terms of its relation to the plot isn't a great selling factor.

Hmn, I guess a Fallout skin is the only draw it'd have for me. Though that's the only reason I invested time into The Elder Scrolls Online, and I'd argue that's still a crap game (if it didn't have that antithetic then nobody would play it).

Hopefully this won't be the beginning of further dilution of their licenses with these spin off games. The main Fallout and Elder Scrolls series have been becoming more generic with each release, and with this and the other games are made by different studios, it is indicative of the parent company's handling of the licenses.

What's the chances this'll have a cash shop? It is Zenimax...


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/31 00:31:01


Post by: Formosa


Voss wrote:
Sounds a bit more like a online survival game like Ark or DayZ.
Which... uh... I guess if you like that kind of thing, and want yet another one with a fallout paintjob on it?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2018/05/30/bethesda-announces-brand-new-fallout-game-fallout-76/#1d9a1c432c4b

So based on what people are picking up/deducing, on October 27th you can fight the interface to build crappy bases in West Virginia while thousands of naked idiots with axes try to gank you and steal your stuff.

More news to come at their E3 conference on June 10.


--
I can of hope this isn't true. While many didn't like the changes in FO3 or FO4, I suspect most would rather see more of the same rather than see it spiral further away from a RPG.



Read the article and thats not what it says at all "Rumours are its built around base building" and "it could have a multiplayer element"

Neither one of those translates into a DayZ kind of game, you had me very very worried there :/


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/31 01:11:42


Post by: Voss


 Formosa wrote:
Voss wrote:
Sounds a bit more like a online survival game like Ark or DayZ.
Which... uh... I guess if you like that kind of thing, and want yet another one with a fallout paintjob on it?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2018/05/30/bethesda-announces-brand-new-fallout-game-fallout-76/#1d9a1c432c4b

So based on what people are picking up/deducing, on October 27th you can fight the interface to build crappy bases in West Virginia while thousands of naked idiots with axes try to gank you and steal your stuff.

More news to come at their E3 conference on June 10.


--
I kind of hope this isn't true. While many didn't like the changes in FO3 or FO4, I suspect most would rather see more of the same rather than see it spiral further away from a RPG.



Read the article and thats not what it says at all "Rumours are its built around base building" and "it could have a multiplayer element"

Neither one of those translates into a DayZ kind of game, you had me very very worried there :/


Read the other one (posted by feeder)- that's what I was responding to with the Dayz comment, rather than an online MMO. I added the Forbes article for another perspective (which also mentions base building and online multiplayer, neither of which are much use in a traditional fallout game). Plus it focuses on the 27th Oct date and the West Virginia song.

here is the Kotaku article feeder posted again: https://kotaku.com/sources-fallout-76-is-an-online-survival-rpg-1826425333

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.



 Wyrmalla wrote:

What's the chances this'll have a cash shop? It is Zenimax...


Well, technically... it's Bethesda Game Studios and Bethesda Game Studios Austin (formerly Battlecry) game, published by Bethesda Softworks which also publishes titles by Zenimax Online Studios (ie, the ES MMO), and BS is owned by ZeniMax Media (as is Id and Arkane). So 'Zenimax' is two levels up the shell game or not involved at all, depending on which one you're referring to.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/31 08:31:42


Post by: Geifer


Umm.. multiplayer? Yay? It's what I always wanted, right?

I guess it doesn't cost me anything to keep an open mind. If it's cooperative or even has one of those private server thingies as mentioned for Conan (not that I have a clue how any of that works...) it could still be good. But I'm not really interested in PvP.

Not a fan of monthly subscriptions or microtransactions either, which is pretty much unavoidable with online games.

But it's Fallout. If anything were to turn me into an MMO zombie, it's this. I guess.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/31 10:58:53


Post by: Formosa


Voss wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
Voss wrote:
Sounds a bit more like a online survival game like Ark or DayZ.
Which... uh... I guess if you like that kind of thing, and want yet another one with a fallout paintjob on it?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2018/05/30/bethesda-announces-brand-new-fallout-game-fallout-76/#1d9a1c432c4b

So based on what people are picking up/deducing, on October 27th you can fight the interface to build crappy bases in West Virginia while thousands of naked idiots with axes try to gank you and steal your stuff.

More news to come at their E3 conference on June 10.


--
I kind of hope this isn't true. While many didn't like the changes in FO3 or FO4, I suspect most would rather see more of the same rather than see it spiral further away from a RPG.



Read the article and thats not what it says at all "Rumours are its built around base building" and "it could have a multiplayer element"

Neither one of those translates into a DayZ kind of game, you had me very very worried there :/


Read the other one (posted by feeder)- that's what I was responding to with the Dayz comment, rather than an online MMO. I added the Forbes article for another perspective (which also mentions base building and online multiplayer, neither of which are much use in a traditional fallout game). Plus it focuses on the 27th Oct date and the West Virginia song.

here is the Kotaku article feeder posted again: https://kotaku.com/sources-fallout-76-is-an-online-survival-rpg-1826425333

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.



 Wyrmalla wrote:

What's the chances this'll have a cash shop? It is Zenimax...


Well, technically... it's Bethesda Game Studios and Bethesda Game Studios Austin (formerly Battlecry) game, published by Bethesda Softworks which also publishes titles by Zenimax Online Studios (ie, the ES MMO), and BS is owned by ZeniMax Media (as is Id and Arkane). So 'Zenimax' is two levels up the shell game or not involved at all, depending on which one you're referring to.



Well.... thats me out then, I HATE those survival games, unless there is a story and single player without all the douche bags ruining my fun, I am not interested.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/31 13:05:02


Post by: Wyrmalla


Voss wrote:


Well, technically... it's Bethesda Game Studios and Bethesda Game Studios Austin (formerly Battlecry) game, published by Bethesda Softworks which also publishes titles by Zenimax Online Studios (ie, the ES MMO), and BS is owned by ZeniMax Media (as is Id and Arkane). So 'Zenimax' is two levels up the shell game or not involved at all, depending on which one you're referring to.


Ah, I assumed that the MMORPG was published by Zenimax and no Bethesda Game Studios. In which case. "What's the chances this'll have a cash shop? It is Bethesda..." - given how full of micro transactions ESO is.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/31 15:53:28


Post by: Frankenberry


I'll bet my next model purchase that there's a battle royale mode/requirement in order to progress through the settlement construction.

This has got to be one of the bigger disappointments in gaming, at least for me.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/05/31 16:31:05


Post by: Voss


I get why they might be doing it though. Though I don't really like this style of game, content is an order of magnitude easier than that of an RPG, where players can quickly tear through everything. Plus this type of game has easy monetization options on top.

The catch is I'm not sure if this game model has hit its peak yet or not. If players are already tired of online survival games, it could fall completely flat. Just hope that they don't come to the wrong conclusion and decide its the fallout license that's played out.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/10 21:07:37


Post by: Paradigm


New trailer from Microsoft's E3 conference.



Still not much to go on, but from the looks of this it appears to be very much another slice of Fallout 4. Animations, general art style, armour pieces and such all match what's in FO4. Apparently the map was mentioned at being 4 times larger, which is impressive if true, and it's available for pre-order June 15th.

Still no confirmation as to whether it's an online or a single player thing (or some hybrid of the two) but at the very least, we know it's more open world Fallout rather than a new style of game. And it looks, to me at least, rather glorious.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/10 21:43:22


Post by: Nostromodamus


I’m sure we’ll find out more tonight but I’m getting unduly excited...


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/10 22:14:34


Post by: Gitzbitah


I'll admit, the setting sold me on it. They nailed West Virginia.

And the massive coal mines, the 'secret' military base are both really there!



New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 01:56:10


Post by: Voss


 Nostromodamus wrote:
I’m sure we’ll find out more tonight but I’m getting unduly excited...


Might as well wait til tomorrow. The Bethesda conference is... uh... Loud and shouty? A joke metal meathead piano concert and a pair of... developers? producers? trying to hype up the crowd for rage 2. They're really good at sucking the energy out of the crowd, but not much else.


The trailer is interesting- I suspect Bethesda is a little annoyed MS scooped them on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actual points:

Online only
Can play solo (story and quests and things)

Foray into multiplayer. "They just had to do it."

Lots of new enemies, some based on West Virginia 'folklore.'

"Softcore survival" [yes. actual quote]
Death isn't loss of progression, or character, character can be moved between 'servers' (which don't behave like servers).

Multiplayer is 'dozens of people'

Bounty system for 'un-neighborly' players


Build where-ever and move what you build.

Buildings are destructible, and critters will show up to wreck them.

Todd Howard is really boring to listen to.

Nuke sites are on the map, and you can nuke people/locations. And you can get 'rare resources' from place you've nuked.

I... have no idea why you'd want to play this with people.
First group with 5+ people in power armor just wins.


Ugh. BETA announcement
Obligatory joke about bugs in Bethesda games. Audience is *dead silent*

Tchokes- glow in the dark map of the region and some cheap plastic toys.


November 14th, this year. Huzzah or something. I'll get excited when its clear how 'single player' it can be, given the multiplayer focus and 'multiplayer is easier' quote.


Also Fallout Shelter on playstations and switches or something.. Woo.





New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 02:58:25


Post by: Nostromodamus


Well, it’s... interesting.

Hopefully solo is viable and isn’t just Preston Garvey style missions ad infinitum. Better not require net connection or PS Plus for solo either.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 03:09:27


Post by: Voss


 Nostromodamus wrote:
Well, it’s... interesting.

Hopefully solo is viable and isn’t just Preston Garvey style missions ad infinitum. Better not require net connection or PS Plus for solo either.


I'd have to go back to the beginning of his speech, but he seemed pretty clear that always online was a requirement of how the game functioned. 'Yes, you can play solo' was pretty much a follow-up to that statement.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 03:13:08


Post by: Nostromodamus


Yeah, I’m just hoping it’s gonna be better than it seems right now. I’m currently disappointed. It’s like they took the worst parts of Fallout 4 (procedurally generated quests and settlement building) and made a game of it. Online requirement would be the final turd on the coffin for me.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 03:30:09


Post by: Thargrim


I didn't even beat fallout 4, so i'm kind of meh on this. The last one I just couldn't get motivated to do anything, I just didn't feel any drive to explore, or accomplish anything in game...it just felt empty despite the world being filled with little things to do. Couldn't get invested in the story either, honestly i've never particularly had a blast with fallout 3 either...Skyrim though I played for a good 6 months plus after it came out.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 04:34:00


Post by: Yodhrin


So it's Fallout 4, but with no mods, online only, and any attempt to play the game like a proper singleplayer Fallout game will just be a futile pile of irritating garbage as you continually fend off the trolling of Swag420Blazin and XxDarkeSoul97xX.

Mmmmmmmmmmnothanks.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 05:00:53


Post by: Eumerin


Huge missed opportunity by them if they don't allow players to keep the online griefers away. Even PvP-loving FunCom wasn't dumb enough to try that with Conan Exiles. I can see an argument that without an external threat, players would eventually get bored and quit playing. PvP is obviously one way of providing that external threat. But there are other ways to do that, as well.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 05:45:53


Post by: Yodhrin


Eumerin wrote:
Huge missed opportunity by them if they don't allow players to keep the online griefers away. Even PvP-loving FunCom wasn't dumb enough to try that with Conan Exiles. I can see an argument that without an external threat, players would eventually get bored and quit playing. PvP is obviously one way of providing that external threat. But there are other ways to do that, as well.


Even if there's a no-PvP mode, that doesn't stop people trolling. There will be ways to annoy and irritate anyone trying to play the game "properly" even if you can't outright kill them, even if they go so far as to disable the "nuking other players stuff" part of it(which I don't think they can tbh, it makes a point of noting you need to harvest rare resources from the blast zones resulting from such attacks). Even something as simple as players' avatars having collision enabled can be a tool for a dedicated arsehole.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 08:37:31


Post by: Geifer


Voss wrote:
 Nostromodamus wrote:
Well, it’s... interesting.

Hopefully solo is viable and isn’t just Preston Garvey style missions ad infinitum. Better not require net connection or PS Plus for solo either.


I'd have to go back to the beginning of his speech, but he seemed pretty clear that always online was a requirement of how the game functioned. 'Yes, you can play solo' was pretty much a follow-up to that statement.


Devil could be in the detail, but if you take the presentation at face value, it'll be like Diablo III. You get the Fallout game you'd expect and can play solo without anybody's interference, with the only caveat that you need a permanent Internet connection.

It's not ideal but I can live with that, I guess.

Gameplay-wise, I think it's cool. Expansion of the fauna is good to see, they seem to have redone the Ghouls to look cool and zombie-like again (and not the yucky Ferals of Fallout 4), they've made sure that the laser musket isn't the stupidest gun in the franchise anymore and - I'm going to say this with some caution - they seem to let you pick settlement sites freely. That'd be a big one for me.

The big unknown is still how solo and multiplayer work. If I can play this all by myself without any other players around, that's cool. If I can have a bit of coop with my buddies, that's cool too. especially if I can use my existing character. If there's no way to avoid PvP if you play multiplayer, I'm not sure I'll have an interest in it.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 09:35:27


Post by: Paradigm


From what's been said, it seems like the 'option' to play solo simply means you're not teaming up with anyone (you can squad up with up to 3 other people), there will still be 'dozens, not hundreds' of other people in the world according to Howard. Basically, any other Vault Dweller you run into is going to be a player rather than an NPC by the sound of it.

Some other info:
- you can move your character between servers, so if you want to join a friend's game or simply play on a more/less busy server you don't necessarily lose your progress, gear or customisation.

- You can indeed build anywhere thanks to the C.A.M.P. device. Settlement building seems to work as per FO4, with the addition that your creations can be smashed up by enemies (both creatures and players) so you need to defend what you build. On the other hand, you can apparently 'pack up' everything you've built and re-build it anywhere else without having to pay material costs again... Handy if a nuke is incoming.

- Because yes, there are multiple fireable nukes around the map. You collect parts of a launch code from defeated enemies, and when your squad has a full code you can head to a bunker, open up a map and fire off a missile at a destination of your choice. This obviously destroys anything built in the area, and allows you to get some rarer (presumably radioactive) components.

- VATS seems to be gone, since obviously you can't slow down time in a multiplayer world. I guess it might re-emerge in some form, but there's no indication of that in the footage. Given the pip-boy is an older model than the other games, that could be a (somewhat flimsy) lore excuse.

- No mention of if there'll be any NPCs around, beyond enemies. None of the footage showed any dialogue choices, beyond an emote/interaction wheel for communication with other players.


On the whole, I'm somewhat torn. On one hand, the prospect of another massive world to explore, which looks incredibly pretty and seems to be filled with some interesting new creatures and locales, is very enticing, and as I mentioned before, I do love the idea of teaming up with some mates to try and bring order to a little corner of the wasteland. On the other hand, I'd like to know there's some checks and balances in place for PvP stuff (or the option to disable it entirely). Otherwise, you're going to quickly find that the first squad to get 4 sets of power armour and build a Doom Fortress are going to make the game hell for everyone else...

A few dozen players on a map 4x the size of FO4 means it's presumably possible to go some time without seeing anyone, but as soon as you do, they're probably going to kill you, which is frustrating and immersion-shattering at the same time, given you're all supposed to be from the same Vault on the same general mission... If there are PvE servers or the option to hide other players/yourself and go about the world functionally solo, that might be more appealing, but if a lot of the game's content revolves around having multiple players (both together and against each other) then that's creating as many problems as it solves.

No choice but to wait and see, I suppose. There's apparently a beta of some form coming before the November release, hopefully that's open enough that I can get in on it and try before I buy, as this is definitely one I'm on the fence about and in competition with quite a lot of other stuff at the back end of the year.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 09:40:35


Post by: KingCracker


 Yodhrin wrote:
So it's Fallout 4, but with no mods, online only, and any attempt to play the game like a proper singleplayer Fallout game will just be a futile pile of irritating garbage as you continually fend off the trolling of Swag420Blazin and XxDarkeSoul97xX.

Mmmmmmmmmmnothanks.




Thats exactly my take on it. I turn off online mode in Dark Souls for that very reason. This will be the first time pretty much ever that I will pass on a Fallout game. And that is including old school PC versions


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 10:53:01


Post by: Stuebi


 KingCracker wrote:
 Yodhrin wrote:
So it's Fallout 4, but with no mods, online only, and any attempt to play the game like a proper singleplayer Fallout game will just be a futile pile of irritating garbage as you continually fend off the trolling of Swag420Blazin and XxDarkeSoul97xX.

Mmmmmmmmmmnothanks.




Thats exactly my take on it. I turn off online mode in Dark Souls for that very reason. This will be the first time pretty much ever that I will pass on a Fallout game. And that is including old school PC versions


The fact that the industry is trying to push this "always Online" moronity, in spite of the fact it benefits absolutely bloody nobody, is driving me up the wall. Trying to shoehorn in player-interaction is even worse. Wanna know the fastest way to kill any sort of immersion? Other players.

And that's not even mentioning that Fallout 4 was a horrendous experience for me, in almost every way except the basic exploration and how they did Power Armour. I was really hoping they'd just salvage what few good parts of F4 and then try to implement those with a more F3 / New Vegas kinda vibe. But then money and success make me very uncomfortable as well.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 12:49:00


Post by: Voss


Immersion isn't really what this model goes for.

They know there are a lot of multiplayer shooter players. Lots of 'em. Trying to create 'enough' content for a single player RPG is almost an exercise in futility- players burn through crafted content fast.* But throw basic base building tools and add multiplayer, and the hordes will entertain themselves. Its a genre and market shift, which kinda sucks, but makes some sense from a business perspective.

*(exception here for dragon age inquisition, which had too much crap filler content that didn't contribute to the game at all. Early zones were too big and too long and several of the later zones were just empty, irrelevant wastes of time).

Its kind of sad, because the intro to vault 76 looks really intriguing. There is a sense of desolation and emptiness to the vault, as if the robots are running it, all the other people are dead, and the 'overseer' is just a recording.

But nah, it isn't an intriguing mystery, just multiplayer, and you're a loadlord/ late spawn.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 15:32:08


Post by: Tannhauser42


I would say Bethesda realizes full well that this is a big experiment. It's telling that they made this a side game (76, rather than an actual #5 in the series), and it's set very much outside the continuity of the series by being set so far in the past in an area isolated from the other games' settings.

So, yeah, they're not willing to bet a proper Fallout 5 on this. In a way, I hope the game sort of fails, but not too badly. Bad enough that Bethesda won't try this online MP thing again, but not so badly they stop making Fallout games entirely. I'd still like to give the game an honest chance, but I need to know more about the options regarding solo play.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 15:45:57


Post by: Desubot


Mmmmm dunno about you guys but this sounds like it could be a ton of fun... (derp )



New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 15:56:38


Post by: Geifer


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
In a way, I hope the game sort of fails, but not too badly. Bad enough that Bethesda won't try this online MP thing again, but not so badly they stop making Fallout games entirely.


Would probably be best for us solo players, but I reckon the chance for that is slim. Bethesda has three demographics to draw from: Fallout fans who aren't averse to gibing a different genre a try, Bethesda fans who would like to have a multiplayer component to a game whose gameplay they enjoy (in spite of what M'aiq advises) and people who just like this kind of multiplayer game for whom the Fallout setting is secondary (or a bonus, making it to their preferred genre for the first time). With these things it's always good to keep in mind that there's a large player pool out there that is just waiting to be tapped, and losing existing solo only customers could easily be made up for by new customers.

I'd rather hope that Bethesda is proud of its legacy and just explores additional genres rather than shifting its focus entirely. I don't mind expansion if it doesn't come at the expense of existing customers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Desubot wrote:
Mmmmm dunno about you guys but this sounds like it could be a ton of.


Yep, it's sure to be a ton of! No question!


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 16:09:44


Post by: Voss


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I would say Bethesda realizes full well that this is a big experiment. It's telling that they made this a side game (76, rather than an actual #5 in the series), and it's set very much outside the continuity of the series by being set so far in the past in an area isolated from the other games' settings.

So, yeah, they're not willing to bet a proper Fallout 5 on this. In a way, I hope the game sort of fails, but not too badly. Bad enough that Bethesda won't try this online MP thing again, but not so badly they stop making Fallout games entirely. I'd still like to give the game an honest chance, but I need to know more about the options regarding solo play.


Being set before the others really doesn't matter- apart from the commonwealth tech, weapon development largely doesn't happen past apocalypse day. The environment should be more radioactive and hostile, but all the familiar tech and toys would still be present, because its all pre-bombs anyway.

no brotherhood is kind of a relief, as is actually new enemies that aren't mirelurks. (Somewhat annoyed to see supermutants, honestly, though theyre enough of a signature that I know why they're included)

As for isolated... It isn't at all. West Virginia from the 'capital wasteland' of Fallout 3 is a day or two on foot.(From the Bethesda offices its barely an hour by car if it isn't rush hour) The west edge of fo3's map should actually wander into west Virginia at a couple points up near the NW corner.

Thinking about it, 76 could actually take time to explain why supermutants are in the capital wasteland in 3.

But yeah, I'm in the same boat as you: They absolutely need to sit down and expand on solo play before I even consider buying in. And I don't mean playing alone on a joint server, I mean no intrusions at all by others, chat boxes or anything else.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 16:17:28


Post by: Desubot


 Geifer wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Desubot wrote:
Mmmmm dunno about you guys but this sounds like it could be a ton of.


Yep, it's sure to be a ton of! No question!


Derp . i think it will be interesting for sure at the minimum. just hope it doesn't go full Rust. that game was bad :/


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 16:20:42


Post by: Dreadwinter


Guys, this isnt Fallout 5. This is a spinoff of the series trying to pull some survival fans over. Before you guys freak out about always online and getting picked on by people. You should probably look in to some of the newer survival games and how they deal with the issues. Instead of throwing your hands up and yelling "harumph!"

Take Conan Exiles. Always online game, but you can make your own private solo server or a server that has a password for friends only. You can also play PvE and build forts, locking people out or protected by your thralls. Big deterrent for griefers who do not want to die a lot for no luls or people who dont want to lose valuable gear. Also, most of them are worried about saving their own gak from the environment.

I'm not saying all of these features will be in, but it is way too early to be calling "pass" on it.

Edit: sweet baby jeezoo this new phone and keyboard are really upping my typos.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 16:24:47


Post by: BaconCatBug


So, basically dead on arrival. That's good to know.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 16:34:16


Post by: Manchu


I hated and avoided the settlement mini-game (mini-game seems like the wrong word for it) in FO4. So naturally the next FO game looks to be about that.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 16:48:49


Post by: Dreadwinter


 BaconCatBug wrote:
So, basically dead on arrival. That's good to know.


Yeah, I mean Rust, Ark, and Conan are all dead games closing their servers down soon. They would all still be alive had they not left early access. Grumble grumble dang kids grumble grumble


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 17:09:32


Post by: Voss


 Dreadwinter wrote:
Guys, this isnt Fallout 5. This is a spinoff of the series trying to pull some survival fans over. Before you guys freak out about always online and getting picked on by people. You should probably look in to some of the newer survival games and how they deal with the issues. Instead of throwing your hands up and yelling "harumph!"

Take Conan Exiles. Always online game, but you can make your own private solo server or a server that has a password for friends only. You can also play PvE and build forts, locking people out or protected by your thralls. Big deterrent for griefers who do not want to die a lot for no luls or people who dont want to lose valuable gear. Also, most of them are worried about saving their own gak from the environment.

I'm not saying all of these features will be in, but it is way too early to be calling "pass" on it.


It isn't too early to pass. Its exactly the right time, when the developer take s time to explain the focus is multiplayer shooting and base building. For people who were looking for the next fallout RPG, they've been given several warnings that this game isn't really for them- the intended way to play is explicitly multiplayer, in a very unfallout way you're supposed to hunt down unused nukes and use them on the local region to scavenge rare resources (for base building), and while there is something of a story framework, squadding up in power armor is obviously the intended end game. Most people know what kind of games they'll enjoy. Anyone hoping for a single player RPG is rightly going to be suspicious of this.

Especially after Elder Scrolls fans were presented with ESO rather than ES6 a couple years back... Which required several major overhauls (and free to play) to keep its audience.

Could 76 be a good multiplayer survival game? Sure. But its going to be a complete mismatch to a sizable percentage of the existing customer base. That may even be good for Beth financially and could widen interest, but that still doesn't help the players that wanted another RPG. Because past precedent is really clear- Beth will do a bunch of platform ports rather than fast track a proper sequel.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 17:15:48


Post by: vonjankmon


Without some kind of story to it I don't really have much interest. There are a ton of survival games out there that have building and FPS-esk combat. A Fallout skin over that is kind of interesting but will likely not be worth $60 to me.

I'll wait to make a final decision but frankly with how bad FO4 was I am very skeptical and I am a huge Fallout fan that has been playing since the first one. (Even Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel, which was a terrible game also...)


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 17:28:28


Post by: Dreadwinter


Did I miss something? Did they say no story or rpg aspects?


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 17:40:41


Post by: Yodhrin


 Dreadwinter wrote:
Did I miss something? Did they say no story or rpg aspects?


90% of games these days qualify as having "story or RPG aspects", that doesn't make them single player story-driven RPGs.

Anyone expecting anything more than "environmental storytelling"(ie, audiologs & notes and occasional staged scenes of skeletons or whatever), "kill 10 megaracoons for their pelts", and maybe some vaguely traditional quests from automated sources like recordings of the Overseer or a robot, will almost certainly be disappointed. This is not "Fallout 4 but four times the size and with other people in it", by all indications it's a stanbdard multiplayer survive'y-build'y-shooter thing with some Fallout trappings.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 17:49:16


Post by: Dreadwinter


Ohhhhh, I get where you guys are coming from now.

Doom! Dooooooom! Doooooooooooooom I say! Doom is coming! (Not the new game)


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 18:19:02


Post by: Geifer


 Dreadwinter wrote:
Ohhhhh, I get where you guys are coming from now.

Doom! Dooooooom! Doooooooooooooom I say! Doom is coming! (Not the new game)


Watching the presentation again (because why not?) it's not particularly clear how this is going to shake out. Sandwiched in between the Overseer sending you on a quest and being able to play solo and do quests is only the mentioned that the people coming out of the Vault are real people (aka the players). Later on, he says with regard to it being multiplayer that all persons and characters are real people.

Right now you can still see whatever you want to see: a fully functional solo game that needs a constant Internet connection with quests as we're used to, or a large, empty multiplayer map entirely populated by real people as far as characters you can interact with are concerned.

I don't think Voss is wrong. If you are looking for a traditional Fallout, this is not going to be it. There's hope parts of it will come close, but considering how many people already disliked Fallout 4 (for whatever reason) that may just not be close enough.

Me, I don't have enough information one way or another, so I'll just wait and see. And hope for the best, because I still want this to be good. But I can see why you would give Fallout 76 a pass even at this early stage.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 18:38:39


Post by: Paradigm


 Geifer wrote:

I don't think Voss is wrong. If you are looking for a traditional Fallout, this is not going to be it.


But the important thing to keep in mind is that it was clearly never meant to be. So you're not missing out on a single player Fallout sequel because of this, it's not a Fallout game that's had online stuff imposed on it. It's something entirely different, and I can certainly see how it won't be to some people's tastes, but complaining it's not a 'proper' Fallout game is like complaining Halo Wars wasn't an FPS (for instance. Just the first example that came to kind of a genre-switched spinoff). You're asking for it to be something it was never even intended to be, that you had no reason to expect it to be.

I'm sure there will be another main-series Fallout title in the not too distant future, maybe even before TES6 or Starfield as both of those are being pitched for next-gen consoles that don't exist at more than a R&D level yet. We might even see another dev be given a go with the license as per New Vegas.

FO76 being an experiment with an online model doesn't preclude there from being more single-player stuff down the line any more than the existence of Fallout Shelter does, or the new Elder Scrolls mobile title interferes with the development of TES6. Some will enjoy it, some won't, either is fine, but complaining it's not something it was never going to be seems pointless.

I also can't help but wonder that given how vocal parts of the Fallout community were about disliking Fallout 4 for various reasons, if Bethesda had rocked up at E3 and said 'here's Fallout 5, built on the same tech as Fallout 4*', there would have been just as much backlash. As far as some people were concerned, they were damned if they did the same thing and damned if they did something different...

I'm still torn, but the more I think about it the more I'm coming round to the idea. The lack of story content/quests is still a concern, perhaps, but then I realised that when I'm playing FO4, I routinely slack off the quests in my log to go and explore, gather supplies, kill stuff, build settlements, then only remember Shaun's missing after I've built a 4-storey homestead, cleared half a dozen dungeons or crossed half the map ticking off location markers and scrounging precious Duct Tape... This is undoubtedly more of a sandbox, but it's a sandbox built around doing the things I like doing in FO4 anyway. YMMV, obviously, but I'm slowly but surely getting a bit more excited for this.

*(as FO76 appears to be)



New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 19:30:41


Post by: Geifer


 Paradigm wrote:
 Geifer wrote:

I don't think Voss is wrong. If you are looking for a traditional Fallout, this is not going to be it.


But the important thing to keep in mind is that it was clearly never meant to be. So you're not missing out on a single player Fallout sequel because of this, it's not a Fallout game that's had online stuff imposed on it. It's something entirely different, and I can certainly see how it won't be to some people's tastes, but complaining it's not a 'proper' Fallout game is like complaining Halo Wars wasn't an FPS (for instance. Just the first example that came to kind of a genre-switched spinoff). You're asking for it to be something it was never even intended to be, that you had no reason to expect it to be.

I'm sure there will be another main-series Fallout title in the not too distant future, maybe even before TES6 or Starfield as both of those are being pitched for next-gen consoles that don't exist at more than a R&D level yet. We might even see another dev be given a go with the license as per New Vegas.

FO76 being an experiment with an online model doesn't preclude there from being more single-player stuff down the line any more than the existence of Fallout Shelter does, or the new Elder Scrolls mobile title interferes with the development of TES6. Some will enjoy it, some won't, either is fine, but complaining it's not something it was never going to be seems pointless.

I also can't help but wonder that given how vocal parts of the Fallout community were about disliking Fallout 4 for various reasons, if Bethesda had rocked up at E3 and said 'here's Fallout 5, built on the same tech as Fallout 4*', there would have been just as much backlash. As far as some people were concerned, they were damned if they did the same thing and damned if they did something different...

I'm still torn, but the more I think about it the more I'm coming round to the idea. The lack of story content/quests is still a concern, perhaps, but then I realised that when I'm playing FO4, I routinely slack off the quests in my log to go and explore, gather supplies, kill stuff, build settlements, then only remember Shaun's missing after I've built a 4-storey homestead, cleared half a dozen dungeons or crossed half the map ticking off location markers and scrounging precious Duct Tape... This is undoubtedly more of a sandbox, but it's a sandbox built around doing the things I like doing in FO4 anyway. YMMV, obviously, but I'm slowly but surely getting a bit more excited for this.

*(as FO76 appears to be)



Yes? No? Maybe? I wouldn't go so far as to say there was no reason to expect a new Fallout to be the same as an old Fallout. Me, I started playing Bethesda games with Morrowind. Then Oblivion. Then Skyrim. I didn't play Fallout 3 because I was a fan of Fallout and wanted a new game after waiting so long after Fallout 1 and 2, which I only played recently. I've come to expect certain gameplay from Bethesda's Elder Scrolls games which, to my joy, they continued in Fallout 3 (now with guns), had Obsidian continue it in New Vegas and then did the same thing again in Fallout 4. Sure, you have Elder Scrolls Online and, well, I didn't play that. And Fallout Shelter, which I really like, but it's a little promotional game in a familiar setting. All those other games? The same thing that progressively got better with every iteration (barring the jump to consoles with Oblivion). These are pretty much Bethesda's identity, and to say that the first thing you expect from Bethesda upon announcing a new game is anything but that is, I don't know, the mark of a peculiar outlook? Because most people don't do that. Bethesda has built up expectations among its fanbase over long years. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Of course there's no reason to believe that a classic Fallout 5 won't come. You'll never get rid of those two big questions, though: Did this game push back the "real" game and by how long? Again, Bethesda built a reputation on a certain style of game. If you like that kind of game, you rely on Bethesda to keep doing that and if they don't: boom, disappointment. Doesn't matter if you go and say Fallout 76 was never going to be that game. The programmers were employed, the time has passed, the resources were spent, and it could have been that game. It just turned out not to be.

Lack of story content might be a concern, that's true. We don't know yet. It seems safe to say there will be quests considering it's been spelled out explicitly. The question really is what kind of quests we can expect, and how diverse and story driven any unique ones are. They'll get the crafting and sandbox part right, I'm sure, and will no doubt have "look for this material" or "kill some Ferals" radiant quests. I'll no doubt enjoy that part of the game (if I play it), as like you I liked the sandbox part of Fallout 4. I can't help but share some concern over the RPG elements of the game, though. The whole multiplayer everyone's a real person thing needs some clarification. Because if you have quests and a story and not just pure PvP (which is fine if you like that kind of game, but Bethesda seems to want to at least throw a bone to single player people looking to do some questing), the presence of NPCs that are part of and convey the story is kind of mandatory.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 19:34:47


Post by: Voss


Except, of course, we are missing out on a single player Fallout sequel. Let's not pretend that ESO and the Elder Scrolls CCG and the upcoming Blades and the endless reinventions of Skyrim didn't put off ES6

Skyrim hit in 2011. It's 2018 and they're just teasing ES6, after 76 and after Starfield. So two more years minimum, probably 3-4, given the usual pace of the main Bethesda studio. So maybe Fallout 5 at least a year or two after that, assuming they don't decide that multiplayer survival with a fallout paint is a better financial option for the franchise (and they don't have other projects in the works, or it fails badly enough that it's a franchise killer, like ME:Andromeda).

People are absolutely going to grumble that they won't see the sequels they actually want for a decade at a time, when the industry norm is 2-3 years.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 19:45:38


Post by: Dreadwinter


When has Bethesda ever followed the industry norm when it comes to releasing games? I mean, come on. It is really foolish to expect them to do that at this point. It would be like expecting Valve to be working on Half-Life 3. If it happens, it will happen when they want it to. Not you.

So thinking Fallout 76 is robbing you of Fallout 5 is silly, at best. It is Bethesda. Come on.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 20:57:06


Post by: VictorVonTzeentch


I expect them to follow their own norm when it comes to releasing games. New games in old franchises of ever decreasing quality, then, re-releases of those same games for the next couple years until finally its time for the next game of questionable quality.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 22:26:52


Post by: Voss


 Dreadwinter wrote:
When has Bethesda ever followed the industry norm when it comes to releasing games? I mean, come on. It is really foolish to expect them to do that at this point. It would be like expecting Valve to be working on Half-Life 3. If it happens, it will happen when they want it to. Not you.

So thinking Fallout 76 is robbing you of Fallout 5 is silly, at best. It is Bethesda. Come on.


Uh.. It IS Bethesda. But as far as that norm goes: Dishonored 1, 2 and Death of the Outsider as a final churn and burn? Rehashing the rehashing of old staples like doom, quake and Wolfiestein?

for other industry norms: horse armor DLC? not!hearthstone, the elder scrolls CCG and legal bullying against another company daring to use the generic word Scrolls for their CCG? Their acquisition of several studios was borderline illegal, and hostile takeovers at best.

Bethsoft isn't some weird outlier with a prestine special snowflake rep. They're down in the mud with some of the most exploitative release cycles and tactics right alongside EA and Activision. They dodged the loot box cycle on the basis of not having a game ready to go, not because they differ from the industry norm. They basically pioneered microtransaction dlcs for single player games with that bloody horse armor. Remember when they tried to charge players for mods by other players in Skyrim and Fallout 4? It didn't last, but they still pulled that crap.

Even without all that, I still wouldn't expect a FO5 in anything less than 5 years (more likely 6-7), and 4 has been out for three already. They will try to ride this horse for a long time.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 22:52:22


Post by: Dreadwinter


I'm glad you finally understood my point in your last sentence there. But you expect in 6-7?

Lol, check out this optimist.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/11 23:24:25


Post by: djones520


Level of excitement for this on a scale of 1-10. 1.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/12 00:18:28


Post by: Orlanth


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I would be surprised at a Fallout 5 so soon, without even a new Elder Scrolls in between. Guess we'll see soon enough. I wonder if it will be an all-new engine?


Don't think of it as Fallout 5 but Fallout Online, so its a product out of the normal single player sequence.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/12 01:15:23


Post by: squidhills


If there's no mods, I don't see a point in getting it. Nobody plays vanilla Bethesda RPGs.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/12 01:30:33


Post by: Eumerin


Not the first time Bethesda has taken one of its properties and gone to new game types in an attempt to bring in money. Battlespire and Redguard were both attempts - a *very* long time ago - to do something new with the Elder Scrolls setting. Battlespire was a first person shooter, and Redguard was an action-adventure game (with sword fighting).

Obviously they didn't work out, as we never saw Battlespire 2.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/12 02:50:33


Post by: Dreadwinter


squidhills wrote:
If there's no mods, I don't see a point in getting it. Nobody plays vanilla Bethesda RPGs.


You can mod other survival games. I see no reason why this one wouldnt have that option.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/12 04:49:35


Post by: Stuebi


 Dreadwinter wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
So, basically dead on arrival. That's good to know.


Yeah, I mean Rust, Ark, and Conan are all dead games closing their servers down soon. They would all still be alive had they not left early access. Grumble grumble dang kids grumble grumble


Yes, everyone that find's this dissapointing is clearly just "Old man yelling at cloud", and totally not just sad that a franchise they really like is turning into something they know they wont like.

Ark, Rust and Conan are all games that either didnt interest me at all, or managed to keep me going for an hour, maybe two, before I threw them aside due to it not being my cup of tea. The market has a bazillion friggin MP-survival games at this point. Seriously, every second game on steam is some sort of "Survival/crafting/building" type of deal, and often a dumpsterfire to boot. Why would I be any sort of excited for this? Even if I liked the genre to death and the game turned out to be decent, it's just another piece for the rapidly growing pile. And not the kind of Fallout that I started playing the series for.

Look at it from this perspective: I've played Elder Scrolls starting from Daggerfall all the way up to Skyrim and liked all of them. Then came TESO (Which was bad) and endless rehashes of Skyrim. And Skyrim could cure cancer and dispense Pudding, and I would still appreciate it if we wouldnt have to wait a Decade before they make the type of game again that I like the series for.

Same goes for Fallout. F1 until New Vegas including the DLC was great, only F3 was a little janky in my book. Then came F4, which was mostly bad with one or two good aspects. And now they announce some weird spinoff that's mostly F4's bad aspects, with the added benefit of Players who can not enjoy the game alongside me.

This is the kind of track record where I will stop buying anything from them until they produce an actually GOOD product again, and until then shun every piece of other garbage they put out. Bethesda isn't CD Projekt Red, where I would support products that are off the usual norm because it's a good company that cares about customers. They are also not some indie-deal that might just be trying to figure out what they are good at. They're one of the biggest companies in the industry, and also blatantly trying to muscle their way into the turf of EA, Ubisoft, Acitvision and Konami, where everyone competes on whos the worst company in gaming right now.

I'd really like for Bethesda to get back on track and be the company that I used to love again. Especially because they used to be one of the few companies that still cared about making quality Singleplayer-RPG's as opposed to more Multiplayer Garbage.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/12 09:56:54


Post by: Eumerin


Stuebi wrote:
Look at it from this perspective: I've played Elder Scrolls starting from Daggerfall all the way up to Skyrim and liked all of them.


You even liked Battlespire and Redguard?

As I mentioned above, this isn't the first time that Bethesda has taken an existing franchise and made a new type of game utilizing the setting. If you don't like it, then don't play it. It's that simple. But don't carry on about it.



New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/12 10:41:35


Post by: Voss


 Dreadwinter wrote:
I'm glad you finally understood my point in your last sentence there. But you expect in 6-7?

Lol, check out this optimist.


Your point wasn't hard to understand, it just wasn't much of one. They will ride the 76 train for quite a while, leaving single player fans in the dust. Exactly as they've done to Elder Scrolls fans, who probably aren't going to be satisfied with a few seconds of a teaser for long.

And at least 6 or 7.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/12 11:51:11


Post by: squidhills


 Dreadwinter wrote:
squidhills wrote:
If there's no mods, I don't see a point in getting it. Nobody plays vanilla Bethesda RPGs.


You can mod other survival games. I see no reason why this one wouldnt have that option.


How about game balance? Since it is online, with multiplayer as a core design feature/component, I see a very good reason for not letting people mod their 10mm pistols into Fat Man-tier damage dealers. Strictly cosmetic mods won't affect game balance, but the Nexus has a lot of mods on it that exist to adjust weapon damages up or down, insert new (occasionally OP) weapons into the game, improve the defense rating of armor, and so on. I don't see Bethesda allowing those on any kind of online game with a competitive component.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/12 13:24:38


Post by: Dreadwinter


Voss wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
I'm glad you finally understood my point in your last sentence there. But you expect in 6-7?

Lol, check out this optimist.


Your point wasn't hard to understand, it just wasn't much of one. They will ride the 76 train for quite a while, leaving single player fans in the dust. Exactly as they've done to Elder Scrolls fans, who probably aren't going to be satisfied with a few seconds of a teaser for long.

And at least 6 or 7.


You realize we are making the exact same point right? Bethesda Will not release a new single player Fallout game until they are done ringing every single drop of cash out of the one they have. Then maybe they might start development. Fallout 76 does absolutely nothing to postpone another single player game.

squidhills wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
squidhills wrote:
If there's no mods, I don't see a point in getting it. Nobody plays vanilla Bethesda RPGs.


You can mod other survival games. I see no reason why this one wouldnt have that option.


How about game balance? Since it is online, with multiplayer as a core design feature/component, I see a very good reason for not letting people mod their 10mm pistols into Fat Man-tier damage dealers. Strictly cosmetic mods won't affect game balance, but the Nexus has a lot of mods on it that exist to adjust weapon damages up or down, insert new (occasionally OP) weapons into the game, improve the defense rating of armor, and so on. I don't see Bethesda allowing those on any kind of online game with a competitive component.


On dedicated servers I am sure there will be no modding. Since those would have to be applied server side. Player run servers, anything could happen. They could mod in unicorns with laser manes that shoot fat man's out their butts. Player Servers are really the only gamble with mods and even then, you usually get a warning up front about what is going on because you will need to do some downloading.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/12 14:10:03


Post by: Stuebi


Eumerin wrote:
Stuebi wrote:
Look at it from this perspective: I've played Elder Scrolls starting from Daggerfall all the way up to Skyrim and liked all of them.


You even liked Battlespire and Redguard?

As I mentioned above, this isn't the first time that Bethesda has taken an existing franchise and made a new type of game utilizing the setting. If you don't like it, then don't play it. It's that simple. But don't carry on about it.



I was relatively young when I played the two (Over a Decade ago, no less), so I might be nostalgiasurfing on that one.


As I mentioned above, this isn't the first time that Bethesda has taken an existing franchise and made a new type of game utilizing the setting. If you like it, play it. But don't carry on about it.

Or we could not deny people their opinions in a forum discussion? Just a thought.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/13 10:51:41


Post by: Voss


 Dreadwinter wrote:
Voss wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
I'm glad you finally understood my point in your last sentence there. But you expect in 6-7?

Lol, check out this optimist.


Your point wasn't hard to understand, it just wasn't much of one. They will ride the 76 train for quite a while, leaving single player fans in the dust. Exactly as they've done to Elder Scrolls fans, who probably aren't going to be satisfied with a few seconds of a teaser for long.

And at least 6 or 7.


You realize we are making the exact same point right? Bethesda Will not release a new single player Fallout game until they are done ringing every single drop of cash out of the one they have. Then maybe they might start development. Fallout 76 does absolutely nothing to postpone another single player game.
.


Uh... if you think that not starting development (of a theoretical fallout 5) until they're done milking 76 doesn't constitute 'postponing,' then... No, we aren't making the exact same point.

It seems pretty straightforward to me. Fallout fans that don't like this won't be all that happy wih waiting til 2023/2024(or later) for a fallout game that they might like. The same way ES fans weren't/aren't happy that ESO, other experiments and Skyrim ports have them kicking their heels until 2020/2021. Or later depending on the DLC cycle for 76, Starfield and its DLC cycle and then finally the focused attention of the studio on ES6.

And while I liked FO4 for what it was, it mostly wasn't an RPG. So taking its base building and shooter aspects, swirling in multiplayer and calling it a game... I can see why quite a lot of existing fallout fanbase won't buy into 76 and will absolutely want something else.

The other risk is, well, the base building interface in FO4 was pretty janky. If they don't bring it up to the level of modrrn survival games, they'll have trouble with the new audience they're chasing.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/13 19:32:24


Post by: Formosa


Voss wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
Voss wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
I'm glad you finally understood my point in your last sentence there. But you expect in 6-7?

Lol, check out this optimist.


Your point wasn't hard to understand, it just wasn't much of one. They will ride the 76 train for quite a while, leaving single player fans in the dust. Exactly as they've done to Elder Scrolls fans, who probably aren't going to be satisfied with a few seconds of a teaser for long.

And at least 6 or 7.


You realize we are making the exact same point right? Bethesda Will not release a new single player Fallout game until they are done ringing every single drop of cash out of the one they have. Then maybe they might start development. Fallout 76 does absolutely nothing to postpone another single player game.
.


Uh... if you think that not starting development (of a theoretical fallout 5) until they're done milking 76 doesn't constitute 'postponing,' then... No, we aren't making the exact same point.

It seems pretty straightforward to me. Fallout fans that don't like this won't be all that happy wih waiting til 2023/2024(or later) for a fallout game that they might like. The same way ES fans weren't/aren't happy that ESO, other experiments and Skyrim ports have them kicking their heels until 2020/2021. Or later depending on the DLC cycle for 76, Starfield and its DLC cycle and then finally the focused attention of the studio on ES6.

And while I liked FO4 for what it was, it mostly wasn't an RPG. So taking its base building and shooter aspects, swirling in multiplayer and calling it a game... I can see why quite a lot of existing fallout fanbase won't buy into 76 and will absolutely want something else.

The other risk is, well, the base building interface in FO4 was pretty janky. If they don't bring it up to the level of modrrn survival games, they'll have trouble with the new audience they're chasing.



At least we have wasteland


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/13 20:08:43


Post by: feeder


The new trailer has my interest moving from a "hard PASS" to a "I'll be keeping a disinterested eye on it". It does look like the FO I know and love.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/14 10:38:29


Post by: Ketara


I played Fallout 3, then New Vegas and enjoyed both. Tried to go back to the older ones, but it felt a little bit like trying to get through the original Neverwinter nights (aka, probably worthwhile if you have several spare weeks to master the controls and mechanics but otherwise too much bother).

I picked up 4 and had a blast. Logged about 300 hours on the game with no mods. Switched console, added mods, did it again. Saw lots of people complaining that 4 was somehow worse than the likes of New Vegas, but frankly couldn't tell a huge amount of difference. Sure, there were less prostitutes and ammunition construction (something which drew a ridiculous amount of ire for some unexplained reason), and I think the storywriting was generally a little bit worse. Much prettier, and lots of other little touches which I came to enjoy over time though. All in all, about equal.

Then came the creation club stuff, to which some of the fans were /very vocal. Given that I"ve enjoyed some of the releases (the doughnut one was fun and added some quality content), I don't have to buy the crappier stuff (Morgan's space suit, etc), and some modders are actually enjoying getting paid for their work? I don't see a problem. I know it can mess your mods up if you buy something and it conflicts with a previously installed mod, but that's the same for any dlc/expansion content. It's the risk you take when installing mods.

I played the mobile Vault game. Entertaining for a few weeks, but got boring.

Now we have a new Fallout which seems to be survival themed online. Hmmm. I'm pretty flexible/tolerant of new formats. This could potentially work I suppose, but it's always difficult to produce quality story in MMO format. You end up with five guys queuing up to complete the 'Only you can save the world' quest at the same time and it breaks immersion. On the other hand, not having those quests makes it feel pointless. LOTRO attempted to do it by having you teleport away for set scenarios, but I don't think that would work for Fallout.

I don't know. I'll keep an open mind until I see it. Bethesda has generally given me games I enjoy, so they've earned the right to a little benefit of the doubt. There'll be time enough to gnash my teeth when it comes out if its crap.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/14 11:38:25


Post by: Geifer


 Ketara wrote:
Now we have a new Fallout which seems to be survival themed online. Hmmm. I'm pretty flexible/tolerant of new formats. This could potentially work I suppose, but it's always difficult to produce quality story in MMO format. You end up with five guys queuing up to complete the 'Only you can save the world' quest at the same time and it breaks immersion. On the other hand, not having those quests makes it feel pointless. LOTRO attempted to do it by having you teleport away for set scenarios, but I don't think that would work for Fallout.


I think that may be thematically easier given the premise of Fallout 76. You'll probably run into a lot more trouble with every player being from Vault 76, drunk and oversleeping reclamation day, with no outsider, ghoul, wastelander, raider or whatever to be seen, but that's at least something you may forget as you play and the start of the game becomes a distant memory. Seems the end game will be clearing the world of critters, which everyone can do, scavenging materials to build a settlement, which everyone can do, and terraforming West Virginia with nukes. Which everyone may be able to do given the limit of players per server is said to be in the dozens, and getting the access codes is said to be hard.

I have no experience with survival games or most online games for that matter, so I have no real grasp on the subject matter yet. I have a good feeling about this game, though, as long as the repeated remarks that griefing (a term which I hadn't encountered before - yeah, a single player life makes things so much easier ) is supposed to be kept to a minimum are true.

I think if one likes Fallout 4, Fallout 76 shouldn't be too bad as far as immersion goes. Fallout 4 has a lot of respawning and radiant quests that don't always make a lot of sense but that, if you like that kind of stuff, can extend your game meaningfully for a long time. For me it does so mostly in conjunction with quests and other features by providing filler that doesn't feel like filler. If Fallout 76 provides a goal worth working towards, I'll happily procrastinate the hell out of it and do all the filler stuff instead. I think that with regard to immersion that should be easier to justify than Fallout 4, since there's no kidnapped kid's life at stake. Just you rebuilding the world. Shouldn't feel like you'll be pressed for time even if you hardcore role play it.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/14 19:50:28


Post by: Yodhrin


 Ketara wrote:
I played Fallout 3, then New Vegas and enjoyed both. Tried to go back to the older ones, but it felt a little bit like trying to get through the original Neverwinter nights (aka, probably worthwhile if you have several spare weeks to master the controls and mechanics but otherwise too much bother).

I picked up 4 and had a blast. Logged about 300 hours on the game with no mods. Switched console, added mods, did it again. Saw lots of people complaining that 4 was somehow worse than the likes of New Vegas, but frankly couldn't tell a huge amount of difference. Sure, there were less prostitutes and ammunition construction (something which drew a ridiculous amount of ire for some unexplained reason), and I think the storywriting was generally a little bit worse. Much prettier, and lots of other little touches which I came to enjoy over time though. All in all, about equal.


I mean, everyone's free to prefer what they like, but your characterisation of the differences between the two is pretty far off the mark. Fallout 4 is categorically a lesser RPG than New Vegas, by any measure - character customisation, dialogue options, just options for how you approach quests generally especially the main one, in every way Fallout 4 is a narrower experience with fewer opportunities to roleplay and define yourself in the game world. The plot of the main story itself is also pretty pedestrian by comparison, which is surely an odd thing to say about a game as ludicrous and gonzo as Fallout 4, but it's true, the game falling into the "Developer Dads" trap that a lot of games are these days.

It does the power armour better than the previous two games, I don't actually have a problem with the inclusion of the settlement mechanic(though it's implementation is often half-arsed and it doesn't tie nearly closesly enough into the game's factions and "plot", such as it is, to really elevate the game), and the actual moment-to-moment gunplay is certainly the best of the three, but those three things come at the cost of all the mechanics and focus on storytelling that made the previous games and NV especially reasonably worthy successors to the original two games despite the radical format change. Most fans did not buy Fallout 4 wanting an OK but pretty empty-feeling open-world FPS game, they wanted a roleplaying game, and F4 failed to deliver relative to prior games in the franchise.

Then came the creation club stuff, to which some of the fans were /very vocal. Given that I"ve enjoyed some of the releases (the doughnut one was fun and added some quality content), I don't have to buy the crappier stuff (Morgan's space suit, etc), and some modders are actually enjoying getting paid for their work? I don't see a problem. I know it can mess your mods up if you buy something and it conflicts with a previously installed mod, but that's the same for any dlc/expansion content. It's the risk you take when installing mods.


And again, you skate right over the actual complaints and pick a minor one you can easily dismiss. Modding is a community thing and it has a certain ethos to it in the same way that Open Source does, people object to paid mods first and foremost because it fatally undermines that ethos and makes modding a mercenary, money-focused affair. Modders already had a way to get paid for their work - get hired by the developer, as many, many modders had in the past. They also object because it takes control of modding out of the hands of the community and puts it into Bethesda's - lets be real here, "just" offering paid mods alongside traditional mods was never going to be the end of it, because they would have no way to prevent traditional modders from making versions of all the paid mods for free; if they'd been allowed to get paid mods going the way they wanted, the eventual result would have been modding being tied into their distribution platform, and modding tools only available to people publishing on that platform, ie the end of free mods. People also objected because if you pay for something, if you purchase a product as opposed to downloading what is basically a work of fanart, then you become a consumer and you should have consumer rights, ie the product being sold should be fit for purpose and functional, and you should be entitled to support and have a right to a refund if it isn't, and none of that was on the cards - they fully intended to let people offer mods for sale without any obligation to offer support and without any vector for users to reclaim their money. As well as all that, despite the claimed incentive to create great content that paid mods would supposedly provide, the first attempt largely generated a mix of low-effort reskins and even outright theft, with a good portion of the mods that went up for sale just being free mods that had been downloaded off the Nexus.

And all of that is why fans(including most modders, remember) were "vocal" about Creation Club - Bethesda already showed their hand with their first attempt at paid mods on Steam, and nobody believes them when they say CC will be different, in the long term. Any more than people believe that EA's very public and tortured apologies and rollbacks over gambleboxes and pay-to-win multiplayer after the Battlefront 2 fiasco is actually a genuine and lasting change of attitude, or that the patents filed by Activision for multiplayer matchmaking systems designed primarily to encourage microtransaction sales are really "just theoretical" and "not actually in use or planned to be in use".

I played the mobile Vault game. Entertaining for a few weeks, but got boring.

Now we have a new Fallout which seems to be survival themed online. Hmmm. I'm pretty flexible/tolerant of new formats. This could potentially work I suppose, but it's always difficult to produce quality story in MMO format. You end up with five guys queuing up to complete the 'Only you can save the world' quest at the same time and it breaks immersion. On the other hand, not having those quests makes it feel pointless. LOTRO attempted to do it by having you teleport away for set scenarios, but I don't think that would work for Fallout.

I don't know. I'll keep an open mind until I see it. Bethesda has generally given me games I enjoy, so they've earned the right to a little benefit of the doubt. There'll be time enough to gnash my teeth when it comes out if its crap.


I mean, wait and see is a fine approach if you think there might be something there for you to enjoy, but there's already plenty enough information out there for some of us to know the game holds no appeal. Online only and more importantly a world with no other non-player human NPCs or factions designed to be played with others, meaning even if they do allow you to to play completely alone the game will be threadbare in comparison to a proper RPG, probably even in comparison to Fallout 4. What quests there are will be available only from robots, audiologs, and notes. If you do play solo, the building aspect won't even be as satisfying as the undercooked Fallout 4 implementation, since there won't be any NPCs to inhabit and use your creations. And of course, no mods at launch.

And hey, whatever, if some people would enjoy Rust reskinned with a vaguely Fallout theme and none of the things that actually make a Fallout game what it is, that'd be great for them, the issue is the opportunity cost for the rest of us. This game being made means we won't get whatever the Fallout 4-based version of New Vegas could have been. It means resources will be spent on this that won't be spent on Fallout 5 and TES 6. And it means that if this game finds a big audience and makes Bethesda tons of money, future Fallout games will look even less like RPGs than Fallout 4 did.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/14 22:16:02


Post by: Ketara


 Yodhrin wrote:

I mean, everyone's free to prefer what they like, but your characterisation of the differences between the two is pretty far off the mark. Fallout 4 is categorically a lesser RPG than New Vegas, by any measure- character customisation, dialogue options, just options for how you approach quests generally especially the main one, in every way Fallout 4 is a narrower experience with fewer opportunities to roleplay and define yourself in the game world.

Errr.....Mate, did we play the same game? New Vegas basically had about the same level of hairstyles, half a dozen fetch quests, a dozen odd 'go and talk to people and follow the story quests', and a crapton of 'Go to point A and kill stuff' quests'. Like most first person RPG's, including Fallout 4. You get the odd more interesting one here and there (going through the faux-aristocrats on the strip, etc), but then again, you get that in 4 too (for example, Nick's companion quest series,etc).

I think New Vegas had a more interesting storyline generally, but only by a hair. Until you get to Mr House, it's boring as crap. Vegas also had much better/more interesting Vault stories, but then again, 4 has it's own stuff. Vanilla survival mode was way better for example. Both had a similar number of endings. etcvetc

Seriously, you could cut the difference with a cheese knife in terms of true RPG elements. In terms of being able to control the story, neither has a patch on something like Mass Effect.
Most fans did not buy Fallout 4 wanting an OK but pretty empty-feeling open-world FPS game, they wanted a roleplaying game, and F4 failed to deliver relative to prior games in the franchise.

I remember 3 as being virtually empty beyond the main storyline. You got a handful of amusing odds and sods in the corners (tree guy, Republic of Dave, Violin Lady, Nuka-Cola Girl, etc), but they were sparse and far between. I finished poking around every corner of 3 and was frankly let down by the lack of content for the size of the world. The storyline meanwhile, was 'Girl finds dad', instead of 'Dad finds son'. Which is literally apples and oranges.

New Vegas was a bit better, but only about on par with 4 in terms of content for space. I felt it was slightly better written than 4, but again, this is a matter of a hair margin. It's not literature, it's just a few more lines written here, and a slightly more entertaining short story twist there. If I want story as my main priority, I wouldn't touch any of them. Even in terms of atmosphere, they all lose out to something like Bioshock in the FPS RPG category.

And again, you skate right over the actual complaints and pick a minor one you can easily dismiss.

The actual complaints were a load of self-entitled baloney. I mean, seriously.
Modding is a community thing and it has a certain ethos to it in the same way that Open Source does, people object to paid mods first and foremost because it fatally undermines that ethos and makes modding a mercenary, money-focused affair.

This is a terrible argument against Creation Club. It's like saying publishers should stop writing books because some people write for pleasure, or artists shouldn't be hired because some people draw for pleasure. Just because a community chooses to do something in their spare time doesn't make those fields of artistic leisure pursuits 'mercenary money focused affairs' when remunerated any more than...well, any other one of tens of thousands of similar examples. You paint models for fun, right? That doesn't mean 'Eavy Metal are somehow demeaning and making your endeavours 'mercenary, money focused affairs'.

I mean, really, what kind of argument is that?
Modders already had a way to get paid for their work - get hired by the developer, as many, many modders had in the past.They also object because it takes control of modding out of the hands of the community and puts it into Bethesda's

Isn't this counter-intuitive? Hiring the modders and making them only do what Bethesda wants is good, but creation club is bad because 'it takes control of modding away from the community'?
- lets be real here, "just" offering paid mods alongside traditional mods was never going to be the end of it, because they would have no way to prevent traditional modders from making versions of all the paid mods for free; if they'd been allowed to get paid mods going the way they wanted, the eventual result would have been modding being tied into their distribution platform, and modding tools only available to people publishing on that platform, ie the end of free mods.

Citation needed. Waving your hands and going, 'They'll take our mods away from us, maaaan' when they never said anything of the sort is just tinfoiling. Furthermore, it's physically impossible to stop modding (people can code and upload it to the web regardless of what Bethesda wants).

Heck, given that both have co-existed very nicely for some time now with no attempt by Bethesda to shut down Nexus or the like, I'd say the proof is literally in the pudding right now.
People also objected because if you pay for something, if you purchase a product as opposed to downloading what is basically a work of fanart, then you become a consumer and you should have consumer rights, ie the product being sold should be fit for purpose and functional, and you should be entitled to support and have a right to a refund if it isn't, and none of that was on the cards - they fully intended to let people offer mods for sale without any obligation to offer support and without any vector for users to reclaim their money. As well as all that, despite the claimed incentive to create great content that paid mods would supposedly provide, the first attempt largely generated a mix of low-effort reskins and even outright theft, with a good portion of the mods that went up for sale just being free mods that had been downloaded off the Nexus.

1. You are a consumer for Creation Club Content and have the appropriate rights for licensing digital content, No different to Steam or anything else.
2. All Creation Club Content is fully compatible with other CC content, the game, and official DLC.
3. All CC Content is coded from scratch. The Hellfire armour, for example, is not the one on Nexus. Anything else would open Bethesda up to legal action, and they're not that dumb. Plus, it's not like it took them much time to model a 'low-effort' reskin, as you put it.
And all of that is why fans(including most modders, remember) were "vocal" about Creation Club - Bethesda already showed their hand with their first attempt at paid mods on Steam, and nobody believes them when they say CC will be different, in the long term.

That's weird. I've read stuff from a number of modders saying they're very happy to finally be making some money out of it. Do you have a statistical survey or something to support this assertion that 'fans' and 'most modders' were against it? Because I remember a handful of very vocal blowhards going on and length, and most people not caring. Primarily on account of the fact that we're all aware that we can buy it if we want, or ignore it if we don't.

I mean, wait and see is fine approach if you think there might be something there for you to enjoy, but there's already plenty enough information out there for some of us to know the game holds no appeal.

To you, perhaps. I couldn't possibly say. I'll wait to find out before jumping to my keyboard to slate it.
And hey, whatever, if some people would enjoy Rust reskinned with a vaguely Fallout theme and none of the things that actually make a Fallout game what it is, that'd be great for them, the issue is the opportunity cost for the rest of us. This game being made means we won't get whatever the Fallout 4-based version of New Vegas could have been. It means resources will be spent on this that won't be spent on Fallout 5 and TES 6. And it means that if this game finds a big audience and makes Bethesda tons of money, future Fallout games will look even less like RPGs than Fallout 4 did.

And the resources being spent on your game could be spent on feeding starving children in Africa. Or making a Duke Nukem that was actually good. Or lots of things. If I got annoyed every time Sandy Mitchell decided to spend his time doing something other than writing me a new Ciaphas Cain book though, I'd never get anything done.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/15 01:47:24


Post by: Yodhrin


OK, so we're into disingenuous nonsense and not actually reading what was said territory now.

 Ketara wrote:
 Yodhrin wrote:

I mean, everyone's free to prefer what they like, but your characterisation of the differences between the two is pretty far off the mark. Fallout 4 is categorically a lesser RPG than New Vegas, by any measure- character customisation, dialogue options, just options for how you approach quests generally especially the main one, in every way Fallout 4 is a narrower experience with fewer opportunities to roleplay and define yourself in the game world.

Errr.....Mate, did we play the same game?
...
Seriously, you could cut the difference with a cheese knife in terms of true RPG elements.

New Vegas was a bit better, but only about on par with 4 in terms of content for space. I felt it was slightly better written than 4, but again, this is a matter of a hair margin. It's not literature, it's just a few more lines written here, and a slightly more entertaining short story twist there. If I want story as my main priority, I wouldn't touch any of them. Even in terms of atmosphere, they all lose out to something like Bioshock in the FPS RPG category.


Evidently we didn't, and I've no idea what games it was you were playing because this is complete alternate-reality stuff. Bioshock is barely an RPG at all, it's just an FPS with a good story. Fallout 4 barely allows you to define your character, heavily limits your options in resolving quests, and has substantially inferior quality of writing to FNV for everything from supporting characters to minor sidequests. It also doesn't Flanderise the retro element of the Fallout aesthetic to the same degree as F4.

I remember 3 as being virtually empty beyond the main storyline. You got a handful of amusing odds and sods in the corners (tree guy, Republic of Dave, Violin Lady, Nuka-Cola Girl, etc), but they were sparse and far between. I finished poking around every corner of 3 and was frankly let down by the lack of content for the size of the world. The storyline meanwhile, was 'Girl finds dad', instead of 'Dad finds son'. Which is literally apples and oranges.


TBH I played it once and blanked it, so it obviously wasn't very good relative to F1, 2, and NV, but my dislike of F4's mediocrity is active, so F3 can't have been as bad.



The actual complaints were a load of self-entitled baloney. I mean, seriously.


Ah yes, "entitlement", the battlecry of people who can't actually respond to an argument.

Regardless, everything else you trundle through has the same slight flaw - you didn't bother to read what I wrote and so you're arguing against a phantom you conjured yourself. All of the things you're dismissing as "that's not an argument against Creation Club" aren't actually arguments against Creation Club, they're the reasons people were against Bethesda's first attempt at paid mods, and that attempt is why people are wary of Creation Club, because Bethesda's initial attempt burned away any goodwill and benefit of the doubt.


And all of that is why fans(including most modders, remember) were "vocal" about Creation Club - Bethesda already showed their hand with their first attempt at paid mods on Steam, and nobody believes them when they say CC will be different, in the long term.

That's weird. I've read stuff from a number of modders saying they're very happy to finally be making some money out of it. Do you have a statistical survey or something to support this assertion that 'fans' and 'most modders' were against it? Because I remember a handful of very vocal blowhards going on and length, and most people not caring. Primarily on account of the fact that we're all aware that we can buy it if we want, or ignore it if we don't.


Do you have a statistical survey to support your position? Of course not, but since your anecdote is "a number"(ie, a small handful) of modders, and my anecdote is "a backlash big enough for Bethesda to drop their first attempt and go completely back to the drawing board and a substantial number of modders refusing to ever upload their material to Steam again", I'm entirely comfortable in my assertion. This last bit is actually almost charmingly naive, but some of us have actually been paying attention to how game publishers behave when given an inch.


I mean, wait and see is fine approach if you think there might be something there for you to enjoy, but there's already plenty enough information out there for some of us to know the game holds no appeal.

To you, perhaps. I couldn't possibly say. I'll wait to find out before jumping to my keyboard to slate it.


I mean, if you don't like JRPGs, and a developer announces "hey, check out our new JRPG, it's the JRPG'iest JRPG ever", are you seriously going to pretend you would wait to find out the minutiae of exactly how it's the JRPG'iest JRPG ever before discounting it? Bollocks. I don't care for Rust-alikes, F76 is a Rusk-alike, so I won't care for F76 - that doesn't make me or anyone with similar feelings closed minded, just capable of grasping basic information.

And hey, whatever, if some people would enjoy Rust reskinned with a vaguely Fallout theme and none of the things that actually make a Fallout game what it is, that'd be great for them, the issue is the opportunity cost for the rest of us. This game being made means we won't get whatever the Fallout 4-based version of New Vegas could have been. It means resources will be spent on this that won't be spent on Fallout 5 and TES 6. And it means that if this game finds a big audience and makes Bethesda tons of money, future Fallout games will look even less like RPGs than Fallout 4 did.

And the resources being spent on your game could be spent on feeding starving children in Africa. Or making a Duke Nukem that was actually good. Or lots of things. If I got annoyed every time Sandy Mitchell decided to spend his time doing something other than writing me a new Ciaphas Cain book though, I'd never get anything done.


And this is just garbage. I mean, you must know it's garbage, right? Which means it's also trolling, odd behaviour for a mod.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/15 08:26:00


Post by: Lone Cat


 feeder wrote:
Bethesda with a new teaser tweet

New Fallout?

F3 remaster?

Switch port?

Skyrim for the pip-boy?


It's an MMO, called Fallout76 , set in West Virginia woodlands (!) and sets 25 years AFTER the Great War / Reckoning.

I don't understand why Beth prefers to focus each Fallout Games in JUST ONE city (and a handful of complexes/settlements around it) rather than a free-roaming like the Black Isle era? yet the FPS combat still suits me better.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/15 09:37:15


Post by: Ketara


 Yodhrin wrote:
OK, so we're into disingenuous nonsense and not actually reading what was said territory now..... Bioshock is barely an RPG at all, it's just an FPS with a good story.

.....Errr.....you made a comment about me not reading what you're writing. And then straight off the bat, made it clear that that is precisely what you're doing. Not the most....encouraging thing, I'll say that.

Scroll back and re-read. If you go back and actually look at the sentence, you'll see that I said Bioshock won out in terms of 'atmosphere'. That is to say, the feel of a game, the general setting, the way in which it builds a sense of emotional connection and immersion. Not RPG elements.

Fallout 4 barely allows you to define your character, heavily limits your options in resolving quests, and has substantially inferior quality of writing to FNV for everything from supporting characters to minor sidequests. It also doesn't Flanderise the retro element of the Fallout aesthetic to the same degree as F4.

Sorry, can you tell me what you mean by 'define your character' here? Because both have the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. thing, 4 has more character design elements, and as said, there was about the same number of Fetch/Kill/Follow quests.

4 also had more detailed back stories for most of the companions. Let's look at them one by one to take that claim to pieces.

Gannon and Veronica were the only two in New Vegas with anything approaching rounded out character status; with the caravan woman being blander than Dogmeat, and the Ghoul companion even more so (I literally can't even remember his name he was that 'unfleshed' out - pun intended). And unless you followed a specific series of steps, you didn't even get Gannon's backstory. Granny was interesting from a character design POV, but had little story or character beyond 'look at the demented Super mutant'. Boone was surprisingly annoying for a character that had about five lines of backstory. ED-E was cute, but not exactly a character given there were like six of them made.

So we've got Veronica and Gannon, as compared to Nick Valentine (very heavily fleshed out, possibly the best written character in Fallout so far), Piper (somewhat annoying but reasonably well rounded as character both from design and story), Paladin Danse (same again), Hancock (great character design, as well fleshed out as Piper - pun intended again) Cait and Macready (not a huge amount of story, but something to get your teeth into), and Preston Garvey (go away Garvey). Not to mention the two robots, who are both quite endearing in their own way if not much as characters. Strong is the only one I that's half as boring as most of the NV ones.

All of the FO4 characters have scripted lines for areas throughout the game, full-on conversations, quantitatively waaaaay more in the way of supporting character development quests, interaction with NPC's, and more. As compared to maybe three short conversations each with Gannon and Veronica and their respective side quests, and ED-E's involvement in the NV DLC.

Both quantitatively and qualitatively, in terms of design, writing, and gameplay elements, FO4 is far superior with regards to companions. The more I'm actually considering the merits/demerits, the more apparent it actually becomes. If you're perceiving 'superior writing' there, then you're clearly not playing the same game as me and we might as well pack it in.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Ah yes, "entitlement", the battlecry of people who can't actually respond to an argument.

No. the word being applied to people, 'believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.' The actual, literal textbook definition. Because most of the arguments present are, to some degree or another, entitled. In the very literal sense of the word.

Regardless, everything else you trundle through has the same slight flaw - you didn't bother to read what I wrote and so you're arguing against a phantom you conjured yourself. All of the things you're dismissing as "that's not an argument against Creation Club" aren't actually arguments against Creation Club, they're the reasons people were against Bethesda's first attempt at paid mods, and that attempt is why people are wary of Creation Club, because Bethesda's initial attempt burned away any goodwill and benefit of the doubt.


I am not sure that arguing people were only tinfoiling against things that might happen, and then did not happen, is quite the strong position you think it is.

Do you have a statistical survey to support your position? Of course not, but since your anecdote is "a number"(ie, a small handful) of modders, and my anecdote is "a backlash big enough for Bethesda to drop their first attempt and go completely back to the drawing board and a substantial number of modders refusing to ever upload their material to Steam again", I'm entirely comfortable in my assertion. This last bit is actually almost charmingly naive, but some of us have actually been paying attention to how game publishers behave when given an inch.

I'm quite happy with my impression remaining anecdotal. I don't care enough either way. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but if you want to tell me my impression was wrong, you'll need more than your own.

Either way, you're implying here that CC was going to be something other than it currently is, that it was going to have these many undesirable aspects that were dropped.It is possible I missed something. Could you link me (to take a random one of your claims so far) to the Bethesda notice that they were planning on shutting down free mods, or conceding that they were dropping their plans to get rid of them because of gamer backlash? I'm quite happy to be proven wrong here, a press release will do.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Yodhrin wrote:

And this is just garbage. I mean, you must know it's garbage, right? Which means it's also trolling, odd behaviour for a mod.

The fact that someone can recount what is effectively your reasoning/logic back at you and you perceive it as trolling may indicate that the argument is not that great.

The point is that being a little disappointed regarding how someone allocates their resources to one thing instead of another is fine, but getting upset is entitled behaviour. Why?

Because in this specific case, it's a luxury item. There are plenty of games out there. As indeed, there are plenty of 40K books out there. I might get sad Sandy Mitchell doesn't want to to write anymore, but actively hating on/begrudging whatever his other latest literary/creative endeavour is on account of that would be extreme. Sometimes people decide to create different things. Game studios are no different. I have no claim on Sandy's time or his future output, and to start talking crap about him and his upcoming work in a negative manner because I'm disappointed I'm not getting more Cain books would be entitled behaviour. Seriously. I would very literally be acting as if my wants were something to be respected and adhered to above what he, or other people might want.

I'm not using the word entitled here as an insult curveball, I'm using it as a basic adjective. If that's not what you're doing, and you're just wistfully mentioning you'd have liked more classic Fallout instead, then that's fine and perhaps I misread things. You're coming off as the other to me right now though, whether you mean to or not.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/15 12:16:01


Post by: vonjankmon


I have to say Ketara, while your opinion is totally valid about what Fallout games you preferred over others, I have to say that you are in the *vast* minority in liking FO4 over either FO3 or FNV.

I am a bit myself also as I prefer FO3 to FNV but I am with Yodhrim on my active dislike of FO4. Any decision you made in FO4 didn't matter, at all until literally the *very* end of the game. It removed even more RPG elements than FO3 and FNV did and I dare anyone to actually provide a coherent reason for the institute replacing people with synths or what the hell their long term goal was. They are literally the underpants gnomes of the Fallout universe.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/15 12:17:41


Post by: Geifer


Just watched a fun documentary on Fallout 76 that has some gameplay information (skip to 18 minutes if you want just that):




 Lone Cat wrote:
I don't understand why Beth prefers to focus each Fallout Games in JUST ONE city (and a handful of complexes/settlements around it) rather than a free-roaming like the Black Isle era? yet the FPS combat still suits me better.


I think you'll have a hard time combining what seems to be the most popular thing these days, an ongoing and cohesive world, with the large maps with points of interest like you had twenty years ago in Fallout and Baldur's Gate. They actually insert some of the latter into their games with DLCs. Far Harbor is quite a distance from Boston, Nuka World is just across the mountains. Fallout 3 had the Pitt and Point Lookout. Skyrim had Solstheim. All of these are maps in their own right outside the main map, with a means of traveling from one map to the other like in the old Fallouts (without red lines and Indiana Jones music, though).

But these go against the feel of the game where you get a cohesive world. You climb up on the roof of Red Rocket and see Mass Fusion tower in the distance, and you can actually walk there. In Fallout you would have exited the local map, got your world map out and traveled from, say, Vault 13 to Junktown, get there and open that local map. That's an entirely different experience. The closest to that that you get in modern Bethesda games is fast travel, which strikes me more as a convenience than a deliberate callback to the old mechanic.

The limit is that the cohesive world they apparently want (which I approve of, by the way) is limited is size because of the limits of development. They can only make such a big landscape, so many different textures, quests, landmarks, etc. before the game gets too expensive and unwieldy. If they want all parts to smoothly blend into each other, it's necessarily limited in size.

I can only speculate why they prefer this, but I can tell you why I prefer it. There's just something about remaining in the same view mode, especially if it's first person, that immerses you in the game. You don't get taken out by gamey elements. I found Fallout 1 pretty disjointed in that regard. You have to make it to the edge of the map, then you're safe. Then you get your world map and you can click anywhere, but you only have the big landmarks that do anything. There's no mountain cabin halfway between here and there that might be fin to explore. There's no Raider camp that you need to walk around if you don't want to get into a fight. There are random encounters, with exactly one map per terrain type with you always starting in the middle and getting ambushed by whatever you encounter. No way to sneak up on them instead. Simply put, interaction is severely limited. Modern Bethesda games are a lot more immersive and better games for it, if you ask me. If the price for that is a somewhat smallish map, I'll happily take it.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/15 12:53:53


Post by: Ketara


 vonjankmon wrote:
I have to say Ketara, while your opinion is totally valid about what Fallout games you preferred over others, I have to say that you are in the *vast* minority in liking FO4 over either FO3 or FNV.

I am a bit myself also as I prefer FO3 to FNV but I am with Yodhrim on my active dislike of FO4. Any decision you made in FO4 didn't matter, at all until literally the *very* end of the game. It removed even more RPG elements than FO3 and FNV did and I dare anyone to actually provide a coherent reason for the institute replacing people with synths or what the hell their long term goal was. They are literally the underpants gnomes of the Fallout universe.


NV and 4 both had pretty poor storylines. Number 3's main storyline was probably the best.

The thing here is that I don't actually like 4 /more than I did NV or 3. All were enjoyable games. But all had pros and flaws. Three had the best storyline but fell flat on most other things. NV had a worse storyline than three, but was much better as an all rounder. Four had a fraction of a hair worse writing than NV, but made up for it with additional content and better developed characters. Four had much better mechanics generally (from survival mode to the combat) but New Vegas had a much grittier atmosphere that I enjoyed. Four had terrible Vault backstories (seriously I want twisted stuff, that's the point) compared to three and New Vegas.

It's give with one hand and take with the other. I'd probably give three a 3.5/5 and the other two a 4/5 if pressed to grade. If I want to do serious roleplaying or feel really immersed though, I'm better off looking elsewhere altogether. Trying to yeah-uh and nuh-uh that one is better than the other on that basis is like trying to ascertain which of two kinds of home brand cheddar is the stronger cheese. Utterly pointless. If you want a strong cheese, you go and buy a strong cheese, rather than dickering about with cheddar, criticising and trying to argue over that fractional difference.

But I'm fine with Fallout being the way it is, because it gives me that nice open world feeling. I do like the background, even if aspects of it are as deeply thought out as a ham sandwich. If the new game is a bit different, I'm cool with that so long as it's half decent. If it's not, I'll buy something else that scratches my gaming itch (be it for FPS, roleplaying, or whatever at the time). We live in a Mecca of different and interesting games these days. I've a 'to play' list of games longer than my arm. I'm currently wringing pleasure out of Total War 2, but once I'm done with that, I've the new Dishonoured games, the new Wolfensteins, Shadow of Mordor, etcetc. That's on top of some classics like Devil May Cry and Mech Commander I want to go back to.

So if the next Fallout ends up being a bit naff (see ME:Andromeda), I'll shrug and move onto something else. Video games are not serious business, and there's plenty of other fish in the sea.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/15 13:03:11


Post by: Voss


 vonjankmon wrote:
I have to say Ketara, while your opinion is totally valid about what Fallout games you preferred over others, I have to say that you are in the *vast* minority in liking FO4 over either FO3 or FNV.

I am a bit myself also as I prefer FO3 to FNV but I am with Yodhrim on my active dislike of FO4. Any decision you made in FO4 didn't matter, at all until literally the *very* end of the game. It removed even more RPG elements than FO3 and FNV did and I dare anyone to actually provide a coherent reason for the institute replacing people with synths or what the hell their long term goal was. They are literally the underpants gnomes of the Fallout universe.


That's pretty fair. I expected them to do something with the institute scientist who didn't like synths, but if you take over, your only option is to continue as is. There isn't any followup, and the dlc just doesn't deal with the main story.

That said, I don't think NV is any better. (And Lonesome Road makes any character building utterly problematic). You the courier go for revenge and optionally get neck deep in stupid (or stop playing). Go for the pointless empty boss fight or side with rapists and slavers.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/15 13:31:37


Post by: Geifer


 vonjankmon wrote:
...I dare anyone to actually provide a coherent reason for the institute replacing people with synths or what the hell their long term goal was.


Aside from being overt comic book villains in some respects, the game actually provides you with a logical framework for why synths are thought to be a good idea. It's mostly just hinted at and you need to ask the right questions and look in the right places, but I think the Institute is actually pretty well written in that regard.

The Institute as a society is focused on scientific pursuits in the "hard" sciences. In the dire events of a nuclear war and its aftermath, that's a pretty sound survival strategy, but as a byproduct social science is neglected and it leaves them largely "ethically challenged". The most notable place to pick this up is when two Bioscience (the division responsible for physicians) guys discuss ethics and humanity and agree that these are topics best left to their colleagues in Robotics. Meaning that if there are dedicated psychologists in the Institute, their work is closer to engineering than figuring out what's going on with the actual people in the Institute. This the foundation for everything that goes wrong inside the Institute and the spillover that affects the Commonwealth.

Facilities Division is constantly struggling for space and (electrical) power. Excavation is a slow process and somewhat dangerous. Power is very limited. Space for growing food is limited As an enclosed environment, the Institute only has so much room for its human population. That makes synths a logical choice to overcome some of the problems the Institute faces. Synths are ideally low maintenance, don't take up much room (ie they don't compete for living space), can act as an absolutely loyal guard force (which is convenient because smart people tend to get funny ideas at times and think they know better than the Directorate) and workforce, and can undertake excavation and surface operations without risk of injury or death to the small human population of the Institute.

Gen 1s and 2s are noted to be flawed in their pathfinding (and thus presumably independent problem solving) skill, and there may be power limits and a need to recharge often that limits them for extended operations. While Gen3s are not particularly well explained (they seem to be able to extract power from food like humans, which is part of why they can blend into society, but don't require sleep, so it begs the question if different power sources can keep them going as well) they are supposed to be physically and mentally superior to humans, which makes them automatically superior to earlier generations. They're more expensive to make, but better and more reliable. Most importantly, as far as Institute doctrine is concerned, they are still tools. If one breaks (not dies), you repair it or just make a new one. They can be sent out to do the same dangerous jobs as earlier generations without risk to the human population of the Institute.

Importantly, while the Directorate and SRB acknowledge one more useful function of Gen 3 Synths, they are decidedly not replacing the population with Synths as is the common fear among wastelanders. Just key individuals that act as spies or agents that further the Institute's limited ambitions on the surface. The ones that are actually undermine human society are the Railroad. To the Institute, Synths are simple tools and nothing is gained by a large scale replacement of people on the surface. In fact, a part of Synth retention is not just to get the Institute's property back, but also to limit the harm free Synths when living unchecked among wastelanders.

It is made very clear that doctrinal view in the Institute is that Synths are tools and their mental makeup approaches, but is not equal to, free will. They can and should be controlled. Their minds can be wiped and altered to allow the Institute to correct mindsets that are not in line with the Synths appointed duty.

The long term goal of the Institute as far as Synths are concerned is no different than their long term goal for toasters. They are a convenient slave force that comes with none of the ethical challenges because they are in every sense machines created by Institute scientists to complement that underground habitat that serves as the living space for the Institute's human population. Just another cog in the machine that keeps the self-appointed future of mankind able to work on their scientific projects and living comfortably and safely.

That's really all there is to the Institute in Fallout 4. They don't actually have the typical megalomaniac plans for taking over the world as is implied if you listen to their enemies: In spite of their slogan "Mankind Redefined", by Father's admission they give up on the surface world (at least for the immediate future) to hide away in their little underground paradise.

They are, of course, dangerous to mankind as propagated by the Brotherhod of Steel, for stalwartly refusing to acknowledge the problem of giving robots free will. Whether it's actual free will or not, the result is the same. What they do acknowledge and act upon is that Synths need oversight and can't be let off the leash. The big premise worked into the Institute's background is the same that gave us several Jurassic Park movies: scientists who believe that they can control their works under any and all circumstances and that nothing could go wrong. Technically, which is to say as long as nothing goes wrong, the Institute's plan is sound. But if it does go wrong, it'll go wrong in the most spectacular way.

And that's not what goes wrong as far as Fallout 4's time frame is concerned. Instead, some Institute kid thinks he can help the poor enslaved Synths (he's young and idealistic) and that he's going to show the old farts running the show what a genius he is by circumventing their security protocols and setting free Synths. You know, because he can and because he's cleverer than them, not because he means any harm or actually believes in Synth freedom if it comes at the expense of the Institute's welfare. The real problem is the terrorist group waiting on the surface (you know, the Railroad) that willfully infiltrates Synths into human society and thinks it's doing the world a favor, which ultimately leads to an extremist military state (aka the Brotherhood of Steel) fixing its gaze on the Commonwealth and trying to impress its vision of the future on the Commonwealth and ts people.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/15 13:43:10


Post by: Ketara


Yeah, I'd be more cool with the Institute if it weren't for the very heavily unanswered question of what they do with all the people they're having synths replace.

Except we do sort of know, because there's a randomly generated scene of a guy being attacked by a synth that's there to replace him. Meaning that the Institute quite happily programs and orders synths to kill people in order to impersonate them.

Mass murder for minor spying/influence gains (some of these people are literally wasteland traders) is a severely ethically questionable activitiy, and one that the game never really addressed. It's one thing to be cool with controlling the synths, another to say, 'Hey, we should kill that dude and have a robot replace him. I bet his family won't notice'.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/15 14:02:16


Post by: Geifer


 Ketara wrote:
Yeah, I'd be more cool with the Institute if it weren't for the very heavily unanswered question of what they do with all the people they're having synths replace.

Except we do sort of know, because there's a randomly generated scene of a guy being attacked by a synth that's there to replace him. Meaning that the Institute quite happily programs and orders synths to kill people in order to impersonate them.

Mass murder for minor spying/influence gains (some of these people are literally wasteland traders) is a severely ethically questionable activitiy, and one that the game never really addressed. It's one thing to be cool with controlling the synths, another to say, 'Hey, we should kill that dude and have a robot replace him. I bet his family won't notice'.


Roger Warwick's family didn't notice (in a way), and now the Institute has a testing ground for new crops on the surface. That's what I mean. You say it's minor because conventionally it's held that a person's life is worth more than anything else. With the more clinical approach of the Institute, what's one guy's life compared to healthier food that will feed any number of people for years and centuries to come?

Poor Arty doesn't have any background or function beyond you seeing a Synth replace a wastelander, or the wastelander successfully defending against it. There's no way of telling whether there's a minor or major gain involved, but considering how clear it is made that the Institute works based on efficiency rather than ethics, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the gain for the Institute. Severely ethically questionable activity is pretty accurate, though.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/15 14:11:12


Post by: Ketara


 Geifer wrote:

Poor Arty doesn't have any background or function beyond you seeing a Synth replace a wastelander, or the wastelander successfully defending against it. There's no way of telling whether there's a minor or major gain involved, but considering how clear it is made that the Institute works based on efficiency rather than ethics, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the gain for the Institute. Severely ethically questionable activity is pretty accurate, though.

I believe that when we see the list of people we know are synths, you have the likes of the roving traders showing up. Sturges is another. In effect, they're replacing people who aren't important players in the Wasteland by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly not worth enough that any kind of argument involving any form of serious moral factor would equate the value gained to a human life.

The conclusion has to be that morality is completely beside the point and absent from the calculations. The Institute, like any other instigator of mass murder and genocide, must have abstracted and depersonalised the inhabitants of the Wasteland into being sub-human; on account of the fact that they are able to commit these acts without the slightest empathetic pang. They show more concern over the free will over synths than they do the people they have murdered.

Once you clock their ethical shortcomings on that front, Maxson's BoS are virtually nice in comparison. The struggle of the enslaved synths is nothing compared to the struggle of the Wastelanders to remove those who can assassinate them with no crime, plea, or recourse.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/15 14:46:28


Post by: Geifer


 Ketara wrote:
I believe that when we see the list of people we know are synths, you have the likes of the roving traders showing up. Sturges is another. In effect, they're replacing people who aren't important players in the Wasteland by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly not worth enough that any kind of argument involving any form of serious moral factor would equate the value gained to a human life.


Now you're just making me want to murder Sturges to see if he has plastic in his head.

 Ketara wrote:
The conclusion has to be that morality is completely beside the point and absent from the calculations. The Institute, like any other instigator of mass murder and genocide, must have abstracted and depersonalised the inhabitants of the Wasteland into being sub-human; on account of the fact that they are able to commit these acts without the slightest empathetic pang. They show more concern over the free will over synths than they do the people they have murdered.


Uh, yes?

The only thing I wrote that isn't in line with that is that the Institute cares about the welfare of wastelanders if it doesn't cost them anything. If any such thought got in the way of operations, it'd be discarded quickly. As I said, the Institute is ethically challenged.

 Ketara wrote:
Once you clock their ethical shortcomings on that front, Maxson's BoS are virtually nice in comparison. The struggle of the enslaved synths is nothing compared to the struggle of the Wastelanders to remove those who can assassinate them with no crime, plea, or recourse.


I think that's actually a strong point of the faction writing of Fallout 4. Each faction has both a noble and a questionable side that are somewhat balanced against each other and that you can easily get behind or marginalize depending on how you want to feel about the matter. It's much smoother and invites thoughtless pledges of allegiance easier than New Vegas's NCR capitalist lackeys versus Caesar's rape horde.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/15 14:54:41


Post by: vonjankmon


Sorry but what do the synths do better than one of the existing robots in the Fallout universe? Need a workforce to perform manual labor that doesn't eat? Mr. Handy has you covered.

The Synths were specifically made to replace humans, the reason being...ummm..hrm...uhhhhh... yeah I can't think of a good reason and no one I have ever talked to about it can come up with a good reason either.

Testing crops? Seriously? 99% of humanity is dead and you have a magical teleporter, how about just claiming some unused land somewhere and having some robots take care of it? Why did they need to replace anyone they wanted to kidnap? They were utterly inaccessible with access to their teleport so why care what some wastelanders think of them kidnapping people? The synth silliness compromised their security in the end because it attracted the attention of the Railroad and BoS. It could not be less nonsensical and it basically ruins the entire FO4 story because it revolves around the synths.

Underpants gnomes of Fallout. I really wish someone could prove me wrong but it hasn't happened yet.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/15 14:59:08


Post by: Ketara


 Geifer wrote:

Now you're just making me want to murder Sturges to see if he has plastic in his head.

He does actually drop a synth component if you kill him.


Uh, yes?
The only thing I wrote that isn't in line with that is that the Institute cares about the welfare of wastelanders if it doesn't cost them anything. If any such thought got in the way of operations, it'd be discarded quickly. As I said, the Institute is ethically challenged.

Ah, I misunderstood you then. I thought you were arguing that they try and look at the 'greater good' as a way of mentally justifying their actions; whereas I'm of the opinion that they simply don't feel the need to justify their actions to themselves, as they've mentally dehumanised the wastelanders.

New Vegas's NCR capitalist lackeys versus Caesar's rape horde.


That's a remarkably eloquent way of putting half the plot for NV. I like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vonjankmon wrote:
Sorry but what do the synths do better than one of the existing robots in the Fallout universe? Need a workforce to perform manual labor that doesn't eat? Mr. Handy has you covered.

The Synths were specifically made to replace humans, the reason being...ummm..hrm...uhhhhh... yeah I can't think of a good reason and no one I have ever talked to about it can come up with a good reason either.

Testing crops? Seriously? 99% of humanity is dead and you have a magical teleporter, how about just claiming some unused land somewhere and having some robots take care of it? Why did they need to replace anyone they wanted to kidnap? They were utterly inaccessible with access to their teleport so why care what some wastelanders think of them kidnapping people? The synth silliness compromised their security in the end because it attracted the attention of the Railroad and BoS. It could not be less nonsensical and it basically ruins the entire FO4 story because it revolves around the synths.

Underpants gnomes of Fallout. I really wish someone could prove me wrong but it hasn't happened yet.

I could probably devise several reasons which are just about plausible if I really cared enough to; but you're right. It is a bit of a plothole, and one the game should have answered for us. Rather than making us grope for vague explanations.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/15 16:23:11


Post by: Geifer


 vonjankmon wrote:
Sorry but what do the synths do better than one of the existing robots in the Fallout universe? Need a workforce to perform manual labor that doesn't eat? Mr. Handy has you covered.

The Synths were specifically made to replace humans, the reason being...ummm..hrm...uhhhhh... yeah I can't think of a good reason and no one I have ever talked to about it can come up with a good reason either.

Testing crops? Seriously? 99% of humanity is dead and you have a magical teleporter, how about just claiming some unused land somewhere and having some robots take care of it? Why did they need to replace anyone they wanted to kidnap? They were utterly inaccessible with access to their teleport so why care what some wastelanders think of them kidnapping people? The synth silliness compromised their security in the end because it attracted the attention of the Railroad and BoS. It could not be less nonsensical and it basically ruins the entire FO4 story because it revolves around the synths.

Underpants gnomes of Fallout. I really wish someone could prove me wrong but it hasn't happened yet.


Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not convinced that you wish that at all. You seem to have made up your mind. However, if I'm wrong and you haven't, here are a few ideas to consider:

Ignoring for a moment how ludicrous Mr. Handy design is (especially if you have a carpet), if you look for a general robot design that is made to operate in an environment made for and shaped by humans, a human frame has more utility than any other design unless you build a robot for very specific tasks. Human design makes everything in an environment equally usable by humans and robots alike, which makes interaction easier and more intuitive. If you need a ladder to reach something and your robot needs a ladder to reach that thing, you'll keep a ladder around. If your Mr.Handy can just fly up, do you keep a ladder around in case you don't have a Mr. Handy available and need to do it yourself? Or do you limit yourself to dragging in, repairing or building a new Mr. Handy and leave the thing you actually need done alone? There's no right answer to this because both systems have merits, but there's no reason to dismiss one just because the other exists. It's about what you want from your robot, and Synths have enough merits that they are a viable option.

You seem to have made up your mind that Synths have been specifically made to replace humans. Got any proof of that? Because nothing I have encountered in Fallout 4 supports that, except anti-Institute propaganda.

While it probably fails in terms of realism like many other things in Fallout where 200 years is such a long time that nothing from before the war should be left, if you go with it Warwick homestead is the most fertile spot in the Commonwealth because it was a waste treatment plant and already settled. If you don't mind killing some random wastelander, why settle for a worse spot when you have: a good spot, an established community to till the land and the ability to replace the head honcho reliably?

The Institute's lore is quite clear that scavenging operations on the surface were necessary to build the Institute of 2287. Power and raw materials don't grow on trees and at the end of the day the Institute was a hole in the ground that wanted to be self-sufficient, but didn't start out that way. They sealed themselves off only after being able to access the surface by molecular relay. They had a nuclear test reactor for 210 years that they couldn't get to work as intended, occasionally relying on power from the surface. A surface with all manner of mutants, monsters and wastelanders with an attitude. At no point was the Institute safely stashed away and out of reach from outside forces that sought to harm it. Having Synth spies and military capabilities is the solution to a problem, as well as the cause of a much greater problem. That's just realism at work and a lesson worth learning. No place or fortress is ever utterly inaccessible, and often only as safe as its guardians can make it.

How downfall as a consequence of one's own decisions is supposed to be nonsensical and ruins the story is beyond me. That's a common literary theme and the core of tragedy.

 Ketara wrote:
 Geifer wrote:
Now you're just making me want to murder Sturges to see if he has plastic in his head.

He does actually drop a synth component if you kill him.


That's exactly what a Synth would say. Better to be sure and check for myself.

 Ketara wrote:
Uh, yes?

The only thing I wrote that isn't in line with that is that the Institute cares about the welfare of wastelanders if it doesn't cost them anything. If any such thought got in the way of operations, it'd be discarded quickly. As I said, the Institute is ethically challenged.

Ah, I misunderstood you then. I thought you were arguing that they try and look at the 'greater good' as a way of mentally justifying their actions; whereas I'm of the opinion that they simply don't feel the need to justify their actions to themselves, as they've mentally dehumanised the wastelanders.


No, I think we're on the same page here.There's a range of opinions about wastelanders, but the top level that shapes doctrine seems to be pretty unified about how terrible the surface is and how corrupted, violent and inhuman its inhabitants are. And it seems like everyone else is happy to defer to them so they don't actually have to ask questions and justify anything. I think Father calls wastelanders vermin or some such on his visit to the surface. It's pretty overt and I don't think there's much ground to put a positive twist on that aspect of the Institute. It's part of their identity as an intellectual society that always knows best what to do and considers itself superior, naturally or otherwise.

 Ketara wrote:
[
New Vegas's NCR capitalist lackeys versus Caesar's rape horde.


That's a remarkably eloquent way of putting half the plot for NV. I like it.




New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/15 20:51:16


Post by: Lone Cat


 Geifer wrote:
Just watched a fun documentary on Fallout 76 that has some gameplay information (skip to 18 minutes if you want just that):




 Lone Cat wrote:
I don't understand why Beth prefers to focus each Fallout Games in JUST ONE city (and a handful of complexes/settlements around it) rather than a free-roaming like the Black Isle era? yet the FPS combat still suits me better.


I think you'll have a hard time combining what seems to be the most popular thing these days, an ongoing and cohesive world, with the large maps with points of interest like you had twenty years ago in Fallout and Baldur's Gate. They actually insert some of the latter into their games with DLCs. Far Harbor is quite a distance from Boston, Nuka World is just across the mountains. Fallout 3 had the Pitt and Point Lookout. Skyrim had Solstheim. All of these are maps in their own right outside the main map, with a means of traveling from one map to the other like in the old Fallouts (without red lines and Indiana Jones music, though).

But these go against the feel of the game where you get a cohesive world. You climb up on the roof of Red Rocket and see Mass Fusion tower in the distance, and you can actually walk there. In Fallout you would have exited the local map, got your world map out and traveled from, say, Vault 13 to Junktown, get there and open that local map. That's an entirely different experience. The closest to that that you get in modern Bethesda games is fast travel, which strikes me more as a convenience than a deliberate callback to the old mechanic.

The limit is that the cohesive world they apparently want (which I approve of, by the way) is limited is size because of the limits of development. They can only make such a big landscape, so many different textures, quests, landmarks, etc. before the game gets too expensive and unwieldy. If they want all parts to smoothly blend into each other, it's necessarily limited in size.

I can only speculate why they prefer this, but I can tell you why I prefer it. There's just something about remaining in the same view mode, especially if it's first person, that immerses you in the game. You don't get taken out by gamey elements. I found Fallout 1 pretty disjointed in that regard. You have to make it to the edge of the map, then you're safe. Then you get your world map and you can click anywhere, but you only have the big landmarks that do anything. There's no mountain cabin halfway between here and there that might be fin to explore. There's no Raider camp that you need to walk around if you don't want to get into a fight. There are random encounters, with exactly one map per terrain type with you always starting in the middle and getting ambushed by whatever you encounter. No way to sneak up on them instead. Simply put, interaction is severely limited. Modern Bethesda games are a lot more immersive and better games for it, if you ask me. If the price for that is a somewhat smallish map, I'll happily take it.


And that makes the gameplay more continious than the Black Isle era ones?
And this system does come with yet another tradeoffs..... scalings.
the Mojave wasteland in Fallout New Vegas looks quite smaller than the actual Mojave that surrounds real life Vegas. You still need downscaling for gameplay reasons which means the places like Primm and Goodsprings (look at its cemetry shown in the folliwing link) in game are smaller than those in real life. there are many sections of former Santa Fe/Union Pacific rail lines that runs parrallel to I15 or something that comes much closer than those in real life. http://www.falloutnewvegastour.com/2011/04/location-03-goodsprings-cemetery.html

And what happened to Obsidian?
And why Beth chose not to do Westcoast story. did Beth (Through Obsidian) actually concluded Westcoast story arc in favor of Eastcoats?


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/15 21:03:21


Post by: Ketara


Other than the new official game, there are a few fan made projects in the works; some of which have been years in the development. All are full games built on the Bethesda engines. If any of them come to fruition, they'll be well worth it with luck.

For Fallout 4:-

Fallout Cascadia
http://www.falloutcascadia.com/



Fallout Miami
https://falloutmiami.blogspot.com/



For New Vegas:-

Fallout: New California
https://www.moddb.com/mods/falloutprojectbrazil



Fallout New Vegas:- The Frontier
http://www.falloutthefrontier.com/





New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/15 21:05:12


Post by: Voss


Bethesda and Obsidian chose to do areas of the country they were more familiar with. It's a relatively weak excuse given how easy location research is in the age of google maps, especially for the modern games, but it made sense for FO 1 & 2.

Bethesda basically centered the FO3 map on their office building. I'd be very surprised if the 76 map doesn't feature areas their staff members go camping in. They can wander up to i70 and drive straight into the heart of West Virginia.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/15 22:11:57


Post by: Geifer


 Lone Cat wrote:
And that makes the gameplay more continious than the Black Isle era ones?


To me? Yes. To anybody else? I couldn't possibly answer that. It does seem to be popular enough either among Bethesda's customers or Bethesda's decision makers, seeing as how it's retained from game to game.

 Lone Cat wrote:
And this system does come with yet another tradeoffs..... scalings.
the Mojave wasteland in Fallout New Vegas looks quite smaller than the actual Mojave that surrounds real life Vegas. You still need downscaling for gameplay reasons which means the places like Primm and Goodsprings (look at its cemetry shown in the folliwing link) in game are smaller than those in real life. there are many sections of former Santa Fe/Union Pacific rail lines that runs parrallel to I15 or something that comes much closer than those in real life. http://www.falloutnewvegastour.com/2011/04/location-03-goodsprings-cemetery.html


You're not going to get around that. Even if processing power was unlimited, Bethesda's funds are not. Also, we play a game, not a simulation. If they could have a life sized version of the USA, they would still use some form of abstraction because walking in a straight line for three weeks, that's real time in case you're wondering, is not good fun.

I'm not really sure that the old system is so much better about scaling. For instance, Boneyard takes up a substantial part of the very large world map. Because, you know, Los Angeles is kind of big in real life, too. But what do you get out of it? Four, five local maps? How does that reflect the actual size of the city and its many, many possible landmarks?


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/15 22:46:46


Post by: feeder


Voss wrote:
Bethesda and Obsidian chose to do areas of the country they were more familiar with. It's a relatively weak excuse given how easy location research is in the age of google maps, especially for the modern games, but it made sense for FO 1 & 2.

Bethesda basically centered the FO3 map on their office building. I'd be very surprised if the 76 map doesn't feature areas their staff members go camping in. They can wander up to i70 and drive straight into the heart of West Virginia.


That or someone went, "hey, wouldn't that 'Virginia' song sound cool over a slo mo montage of wasteland shenanigans?"


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/16 00:28:31


Post by: squidhills


 vonjankmon wrote:
Sorry but what do the synths do better than one of the existing robots in the Fallout universe? Need a workforce to perform manual labor that doesn't eat? Mr. Handy has you covered.

The Synths were specifically made to replace humans, the reason being...ummm..hrm...uhhhhh... yeah I can't think of a good reason and no one I have ever talked to about it can come up with a good reason either.

Testing crops? Seriously? 99% of humanity is dead and you have a magical teleporter, how about just claiming some unused land somewhere and having some robots take care of it? Why did they need to replace anyone they wanted to kidnap? They were utterly inaccessible with access to their teleport so why care what some wastelanders think of them kidnapping people? The synth silliness compromised their security in the end because it attracted the attention of the Railroad and BoS. It could not be less nonsensical and it basically ruins the entire FO4 story because it revolves around the synths.

Underpants gnomes of Fallout. I really wish someone could prove me wrong but it hasn't happened yet.


It's even worse than that. Every single super mutant in the Commonwealth was created by the Institute. Every. Single. One. They kidnapped people, replaced them with synths, then subjected them to FEV to learn... nothing at all. The *only* reason the Institute stops making super mutants is because one of the researchers, upon realizing that the FEV experiments were pointless and inhumane and that the leadership of the Institute was going to continue carrying them out despite knowing that they were pointless, blew up his own laboratory. The Institute is worse than the Underpants Gnomes... at least step 3 for them is "profit". The Institute hasn't even got a proper step 3. For them it's: Step 1, Mad Science! Step 2 *shrug*, Step 3 *shrug harder*.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/16 14:38:25


Post by: Lone Cat


 Geifer wrote:
 Lone Cat wrote:
And that makes the gameplay more continious than the Black Isle era ones?


To me? Yes. To anybody else? I couldn't possibly answer that. It does seem to be popular enough either among Bethesda's customers or Bethesda's decision makers, seeing as how it's retained from game to game.

 Lone Cat wrote:
And this system does come with yet another tradeoffs..... scalings.
the Mojave wasteland in Fallout New Vegas looks quite smaller than the actual Mojave that surrounds real life Vegas. You still need downscaling for gameplay reasons which means the places like Primm and Goodsprings (look at its cemetry shown in the folliwing link) in game are smaller than those in real life. there are many sections of former Santa Fe/Union Pacific rail lines that runs parrallel to I15 or something that comes much closer than those in real life. http://www.falloutnewvegastour.com/2011/04/location-03-goodsprings-cemetery.html


You're not going to get around that. Even if processing power was unlimited, Bethesda's funds are not. Also, we play a game, not a simulation. If they could have a life sized version of the USA, they would still use some form of abstraction because walking in a straight line for three weeks, that's real time in case you're wondering, is not good fun.

I'm not really sure that the old system is so much better about scaling. For instance, Boneyard takes up a substantial part of the very large world map. Because, you know, Los Angeles is kind of big in real life, too. But what do you get out of it? Four, five local maps? How does that reflect the actual size of the city and its many, many possible landmarks?


And with this. is this why in Fallout 1, there's no Hollywood (including its steel iconic sign) in Boneyard?
So what is a scale ratio of New Vegas Mojave Wasteland to Real Vegas with respective Mojave surroundings?


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/16 19:15:22


Post by: feeder


squidhills wrote:
 vonjankmon wrote:
Sorry but what do the synths do better than one of the existing robots in the Fallout universe? Need a workforce to perform manual labor that doesn't eat? Mr. Handy has you covered.

The Synths were specifically made to replace humans, the reason being...ummm..hrm...uhhhhh... yeah I can't think of a good reason and no one I have ever talked to about it can come up with a good reason either.

Testing crops? Seriously? 99% of humanity is dead and you have a magical teleporter, how about just claiming some unused land somewhere and having some robots take care of it? Why did they need to replace anyone they wanted to kidnap? They were utterly inaccessible with access to their teleport so why care what some wastelanders think of them kidnapping people? The synth silliness compromised their security in the end because it attracted the attention of the Railroad and BoS. It could not be less nonsensical and it basically ruins the entire FO4 story because it revolves around the synths.

Underpants gnomes of Fallout. I really wish someone could prove me wrong but it hasn't happened yet.


It's even worse than that. Every single super mutant in the Commonwealth was created by the Institute. Every. Single. One. They kidnapped people, replaced them with synths, then subjected them to FEV to learn... nothing at all. The *only* reason the Institute stops making super mutants is because one of the researchers, upon realizing that the FEV experiments were pointless and inhumane and that the leadership of the Institute was going to continue carrying them out despite knowing that they were pointless, blew up his own laboratory. The Institute is worse than the Underpants Gnomes... at least step 3 for them is "profit". The Institute hasn't even got a proper step 3. For them it's: Step 1, Mad Science! Step 2 *shrug*, Step 3 *shrug harder*.


Mad Science is it's own reward.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/17 08:44:45


Post by: Geifer


 Lone Cat wrote:
Spoiler:
 Geifer wrote:
 Lone Cat wrote:
And that makes the gameplay more continious than the Black Isle era ones?


To me? Yes. To anybody else? I couldn't possibly answer that. It does seem to be popular enough either among Bethesda's customers or Bethesda's decision makers, seeing as how it's retained from game to game.

 Lone Cat wrote:
And this system does come with yet another tradeoffs..... scalings.
the Mojave wasteland in Fallout New Vegas looks quite smaller than the actual Mojave that surrounds real life Vegas. You still need downscaling for gameplay reasons which means the places like Primm and Goodsprings (look at its cemetry shown in the folliwing link) in game are smaller than those in real life. there are many sections of former Santa Fe/Union Pacific rail lines that runs parrallel to I15 or something that comes much closer than those in real life. http://www.falloutnewvegastour.com/2011/04/location-03-goodsprings-cemetery.html


You're not going to get around that. Even if processing power was unlimited, Bethesda's funds are not. Also, we play a game, not a simulation. If they could have a life sized version of the USA, they would still use some form of abstraction because walking in a straight line for three weeks, that's real time in case you're wondering, is not good fun.

I'm not really sure that the old system is so much better about scaling. For instance, Boneyard takes up a substantial part of the very large world map. Because, you know, Los Angeles is kind of big in real life, too. But what do you get out of it? Four, five local maps? How does that reflect the actual size of the city and its many, many possible landmarks?


And with this. is this why in Fallout 1, there's no Hollywood (including its steel iconic sign) in Boneyard?
So what is a scale ratio of New Vegas Mojave Wasteland to Real Vegas with respective Mojave surroundings?


Who knows? I found New Vegas (the town) disappointing. Just a couple of casinos sitting on top of each other with little else there. I was pretty happy with Washington and Boston, though. Landmarks were spaced out with urban environments in between to make it appear more like the real deal.

I'm pretty happy with the size of the maps in Fallout 3 and 4 (and Skyrim, Oblivion and Morrowind for that matter). Getting an even bigger map in Fallout 76 is bound to be even better. As far as I'm concerned anyway.

 feeder wrote:
Spoiler:
squidhills wrote:
 vonjankmon wrote:
Sorry but what do the synths do better than one of the existing robots in the Fallout universe? Need a workforce to perform manual labor that doesn't eat? Mr. Handy has you covered.

The Synths were specifically made to replace humans, the reason being...ummm..hrm...uhhhhh... yeah I can't think of a good reason and no one I have ever talked to about it can come up with a good reason either.

Testing crops? Seriously? 99% of humanity is dead and you have a magical teleporter, how about just claiming some unused land somewhere and having some robots take care of it? Why did they need to replace anyone they wanted to kidnap? They were utterly inaccessible with access to their teleport so why care what some wastelanders think of them kidnapping people? The synth silliness compromised their security in the end because it attracted the attention of the Railroad and BoS. It could not be less nonsensical and it basically ruins the entire FO4 story because it revolves around the synths.

Underpants gnomes of Fallout. I really wish someone could prove me wrong but it hasn't happened yet.


It's even worse than that. Every single super mutant in the Commonwealth was created by the Institute. Every. Single. One. They kidnapped people, replaced them with synths, then subjected them to FEV to learn... nothing at all. The *only* reason the Institute stops making super mutants is because one of the researchers, upon realizing that the FEV experiments were pointless and inhumane and that the leadership of the Institute was going to continue carrying them out despite knowing that they were pointless, blew up his own laboratory. The Institute is worse than the Underpants Gnomes... at least step 3 for them is "profit". The Institute hasn't even got a proper step 3. For them it's: Step 1, Mad Science! Step 2 *shrug*, Step 3 *shrug harder*.


Mad Science is it's own reward.


Ever since Vault-Tec's experiments entered canon, that right there is a pillar of the setting.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/17 16:01:10


Post by: Eumerin


I liked the setting better when Vault 13's water chip problem was the result of a far too typical bureacratic screw-up, and not a deliberate science experiment by individuals who are likely long gone.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/17 16:52:54


Post by: Da Boss


It does make Vault Tec into kind of a cartoon villain, but since we are talking about a darkly humorous retro-50s nuclear future gone to hell it doesn't annoy me too much. But I started the series with Fallout 3.

I watched the documentary and I have decided that if my PC can run this I will likely try and get it. I would like to know about stuff like Cross Play and so on though. My brother plays on PS4 and so far Sony have been absolute gits when it comes to Cross Play. I would absolutely love to play Fallout with my brother, because both of us really love the series.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/18 17:42:46


Post by: Disciple of Fate


Still curious to what extent the multiplayer platform will eat into scripted quests and npcs. The trailer really made me want to play Fallout, but its not very representative this time around.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/19 09:19:09


Post by: Wolfblade


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Still curious to what extent the multiplayer platform will eat into scripted quests and npcs. The trailer really made me want to play Fallout, but its not very representative this time around.


IIRC, there are no friendly human NPCs.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/19 10:34:33


Post by: Voss


 Wolfblade wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Still curious to what extent the multiplayer platform will eat into scripted quests and npcs. The trailer really made me want to play Fallout, but its not very representative this time around.


IIRC, there are no friendly human NPCs.
o

Yeah, I can't get around that. As far as I can tell, they took the wrong lessons from FO4: people complained about the minimal dialogue wheel, so remove it. Had a wonky base building system- focus on that.

Fallout: guns and picking up garbage just doesn't seem like an interesting premise.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/19 10:51:11


Post by: Geifer


Voss wrote:
 Wolfblade wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Still curious to what extent the multiplayer platform will eat into scripted quests and npcs. The trailer really made me want to play Fallout, but its not very representative this time around.


IIRC, there are no friendly human NPCs.
o

Yeah, I can't get around that. As far as I can tell, they took the wrong lessons from FO4: people complained about the minimal dialogue wheel, so remove it. Had a wonky base building system- focus on that.

Fallout: guns and picking up garbage just doesn't seem like an interesting premise.


Fallout: Pick Up Garbage! For a cleaner, brighter, post-apocalyptic future!

The game looks like it will be mostly devoid of RPG elements in the classic single player RPG sense. Depending on how communication is done and what there is to do in the world, a more pen and paper approach of RPGing with friends should be possible. If you care for such a thing.

While there have been statements from Bethesda that you can go it solo and there will be questing of some sort, I'd think hard about buying the game simply because you liked previous Fallouts. I pre-ordered, but I'm pretty happy with just the exploration and base building aspects where the incentive for going out is mostly tied to survival (need food and water) and gathering resources (want to murder Deathclaws by the dozen? You need a bigger gun). The average ARPG has less substance than that, and I play those, too. Plus I have a couple of friends who'll be playing and got invited to join.

But it doesn't look like if you approach this just from a single player RPGer's angle, you'll find anything worth playing.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/19 11:24:26


Post by: Talizvar


Not sure if I will like this.
I hope the MMO aspect of this is players banding together to survive the world they are in.
Not sure how the base building will be handled, that in itself will have huge impact on gameplay.
Like the idea of wilderness and monsters.
If they put in a Slenderman it would have to be hunted down with extreme prejudice.
So we have the "Scorched" as our versions of the raiders for the generic enemies.
Good to see the supermutants still show, would hate to not find a good enough opponent to squish me to paste in the right circumstance.

I guess it is early yet, hope they take their lessons learned from 4, it had much good in it but missed the mark for character that Vegas and 3 seemed to have in spades.

Funny how mentioned earlier, Fallout would be incredible as a Diablo / Path of Exile type game.
It would lend itself very well, the early games were and isometric view game back then anyway.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/19 13:10:05


Post by: vonjankmon


 Geifer wrote:
 vonjankmon wrote:
Sorry but what do the synths do better than one of the existing robots in the Fallout universe? Need a workforce to perform manual labor that doesn't eat? Mr. Handy has you covered.

The Synths were specifically made to replace humans, the reason being...ummm..hrm...uhhhhh... yeah I can't think of a good reason and no one I have ever talked to about it can come up with a good reason either.

Testing crops? Seriously? 99% of humanity is dead and you have a magical teleporter, how about just claiming some unused land somewhere and having some robots take care of it? Why did they need to replace anyone they wanted to kidnap? They were utterly inaccessible with access to their teleport so why care what some wastelanders think of them kidnapping people? The synth silliness compromised their security in the end because it attracted the attention of the Railroad and BoS. It could not be less nonsensical and it basically ruins the entire FO4 story because it revolves around the synths.

Underpants gnomes of Fallout. I really wish someone could prove me wrong but it hasn't happened yet.


Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not convinced that you wish that at all. You seem to have made up your mind. However, if I'm wrong and you haven't, here are a few ideas to consider:

Ignoring for a moment how ludicrous Mr. Handy design is (especially if you have a carpet), if you look for a general robot design that is made to operate in an environment made for and shaped by humans, a human frame has more utility than any other design unless you build a robot for very specific tasks. Human design makes everything in an environment equally usable by humans and robots alike, which makes interaction easier and more intuitive. If you need a ladder to reach something and your robot needs a ladder to reach that thing, you'll keep a ladder around. If your Mr.Handy can just fly up, do you keep a ladder around in case you don't have a Mr. Handy available and need to do it yourself? Or do you limit yourself to dragging in, repairing or building a new Mr. Handy and leave the thing you actually need done alone? There's no right answer to this because both systems have merits, but there's no reason to dismiss one just because the other exists. It's about what you want from your robot, and Synths have enough merits that they are a viable option.

You seem to have made up your mind that Synths have been specifically made to replace humans. Got any proof of that? Because nothing I have encountered in Fallout 4 supports that, except anti-Institute propaganda.

While it probably fails in terms of realism like many other things in Fallout where 200 years is such a long time that nothing from before the war should be left, if you go with it Warwick homestead is the most fertile spot in the Commonwealth because it was a waste treatment plant and already settled. If you don't mind killing some random wastelander, why settle for a worse spot when you have: a good spot, an established community to till the land and the ability to replace the head honcho reliably?

The Institute's lore is quite clear that scavenging operations on the surface were necessary to build the Institute of 2287. Power and raw materials don't grow on trees and at the end of the day the Institute was a hole in the ground that wanted to be self-sufficient, but didn't start out that way. They sealed themselves off only after being able to access the surface by molecular relay. They had a nuclear test reactor for 210 years that they couldn't get to work as intended, occasionally relying on power from the surface. A surface with all manner of mutants, monsters and wastelanders with an attitude. At no point was the Institute safely stashed away and out of reach from outside forces that sought to harm it. Having Synth spies and military capabilities is the solution to a problem, as well as the cause of a much greater problem. That's just realism at work and a lesson worth learning. No place or fortress is ever utterly inaccessible, and often only as safe as its guardians can make it.

How downfall as a consequence of one's own decisions is supposed to be nonsensical and ruins the story is beyond me. That's a common literary theme and the core of tragedy.



So if the Synths were not meant to replace humans, why did the Institute literally do that a few times after kidnapping the original people? Not entirely sure how you played FO4 without picking that up, yes the general populace was way more paranoid about the act than they needed to be but the institute actually did it. Heck one of your companions was a shining example of this: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Danse

Your comments about Mr. Handy is spot on but that is why the Gen 1 and Gen 2 synths existed. What was the reason for making the 3's beyond...well reasons I guess. As someone stated above with their FEV example, the Institute did science for reasons...not sure how else to describe it. The Gen 1 and 2's could do the scavenging, enforcing, and protecting that the Institute needed, so I ask again, why make the Gen 3's that just ran away, made the local populace paranoid, etc? What was the goal? Safety? Because it did the exact opposite of that and despite being hit in the face repeatedly with that fact they just kept doing it, again for...reasons.

So again, you are free to disagree with me but as stated above, no one has been able to provide a reason for the Synths to exist beyond the basic Gen 1's, which were just robots with a humanoid form.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/19 17:45:01


Post by: Talizvar


The late model synths are easily explained:intelligence on the surface and for getting things done.
They cannot operate completely in isolation, supplies and research need to be conducted or at the very least excavation of "lost tech".
They can also be used as talent scouts since they want to have the top of the line tech.
I could think of any number of means at the very least as spies to make sure the world does not become overrun by any one faction.
By their very nature they make a wonderful "boogie-man" in the world, the hidden threat.
I think I would have enjoyed them more if they were cyborgs: humans converted into machine and their core-thoughts behavior governed by a an institute CPU.
Easier to make use of the organic machine at-hand than to grow/build a new person.
A machine version of the "pod-people" is what makes it work.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/19 17:46:47


Post by: Vaktathi


I was excited about a new Fallout game, but I've always enjoyed Fallout games for the combination of universe, RPG factors, and single player exploration experience.

I like the idea of the setting super soon after the bombs, but I have literally zero interest in playing this multiplayer, nothing about that sounds like it will provide any value I have interest in.

If I wanted to play a persistent world post apocalyptic multiplayer game, replete with griefing and PvP, there are other games that already do that, and thats not anything I have any interest in for a Fallout game. Also, I still play many old Fallout games, decades after release, an online only game will have a limited shelf life.

Also, it sounds like settlement building and crafting are going to be huge, and that was my least favorite part of FO4, and what ultimately led me to drop the game.

I think I'll be giving this one a pass. I'd open my wallet for another New Vegas in a heartbeat however.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/19 18:19:00


Post by: Ketara


 vonjankmon wrote:

Your comments about Mr. Handy is spot on but that is why the Gen 1 and Gen 2 synths existed. What was the reason for making the 3's beyond...well reasons I guess.


Science isn't about why! Science is about 'Why not?'



New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/19 22:48:38


Post by: Deathklaat


 Vaktathi wrote:
I was excited about a new Fallout game, but I've always enjoyed Fallout games for the combination of universe, RPG factors, and single player exploration experience.

I like the idea of the setting super soon after the bombs, but I have literally zero interest in playing this multiplayer, nothing about that sounds like it will provide any value I have interest in.

If I wanted to play a persistent world post apocalyptic multiplayer game, replete with griefing and PvP, there are other games that already do that, and thats not anything I have any interest in for a Fallout game. Also, I still play many old Fallout games, decades after release, an online only game will have a limited shelf life.

Also, it sounds like settlement building and crafting are going to be huge, and that was my least favorite part of FO4, and what ultimately led me to drop the game.

I think I'll be giving this one a pass. I'd open my wallet for another New Vegas in a heartbeat however.


If you had watched any of the other videos that came out where they talked with the Bethesda guys you would know that they specifically said you would not be able to be griefed and that pvp was going to be dueles. There were at least 2-3 videos where it was asked and the devs said it was a concern of theirs and wanted to eliminate any issues, they also mentioned that part of the BETA is to see how players interact with each other.

I also think that from the videos shown base building is going to be similar to FO4 minus the whole settler babysitting. I think this is going to be like any other survival game like Ark or Rust where the player gathers resources on their own or teams up.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/20 12:10:37


Post by: vonjankmon


 Ketara wrote:
 vonjankmon wrote:

Your comments about Mr. Handy is spot on but that is why the Gen 1 and Gen 2 synths existed. What was the reason for making the 3's beyond...well reasons I guess.


Science isn't about why! Science is about 'Why not?'



Take your Exalt sir and congratulations on providing the one decent possible reason for the Institute maybe making sense.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/20 16:48:34


Post by: feeder


I already have the Fallout skin for Minecraft. Unless something radically changes, it looks like I'll be giving 76 a pass.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/20 19:20:56


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Wolfblade wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Still curious to what extent the multiplayer platform will eat into scripted quests and npcs. The trailer really made me want to play Fallout, but its not very representative this time around.


IIRC, there are no friendly human NPCs.

Ok, that is pretty terrible for a fallout game


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/20 19:25:42


Post by: Wolfblade


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Wolfblade wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Still curious to what extent the multiplayer platform will eat into scripted quests and npcs. The trailer really made me want to play Fallout, but its not very representative this time around.


IIRC, there are no friendly human NPCs.

Ok, that is pretty terrible for a fallout game


again, IIRC the plan is find quests and what not through journal entries or dead bodies more or less. Either way it's a massive departure from previous fallout games, and I don't know how well they'll craft a story without living characters.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/20 19:39:08


Post by: Mr Morden


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Wolfblade wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Still curious to what extent the multiplayer platform will eat into scripted quests and npcs. The trailer really made me want to play Fallout, but its not very representative this time around.


IIRC, there are no friendly human NPCs.

Ok, that is pretty terrible for a fallout game


Mostly I prefer to interact with NPCs online than real people



New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/21 08:56:46


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Wolfblade wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Wolfblade wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Still curious to what extent the multiplayer platform will eat into scripted quests and npcs. The trailer really made me want to play Fallout, but its not very representative this time around.


IIRC, there are no friendly human NPCs.

Ok, that is pretty terrible for a fallout game


again, IIRC the plan is find quests and what not through journal entries or dead bodies more or less. Either way it's a massive departure from previous fallout games, and I don't know how well they'll craft a story without living characters.

But it doesn't matter if there is much of a story. The world will feel incredibly boring and dead if the only other 'people' out there are raiders, especially in a map 4 times the size of F4. Its stripping out most of the heart.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mr Morden wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Wolfblade wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Still curious to what extent the multiplayer platform will eat into scripted quests and npcs. The trailer really made me want to play Fallout, but its not very representative this time around.


IIRC, there are no friendly human NPCs.

Ok, that is pretty terrible for a fallout game


Mostly I prefer to interact with NPCs online than real people


I don't mind other people as long as you have a choice, but having only other people is going to make it feel very empty and not very atmospheric.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/21 12:47:36


Post by: Talizvar


These kinds of games I like for the immersion and RPG elements the MMO elements can be jarring for lack of any roleplay at all, NPC's tend to even that out.
Nothing like bumping into another character player and he spouts off like Deadpool with no regard to setting and 4th wall break behavior ... mind if he managed to be as funny as Deadpool I would forgive quickly.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/21 20:23:22


Post by: Voss


I get the multiplayer- don't necessarily like it, but I can understand the decision behind it. But no NPCs is just gibberish.

How new ghouls are reacting is extremely atmospheric and important. How other non-vault survivors managed and how quickly raiders turned on others is a huge setting detail. Handwaving out the human elements (and reactions) makes zero sense. Its like the south park WOW parody episode where they just grind boars. But done seriously for ??? = profit reasons.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/22 02:53:41


Post by: Maddok_Death


With the plethora of video that are out there some light has been shone upon rumors... or they are rumors too lol

NPC are Robot sent out by the overseer to give you missions, plus there will be Hubs

No griefing what so ever, Players are shown on the map, and in order to attack them you send them a challenge (if they die they can respawn and submit at revenge match)

When you log off your base goes with you, so in order to be nuked you need to be online, and T Howard said if they do nuke you, nothing is destroyed you can just repair it.

You nuke areas of the map to gain better loot but they will be restored to normal after X amount of time.

Vats is real time, so you have to do it on the fly.

I'm sure there is more info I'm forgetting. I cant wait for the Beta. As all the interviews say 76 isn't a specific genera of game, its different. One of the leads says the only way he plays is Solo, only to team up to kill bosses for loot.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/22 07:06:03


Post by: Crazyterran


So its a mix of Rust and Destiny with no story.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/22 08:53:25


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Maddok_Death wrote:

When you log off your base goes with you, so in order to be nuked you need to be online, and T Howard said if they do nuke you, nothing is destroyed you can just repair it.

You nuke areas of the map to gain better loot but they will be restored to normal after X amount of time.

Must be them special non damaging kind of nukes

Makes sense though, I was wondering why Boston looked so pristine in my F4 playthrough, it just refreshed itself to 2077

 Maddok_Death wrote:
Vats is real time, so you have to do it on the fly.

I'm pretty sure Vats in real time is a radical concept called aiming


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/22 11:38:41


Post by: Geifer


 Maddok_Death wrote:
No griefing what so ever, Players are shown on the map, and in order to attack them you send them a challenge (if they die they can respawn and submit at revenge match)


Oh, there will be. The more accurate thing to say is Bethesda tries their best not to incentivize griefing, but the simple fact is they don't have to. Griefers gonna grief.

I do think setting the game up as a multiplayer PVE game without loss of progress on death we have a good foundation for keeping the target demographic so focused on players that prefer PVE and cooperation over spoiling other people's fun that you'll likely have a good time playing and run into griefers only sporadically.

Players being shown on the map is not a good thing. It would be better to have a system where you can toggle whether you want to be seen, like a Pip-Boy radio beacon (maybe even with added functionality, like playing an automated message like you're a trader, you are looking for team members for questing, etc.). The best protection from other people is if they don't even know you're there.

I didn't get from the videos that you have to issue a challenge initially, just that if you get killed in PvP, you have the option to decline further PvP with the player that killed you.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Maddok_Death wrote:

When you log off your base goes with you, so in order to be nuked you need to be online, and T Howard said if they do nuke you, nothing is destroyed you can just repair it.

You nuke areas of the map to gain better loot but they will be restored to normal after X amount of time.

Must be them special non damaging kind of nukes

Makes sense though, I was wondering why Boston looked so pristine in my F4 playthrough, it just refreshed itself to 2077


Nah, Boston is just a result of commies building crap nukes. They're nothing like our glorious freedom nukes that flattened China for sure.

I like that Bethesda chose the middle ground between Fallout 4's actual nuke-proof corrugated iron shed and complete destructibility of a base. If you suffer an attack, you'll be set back a little, mostly in the resource department because you need to rebuild, but you don't lose everything (repair costs should be cheaper than setting up something new - at least that was true in Fallout 4), but you don't seem to lose the layout of your base and don't have to painstakingly put everything in the right place again.

Looking forward to the beta to see how this plays out, but for now I think they may have struck a good balance between the needs of survival gameplay and mitigating tedium that you don't want in a recreational activity.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Maddok_Death wrote:
Vats is real time, so you have to do it on the fly.

I'm pretty sure Vats in real time is a radical concept called aiming


Eh, they'll both do the same thing in different ways. Aiming manually takes time for a good shot, with the variable being player skill weighing precision against speed. VATS gives you constant aiming skill, and player skill will be about time management (Can you afford to stand still while you VATS? Target selection on the VATS screen. Putting hits in one location to save time or spreading them out for maximum effect).

There's enough of a difference for the system to have a place in the game.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/22 11:49:06


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


Regarding the VATS, I think that they'll consolidate the hit locations.

Head, Arms, Torso, Legs, perhaps?

And to make quick selection possible, maybe you'll use button prompts rather than mousing over like previous games?

e.g. Hold Q, and press 1,2,3 or 4 for the corresponding target.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/22 11:57:57


Post by: Geifer


Keyboard shortcuts would definitely work if Bethesda thought of implementing that.

Not sure about consolidating hit locations, though. If you can see the right arm for 95% because it's in the open and the left arm for 5% because it's mostly obscured, in Fallout 4 you obviously go for the right arm for a guaranteed hit. If they were consolidated, what would you do? Give 95% because you can see a full arm, thus making the system more powerful as a whole? Or give 50% because you account for the added concealment of both arms, thus robbing you of a guaranteed hit because the part you don't even want to shoot is obscured.

I'm not sure that would work very well.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/22 12:21:57


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Geifer wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Maddok_Death wrote:
Vats is real time, so you have to do it on the fly.

I'm pretty sure Vats in real time is a radical concept called aiming


Eh, they'll both do the same thing in different ways. Aiming manually takes time for a good shot, with the variable being player skill weighing precision against speed. VATS gives you constant aiming skill, and player skill will be about time management (Can you afford to stand still while you VATS? Target selection on the VATS screen. Putting hits in one location to save time or spreading them out for maximum effect).

There's enough of a difference for the system to have a place in the game.

Being a bit jokey, but honestly how would this work well in real time I wonder. If you're already looking at what you want to shoot at its much better to start sending rounds down range than scrambling to hit a button and then select a location on a wildly moving target.

Plus in a game with some pvp, if VATS is just an aimbot, what's the point of having pvp?

I would assume VATS would put the player at a disadvantage compared to someone more skilled at the manual stuff.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/22 12:40:15


Post by: Voss


 Geifer wrote:
Keyboard shortcuts would definitely work if Bethesda thought of implementing that.

Not sure about consolidating hit locations, though. If you can see the right arm for 95% because it's in the open and the left arm for 5% because it's mostly obscured, in Fallout 4 you obviously go for the right arm for a guaranteed hit. If they were consolidated, what would you do? Give 95% because you can see a full arm, thus making the system more powerful as a whole? Or give 50% because you account for the added concealment of both arms, thus robbing you of a guaranteed hit because the part you don't even want to shoot is obscured.

I'm not sure that would work very well.


They won't do keyboard shortcuts for aiming. This will definitely be multi platform, so if the entire ui can't be done on a controller, it won't happen. They'll cut features down first.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/22 13:23:30


Post by: Dreadwinter


Voss wrote:
 Geifer wrote:
Keyboard shortcuts would definitely work if Bethesda thought of implementing that.

Not sure about consolidating hit locations, though. If you can see the right arm for 95% because it's in the open and the left arm for 5% because it's mostly obscured, in Fallout 4 you obviously go for the right arm for a guaranteed hit. If they were consolidated, what would you do? Give 95% because you can see a full arm, thus making the system more powerful as a whole? Or give 50% because you account for the added concealment of both arms, thus robbing you of a guaranteed hit because the part you don't even want to shoot is obscured.

I'm not sure that would work very well.


They won't do keyboard shortcuts for aiming. This will definitely be multi platform, so if the entire ui can't be done on a controller, it won't happen. They'll cut features down first.


VATS shortcuts could easily be done on a controller. Hold a trigger or bumper and then have other buttons assigned to body parts. Not hard.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/22 14:01:23


Post by: Geifer


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Geifer wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Maddok_Death wrote:
Vats is real time, so you have to do it on the fly.

I'm pretty sure Vats in real time is a radical concept called aiming


Eh, they'll both do the same thing in different ways. Aiming manually takes time for a good shot, with the variable being player skill weighing precision against speed. VATS gives you constant aiming skill, and player skill will be about time management (Can you afford to stand still while you VATS? Target selection on the VATS screen. Putting hits in one location to save time or spreading them out for maximum effect).

There's enough of a difference for the system to have a place in the game.

Being a bit jokey, but honestly how would this work well in real time I wonder. If you're already looking at what you want to shoot at its much better to start sending rounds down range than scrambling to hit a button and then select a location on a wildly moving target.

Plus in a game with some pvp, if VATS is just an aimbot, what's the point of having pvp?

I would assume VATS would put the player at a disadvantage compared to someone more skilled at the manual stuff.


Yeah, was a good one, too. I laughed.

You've got a point, but honestly I'm not always sure about some features because different things just work differently on different platforms. As a PC gamer for life, I'd opt for manual aiming every time after seeing how smoothly that worked in Fallout 4. But I hear the game plays more leisurely on consoles. It might make sense there (not that I would know, I have zero first hand experience with consoles).

It may also turn out to be a system that allows you to mitigate a skill gap. You will not be as good as if you really had manual aiming down, but it offers you a different aiming system that is perhaps more to your liking and that you can get better at, increasing your overall performance.

Lastly VATS can be used against AI opponents, so even if it doesn't prove itself in PvP combat, it'll still make hitting that annoying Bloatfly that just won't hold still easier.

That's something to keep in mind, too. Per the designers, Fallout 76 is a multiplayer survival RPG with a small PvP component that is there to enrich the RPG part, not to stand on its own. An aimbot may not be desirable in a PvP focused game, but it's fine in PvE and apparently as far as Bethesda is concerned not detrimental to their idea of the PvP component.

It may even turn out to be an even bigger cheat if they left the perk in the game that allows you to shoot through cover. Aimbots and wall hacks for everyone!

Anyway, I think we'll be hearing "what's the point of PvP" in this game a lot more once the beta starts. Bethesda went with a system that I think very much caters to PvE players (even if it doesn't go all the way and removes PvP entirely as some would like). I don't think PvP will be in any way the point of Fallout 76, and I expect a lot of people will figure this out the hard way and then vent their frustration on the Internet.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Voss wrote:
 Geifer wrote:
Keyboard shortcuts would definitely work if Bethesda thought of implementing that.

Not sure about consolidating hit locations, though. If you can see the right arm for 95% because it's in the open and the left arm for 5% because it's mostly obscured, in Fallout 4 you obviously go for the right arm for a guaranteed hit. If they were consolidated, what would you do? Give 95% because you can see a full arm, thus making the system more powerful as a whole? Or give 50% because you account for the added concealment of both arms, thus robbing you of a guaranteed hit because the part you don't even want to shoot is obscured.

I'm not sure that would work very well.


They won't do keyboard shortcuts for aiming. This will definitely be multi platform, so if the entire ui can't be done on a controller, it won't happen. They'll cut features down first.


VATS shortcuts could easily be done on a controller. Hold a trigger or bumper and then have other buttons assigned to body parts. Not hard.


I was thinking along those lines. Controllers should have enough buttons (I guess, anyway - ain't touching those things...) and VATS switches to a unique interface. What would stop you from reusing buttons that are bound differently in other parts of the game and don't have a function here?


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/22 15:35:57


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Geifer wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Geifer wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Maddok_Death wrote:
Vats is real time, so you have to do it on the fly.

I'm pretty sure Vats in real time is a radical concept called aiming


Eh, they'll both do the same thing in different ways. Aiming manually takes time for a good shot, with the variable being player skill weighing precision against speed. VATS gives you constant aiming skill, and player skill will be about time management (Can you afford to stand still while you VATS? Target selection on the VATS screen. Putting hits in one location to save time or spreading them out for maximum effect).

There's enough of a difference for the system to have a place in the game.

Being a bit jokey, but honestly how would this work well in real time I wonder. If you're already looking at what you want to shoot at its much better to start sending rounds down range than scrambling to hit a button and then select a location on a wildly moving target.

Plus in a game with some pvp, if VATS is just an aimbot, what's the point of having pvp?

I would assume VATS would put the player at a disadvantage compared to someone more skilled at the manual stuff.


Yeah, was a good one, too. I laughed.

You've got a point, but honestly I'm not always sure about some features because different things just work differently on different platforms. As a PC gamer for life, I'd opt for manual aiming every time after seeing how smoothly that worked in Fallout 4. But I hear the game plays more leisurely on consoles. It might make sense there (not that I would know, I have zero first hand experience with consoles).

It may also turn out to be a system that allows you to mitigate a skill gap. You will not be as good as if you really had manual aiming down, but it offers you a different aiming system that is perhaps more to your liking and that you can get better at, increasing your overall performance.

Lastly VATS can be used against AI opponents, so even if it doesn't prove itself in PvP combat, it'll still make hitting that annoying Bloatfly that just won't hold still easier.

That's something to keep in mind, too. Per the designers, Fallout 76 is a multiplayer survival RPG with a small PvP component that is there to enrich the RPG part, not to stand on its own. An aimbot may not be desirable in a PvP focused game, but it's fine in PvE and apparently as far as Bethesda is concerned not detrimental to their idea of the PvP component.

It may even turn out to be an even bigger cheat if they left the perk in the game that allows you to shoot through cover. Aimbots and wall hacks for everyone!

Anyway, I think we'll be hearing "what's the point of PvP" in this game a lot more once the beta starts. Bethesda went with a system that I think very much caters to PvE players (even if it doesn't go all the way and removes PvP entirely as some would like). I don't think PvP will be in any way the point of Fallout 76, and I expect a lot of people will figure this out the hard way and then vent their frustration on the Internet.

Good points and yes, manual aiming from F4 gunplay married to New Vegas' substance would make the Fallout game for me.

Yeah, I assume its used to mitigate the skill cap, although in F3 to F4 its slowmo where you have to select the part you want to hit by clicking. I can't imagine that would work smoothly in real time trying to click a deathclaw's legs quickly as its making a mad dash towards you, even if the camera centres on the torso, the limbs still flail about.

True about the PvE content, but if a lot involves you and other people building and no friendly NPCs then the PvE content might feel a tad shallow. I have no clue how perks or levelling are going to work in this game. If levels are in you basically have a mini MMO on your hands with less coop value than straight up gutting out levels.

Lot of big question marks, even though Fallout coop sounds great in theory.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/22 16:14:45


Post by: Geifer


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Spoiler:
 Geifer wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Geifer wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Maddok_Death wrote:
Vats is real time, so you have to do it on the fly.

I'm pretty sure Vats in real time is a radical concept called aiming


Eh, they'll both do the same thing in different ways. Aiming manually takes time for a good shot, with the variable being player skill weighing precision against speed. VATS gives you constant aiming skill, and player skill will be about time management (Can you afford to stand still while you VATS? Target selection on the VATS screen. Putting hits in one location to save time or spreading them out for maximum effect).

There's enough of a difference for the system to have a place in the game.

Being a bit jokey, but honestly how would this work well in real time I wonder. If you're already looking at what you want to shoot at its much better to start sending rounds down range than scrambling to hit a button and then select a location on a wildly moving target.

Plus in a game with some pvp, if VATS is just an aimbot, what's the point of having pvp?

I would assume VATS would put the player at a disadvantage compared to someone more skilled at the manual stuff.


Yeah, was a good one, too. I laughed.

You've got a point, but honestly I'm not always sure about some features because different things just work differently on different platforms. As a PC gamer for life, I'd opt for manual aiming every time after seeing how smoothly that worked in Fallout 4. But I hear the game plays more leisurely on consoles. It might make sense there (not that I would know, I have zero first hand experience with consoles).

It may also turn out to be a system that allows you to mitigate a skill gap. You will not be as good as if you really had manual aiming down, but it offers you a different aiming system that is perhaps more to your liking and that you can get better at, increasing your overall performance.

Lastly VATS can be used against AI opponents, so even if it doesn't prove itself in PvP combat, it'll still make hitting that annoying Bloatfly that just won't hold still easier.

That's something to keep in mind, too. Per the designers, Fallout 76 is a multiplayer survival RPG with a small PvP component that is there to enrich the RPG part, not to stand on its own. An aimbot may not be desirable in a PvP focused game, but it's fine in PvE and apparently as far as Bethesda is concerned not detrimental to their idea of the PvP component.

It may even turn out to be an even bigger cheat if they left the perk in the game that allows you to shoot through cover. Aimbots and wall hacks for everyone!

Anyway, I think we'll be hearing "what's the point of PvP" in this game a lot more once the beta starts. Bethesda went with a system that I think very much caters to PvE players (even if it doesn't go all the way and removes PvP entirely as some would like). I don't think PvP will be in any way the point of Fallout 76, and I expect a lot of people will figure this out the hard way and then vent their frustration on the Internet.

Good points and yes, manual aiming from F4 gunplay married to New Vegas' substance would make the Fallout game for me.

Yeah, I assume its used to mitigate the skill cap, although in F3 to F4 its slowmo where you have to select the part you want to hit by clicking. I can't imagine that would work smoothly in real time trying to click a deathclaw's legs quickly as its making a mad dash towards you, even if the camera centres on the torso, the limbs still flail about.

True about the PvE content, but if a lot involves you and other people building and no friendly NPCs then the PvE content might feel a tad shallow. I have no clue how perks or levelling are going to work in this game. If levels are in you basically have a mini MMO on your hands with less coop value than straight up gutting out levels.

Lot of big question marks, even though Fallout coop sounds great in theory.


Maybe they could make limb selection smoother by always having a body part selected and only needing to confirm it. For example, you start with the torso highlighted. You want to hit it, press the confirm button. If you want the target's leg, hold your controls to bottom left or bottom right, the selector switches to the chosen leg, then you hit confirm as many times as you want or your AP allow. Same with left and right for arms, and up for the head. Just skip the part where you need to manually have to click thin, moving limbs. That might make it a bit fiddly on insects because their anatomy isn't as simple, but if combat with humans is the main concern, that might be a way to go.

The game might be shallow, yes. I don't know. The biggest thing for me here is that it's online multiplayer and its lifespan is dictated by how popular it is. Because the whole exploration and building and PvE appeals to me, and in a single player game that would be fine, but in multiplayer there needs to be a big enough audience to make it worthwhile to Bethesda. I'm not a fan of leaving out human NPCs. It'll make the game a lot less of an RPG than it could have been. I think it'll all come down to how much questing there is, how often and how many events there will be and how often they will add new content. I don't think you need PvP at all to give the game a long life that people can enjoy for months and years, but I don't doubt adding PvP gives the game another dimension and more stuff to do. I just wouldn't force PvP on PvE players so as not to scare off players that might otherwise be interested. Unfortunately Bethesda doesn't seem to want to go this way and have distinct PvP servers for those interested in that kind of gameplay.

From what I gather from the videos, leveling will work as in Fallout 4. Even the graphic seems to be the same. Instead of earning a perk point per level, you gain a perk card instead, which is much the same thing, except for what it allows to do: you can equip only a number of perk cards at a time, no matter how many perks you have. No word on how and when you can swap them out, but you can seemingly get extra mileage out of your perks as at least some have multiple levels and equip a higher level perk card gives you better benefits (and this might be how regular groups or clans or whatever specialize roles). No idea if and what level cap and thus perk cap there will be.

Yep, still lots of question marks. Here's to hoping the beta starts soonish.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/22 18:48:49


Post by: Paradigm


 Geifer wrote:


Maybe they could make limb selection smoother by always having a body part selected and only needing to confirm it. For example, you start with the torso highlighted. You want to hit it, press the confirm button. If you want the target's leg, hold your controls to bottom left or bottom right, the selector switches to the chosen leg, then you hit confirm as many times as you want or your AP allow. Same with left and right for arms, and up for the head. Just skip the part where you need to manually have to click thin, moving limbs. That might make it a bit fiddly on insects because their anatomy isn't as simple, but if combat with humans is the main concern, that might be a way to go.


That's how VATS works on controller anyway, as soon as you enter it the target is highlighted then you just use one stick to switch target area, the other to move to another target entirely.

I can sort of see that working without the slo-mo, going into VATS locks you on to the target and each pull of the trigger instantly consumes the necessary AP and fires a shot with those odds rather than queuing them up. Probably worthless against players, but useful against enemy AI, not least because it's entirely possible Critical Hits will be tied to VATS as they were in FO4. Likewise, it might be useful when you want to concentrate fire on a specific limb to maximise your chance of crippling it.

I can't see it being as consistently useful as it is in FO4, and VATS defence will be gone obviously, but I imagine it'll at least be situationally worthwhile and as mentioned, will definitely help those who can't aim for toffee.



New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/22 18:59:32


Post by: Geifer


 Paradigm wrote:
That's how VATS works on controller anyway, as soon as you enter it the target is highlighted then you just use one stick to switch target area, the other to move to another target entirely.


I didn't know console players were already playing on easy mode.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/23 02:00:59


Post by: Maddok_Death


More videos have been watched, lol!

When you crouch (stealth) you location marker disappears from the map.

Conflicting messages from Todd and Pete Hines about Nukes, saying that you cannot nuke another player but rather a location, and repairing your base is cheap compared to FO4 when your missile turrets break and you needs screws and oil to fix.

Nukes are hard to come by, missions and then a raid base to launch the missile I'm assuming, Todd said that you would need Power armor and your best guns to get launch codes.

Supposedly there is another vault for sure 61? i think, and there is another one also.

I'm interested to see how VATs plays out, how did it work in Fallout Tactics for the purist that played online?

The last video I watch was about an interview with Pete Hines
https://youtu.be/KdKLIR9Hp9w


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/28 12:05:17


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


Anyone else having trouble pre-ordering through the Bethesda launcher on PC?

Everytime I click the pre-purchase button it tries but fails to open up a Word document and I get an error message popping up saying:

"Microsoft Word Security Warning:
Certificate Error: The application experienced an internal error loading the SSL libraries".

WTF?

And please don't tell me it "Just works".


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/28 19:13:51


Post by: Voss


My advice is actually don't keep pushing a purchase button if its giving you errors. You might only get errors on your end, but not necessarily on theirs.

Blizzard had that problem when they put BFA on sale. Quite a few people ended up with multiple charges on their credit cards.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/29 08:08:14


Post by: Geifer


Why does MS Office feel responsible for this in the first place?

If everything works properly, you click on the pre-order button and your default browser opens the Bethesda.net store page relevant to your region. From there, you can then purchase it (and being logged into your account, the purchase will be associated with that account).

Microsoft Word shouldn't pop up in any of this. If anything other than the launcher and your default browser are involved, seems to me like something dodgy is going on with your system.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/06/29 23:23:34


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


I don't have any payment cards associated with my Bethesda.net account yet.so I'm not worried about being charged.

It also happens when I try to click on Account Management in the Launcher. No error message this time though, it just opens an "empty" word document in read only.

A handful of other Launchers like Total War do this on occasion, and they bring up ReadMe or error log files in Word or something along those lines. I'm on Windows 7, and my drivers are out of date.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/01 02:36:14


Post by: Cheesecat


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Anyone else having trouble pre-ordering through the Bethesda launcher on PC?


Don't pre-order see it as blessing that it's not going through, by pre-ordering you could be getting a game that is a dud, unfinished, broken, full of bugs, broken up into parts for DLC, etc you're literally buying a game blind and only have marketing to go by, whereas when it's released there will

be reviews, Let's Plays, videos/streams of actual graphics, game play, smoothness, completeness, etc and word of mouth from gamers, allowing you to be much more informed about your purchase.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/01 12:44:44


Post by: Lone Cat


 Geifer wrote:
 Lone Cat wrote:
Spoiler:
 Geifer wrote:
 Lone Cat wrote:
And that makes the gameplay more continious than the Black Isle era ones?


To me? Yes. To anybody else? I couldn't possibly answer that. It does seem to be popular enough either among Bethesda's customers or Bethesda's decision makers, seeing as how it's retained from game to game.

 Lone Cat wrote:
And this system does come with yet another tradeoffs..... scalings.
the Mojave wasteland in Fallout New Vegas looks quite smaller than the actual Mojave that surrounds real life Vegas. You still need downscaling for gameplay reasons which means the places like Primm and Goodsprings (look at its cemetry shown in the folliwing link) in game are smaller than those in real life. there are many sections of former Santa Fe/Union Pacific rail lines that runs parrallel to I15 or something that comes much closer than those in real life. http://www.falloutnewvegastour.com/2011/04/location-03-goodsprings-cemetery.html


You're not going to get around that. Even if processing power was unlimited, Bethesda's funds are not. Also, we play a game, not a simulation. If they could have a life sized version of the USA, they would still use some form of abstraction because walking in a straight line for three weeks, that's real time in case you're wondering, is not good fun.

I'm not really sure that the old system is so much better about scaling. For instance, Boneyard takes up a substantial part of the very large world map. Because, you know, Los Angeles is kind of big in real life, too. But what do you get out of it? Four, five local maps? How does that reflect the actual size of the city and its many, many possible landmarks?


And with this. is this why in Fallout 1, there's no Hollywood (including its steel iconic sign) in Boneyard?
So what is a scale ratio of New Vegas Mojave Wasteland to Real Vegas with respective Mojave surroundings?


Who knows? I found New Vegas (the town) disappointing. Just a couple of casinos sitting on top of each other with little else there. I was pretty happy with Washington and Boston, though. Landmarks were spaced out with urban environments in between to make it appear more like the real deal.

I'm pretty happy with the size of the maps in Fallout 3 and 4 (and Skyrim, Oblivion and Morrowind for that matter). Getting an even bigger map in Fallout 76 is bound to be even better. As far as I'm concerned anyway.

:


Toooo little casinoes and too much focus on NCR - Legion War. The strips is too small to me.
Also questions about Colt 10mm pistols seen in Fallout 1 and 2. Is it semiautomatic pistol like M1911A1 and Desert Eagle or is it a revolver inspired by Hard Boiled comics?
What is a correct interpretations? There is an 'official' Beth's creation club version showning that the weapon is Desert-Eagle style autoloader (but what is a purpose of cylinder unit???)




However there is a fan mod that interprets that the weapon is actually autorevolver that has either 8 or 12 rounds cylinder.




Yet there's a fan 3D art showing that the weapon is a top break revolver with 12 rounds cylinder
https://www.deviantart.com/niubio/art/Fallout-1-2-Colt-6520-10mm-Autoloader-680535001
The 10mm shown in the game universe did exists though. designed by Colt but not being as successful as .40 S&W


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/01 12:51:55


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 Cheesecat wrote:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Anyone else having trouble pre-ordering through the Bethesda launcher on PC?


Don't pre-order see it as blessing that it's not going through, by pre-ordering you could be getting a game that is a dud, unfinished, broken, full of bugs, broken up into parts for DLC, etc you're literally buying a game blind and only have marketing to go by, whereas when it's released there will

be reviews, Let's Plays, videos/streams of actual graphics, game play, smoothness, completeness, etc and word of mouth from gamers, allowing you to be much more informed about your purchase.


Yeah, no gak I know about all that already and I generally don't pre order.

I only pre-order from a handful of developers that I trust to fix their games even if they do launch with lots of bugs.

DICE, Bethesda, Creative Assembly, and DONTNOD. Studios which are known for buggy launches, but always fix their games. I weigh the risk of a buggy launch against missing out on several weeks or months of gameplay, and decide that I don't want to miss out on that period of gameplay, I'd rather put up with the bugs safe in the knowledge that I can generally trust then to fix it with in a reasonable space of time.

Unknown developers, I typically don't pre order from.

As for DLC, from what I hear Fallout 76 is going to have free DLC and focus on cosmetic micro.transactions (which will be obtainable in game). That I can tolerate, if reluctantly.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/01 16:28:14


Post by: Da Boss


Any of you guys have any idea about cross play? I would love to be able to play this with my brother, but he is on PS4 and I am on PC. Has PS4/PC cross play been possible in other games?


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/01 18:54:47


Post by: Formosa


 Da Boss wrote:
Any of you guys have any idea about cross play? I would love to be able to play this with my brother, but he is on PS4 and I am on PC. Has PS4/PC cross play been possible in other games?



Yes a few, Sony is putting up resistance though, so don’t count on it.

Also if warthunder is anything to go by then allowing pc to play with consol raises some big issues like exploiting the pc versions ability to turn off foliage and the greater ability to control your shots with a mouse.


On topic, I am decidedly out on this game now, forced online play, no ability to have a closed server with friends, no story, no NPC’s ... it’s all adding up to a crap fest like all the other survival FPS games, solid skip from me unless it gets really good reviews post launch.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/01 19:06:50


Post by: Da Boss


I'm also leery of the no closed server thing. I also saw that they intend having players be visible on the game map at all times, so it is not possible to simply go off and hide in the hills if you do not want to interact with the other players - they can always come find you. I find that a bit immersion breaking and annoying, as it means I can be griefed pretty effectively. I hope that will change before release. My brother and I just want to pair up to survive together in the Wasteland.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/01 19:15:38


Post by: Formosa


 Da Boss wrote:
I'm also leery of the no closed server thing. I also saw that they intend having players be visible on the game map at all times, so it is not possible to simply go off and hide in the hills if you do not want to interact with the other players - they can always come find you. I find that a bit immersion breaking and annoying, as it means I can be griefed pretty effectively. I hope that will change before release. My brother and I just want to pair up to survive together in the Wasteland.


all i wanted was a single player drop in and drop out game like Ghost recon etc.

That way i could happily play my game with my mates and enjoy the world, if they add a function that means you have to turn on PVP to be attacked by other players, then I wouldnt mind so much, but from the videos I have seen so far I doubt that is what they will do.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/01 19:27:42


Post by: Wolfblade


IIRC, isn't PVP duels only? Like, you have to accept a duel before you can fight? Not sure how nukes work, probably poorly and designed to literally be tools for trolls.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/01 19:30:25


Post by: Da Boss


Being spammed by duel requests will not be a lot of fun either. I would be okay with PVP as default if people cannot find me just by looking at a map. The tension of heading toward some resource rich location would be increased in a realistic way if you knew other players were likely to be hanging around in there.

I think 24 players per server means that if they do not have this map mechanic then players would hardly ever run into each other.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/01 19:41:01


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


It better have a passive mode like GTA:O. Sometimes I'm just not in the mood for mindless spawn camping and PVP trolling. But its nice to team up and cooperate with random strangers to achieve missions. Passive Mode lets a player relax and play at their own pace, and not be harassed by trolls.

Also has anyone ever played the MMO RPG Defiance? Whilst not quite a AAA game, I think it blended PVE and PVP quite well. You have a PVE overworld, but PVP events (as well as cooperative PVE events) would periodically trigger at various points around the map, with a certain radius of the area around that point being designated as a PVP Zone. If players did not want to PVP or lost interest, they just had to leave the Zone.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/02 10:07:31


Post by: Geifer


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Anyone else having trouble pre-ordering through the Bethesda launcher on PC?


Don't pre-order see it as blessing that it's not going through, by pre-ordering you could be getting a game that is a dud, unfinished, broken, full of bugs, broken up into parts for DLC, etc you're literally buying a game blind and only have marketing to go by, whereas when it's released there will

be reviews, Let's Plays, videos/streams of actual graphics, game play, smoothness, completeness, etc and word of mouth from gamers, allowing you to be much more informed about your purchase.


Yeah, no gak I know about all that already and I generally don't pre order.

I only pre-order from a handful of developers that I trust to fix their games even if they do launch with lots of bugs.

DICE, Bethesda, Creative Assembly, and DONTNOD. Studios which are known for buggy launches, but always fix their games. I weigh the risk of a buggy launch against missing out on several weeks or months of gameplay, and decide that I don't want to miss out on that period of gameplay, I'd rather put up with the bugs safe in the knowledge that I can generally trust then to fix it with in a reasonable space of time.

Unknown developers, I typically don't pre order from.

As for DLC, from what I hear Fallout 76 is going to have free DLC and focus on cosmetic micro.transactions (which will be obtainable in game). That I can tolerate, if reluctantly.


If you want to pre-order but your launcher is acting up, you should be able to do that off the Bethesda.net website. You can log in there just as in the launcher, and the store page will allow you to select the platform and edition you want to buy. It should be functionally the same as starting out on the launcher and should be associated with the same account, because that's the one you're using.

 Da Boss wrote:
Any of you guys have any idea about cross play? I would love to be able to play this with my brother, but he is on PS4 and I am on PC. Has PS4/PC cross play been possible in other games?


Todd Howard said in a video interview with Gamestar that there won't be any cross play for Fallout 76, to paraphrase, because Sony isn't as helpful as everyone would like.

 Formosa wrote:
On topic, I am decidedly out on this game now, forced online play, no ability to have a closed server with friends, no story, no NPC’s ... it’s all adding up to a crap fest like all the other survival FPS games, solid skip from me unless it gets really good reviews post launch.


No story isn't true. There will be a main quest. Just no human NPCs. If that's not enough for you, fair enough.

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm also leery of the no closed server thing. I also saw that they intend having players be visible on the game map at all times, so it is not possible to simply go off and hide in the hills if you do not want to interact with the other players - they can always come find you. I find that a bit immersion breaking and annoying, as it means I can be griefed pretty effectively. I hope that will change before release. My brother and I just want to pair up to survive together in the Wasteland.


I wouldn't take the ability to see everyone all the time for granted at this point. There's a good bit of conflicting information about it out there. It's been stated that it will be so. It's also been said that if you enter sneak mode, you will no longer be visible. In the interview mentioned above, Howard specifically highlighted that a consequence of killing another player unprovoked is that you will be visible on the map to everyone else, so they can see you coming and start a manhunt (to collect a large bounty for murder) if they like.

I'd definitely wait until the beta to see how this shakes out.

 Wolfblade wrote:
IIRC, isn't PVP duels only? Like, you have to accept a duel before you can fight? Not sure how nukes work, probably poorly and designed to literally be tools for trolls.


I got the impression that it's open season by default, with a bounty system and some penalties in place to detract people from murdering anyone. Once you get killed, there is supposedly an option to opt out of further combat, at least with that player. How any of this works in detail is unknown.

Nukes are supposedly not a problem for players. You target points of interest, not players or their camps, and there is supposed to be ample warning so you can pack up and leave. You're not going to have to put up with a missile following you Loony Tunes style. The biggest downside to nukes for a player will be that the high level zone they create may bar you from going there for the usual stuff you'd be looking for in that place, along with creating a more hostile environment you may not be prepared for. But they'll only cover a small part of the map, so you can just go somewhere else and wait out the effect.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/02 10:51:25


Post by: Paradigm


It's also worth noting that unlike a lot of these types of game, being killed won't reset your progress. XP, equipment and supplies will stay with you even if you switch servers or get killed.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/02 11:45:58


Post by: Lone Cat


 Paradigm wrote:
It's also worth noting that unlike a lot of these types of game, being killed won't reset your progress. XP, equipment and supplies will stay with you even if you switch servers or get killed.


This make the game something like a generic Korean MMO, except that there's no such things like vendors.

and just the FO 'liberty' is. these vendors is an easy target to an unfair PK

Many independent (or 'rogue' if you counts copyrights issues) servers solves this with moderation rules where players doing an 'unfair' PK (uses 'Equal Combat' basis, this goes by servers consents that which acts of PK is considered legal (sneaking a 'lawful' combatant and slit his/her throat, or uses of scoped ranged weapons against armed combatants... while being expoitive, might considered legal because these are considered a combat and a combatants may fight back if the said expoits fail... i.e. a sniper may misses his/her target) and some exploits are not... one GTA: San Andreas Online Server in Thialand (AFAIK.. there maybe more) outlaws drive-by shooting (even a target is armed and a lawful combatant, the hiterto target had no real chances against such attacks even if he/she has an effective anti-vehicle countermeasure (Minigun/Gatling, or Bazooka, for example) --he/she can't easily hit or outmanuever oppoients shielded inside a fast moving vehicle before getting a consecutive full-auto shots and horribly killed ) such exploints is considered cheating, ... car chases (even against a vehicle that's not in moving action, or roadsters against bikers) however, is legal.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/02 21:11:38


Post by: Deathklaat


this is hardly MMOish at all. It was said that private servers would be forthcoming.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/03 06:19:56


Post by: Disciple of Fate


Forced online play is the final nail in the coffin, shame, I could have overlooked the other issues just to try out a Fallout game in co-op.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/03 07:57:40


Post by: Whirlwind


 Da Boss wrote:
Being spammed by duel requests will not be a lot of fun either. I would be okay with PVP as default if people cannot find me just by looking at a map. The tension of heading toward some resource rich location would be increased in a realistic way if you knew other players were likely to be hanging around in there.

I think 24 players per server means that if they do not have this map mechanic then players would hardly ever run into each other.


The map is large anyay. Unless you stay near to Vault 76 where most people will start then you probably rarely come across someone else. The same thing happens in 7DaystoDie. If you stay near where you spawn then there are generally enough people around that you will bump into them . If you head off into the wilderness then you'll hardly see anyone esepcially with a cap of 24 player per map.

If you wander away from the centre then you also get the advantage that if you keep an eye on the map then anyone making a beeline for you should stand out anyway (unless they want the slow sneak approach). If you see that then just log out and find another server to log back into - a bit annoying but a potential way around it.

If you couldn't see other players then how would you be able to trade (although the ability to able to build transmitters might help with that).

I wonder whether you will be able to build a base underground?


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/03 20:31:08


Post by: Lone Cat


 Whirlwind wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
Being spammed by duel requests will not be a lot of fun either. I would be okay with PVP as default if people cannot find me just by looking at a map. The tension of heading toward some resource rich location would be increased in a realistic way if you knew other players were likely to be hanging around in there.

I think 24 players per server means that if they do not have this map mechanic then players would hardly ever run into each other.


The map is large anyay. Unless you stay near to Vault 76 where most people will start then you probably rarely come across someone else. The same thing happens in 7DaystoDie. If you stay near where you spawn then there are generally enough people around that you will bump into them . If you head off into the wilderness then you'll hardly see anyone esepcially with a cap of 24 player per map.

If you wander away from the centre then you also get the advantage that if you keep an eye on the map then anyone making a beeline for you should stand out anyway (unless they want the slow sneak approach). If you see that then just log out and find another server to log back into - a bit annoying but a potential way around it.

If you couldn't see other players then how would you be able to trade (although the ability to able to build transmitters might help with that).

I wonder whether you will be able to build a base underground?


With the map that's 4 times bigger than Fallout 4, either optimum player limit per server or login queuing mechanism is needed so each game will not be too lonely, nor too dense to be safely supported by an entire game engine...

I don't think player can use CAMP to dig a tunnel and build another vault out of any undug soil. the only possible option to build base underground AFAIK is to find a cave and build a base there (and .. not the V76 itself, AFAIK there's some mechanism to prevent players from doing so). or the closest thing is to occupy any existing underground facility (except aforemented V76 where player begins) and build/repair there.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/04 11:50:23


Post by: Whirlwind


 Lone Cat wrote:


With the map that's 4 times bigger than Fallout 4, either optimum player limit per server or login queuing mechanism is needed so each game will not be too lonely, nor too dense to be safely supported by an entire game engine...

I don't think player can use CAMP to dig a tunnel and build another vault out of any undug soil. the only possible option to build base underground AFAIK is to find a cave and build a base there (and .. not the V76 itself, AFAIK there's some mechanism to prevent players from doing so). or the closest thing is to occupy any existing underground facility (except aforemented V76 where player begins) and build/repair there.


Yes I've seen that V76 is unbuildable within a certain distance. Walling it off might be amusing for a few minutes but it's a good idea to prevent that type of nonsense. I suppose if you can build anywhere with no distance limitation from the tool box then you could still do that and follow outside the exclusion radius but it might be a bit long. That's why you need pick axes so you can dig your way out!

It would be good to build your own vault, then perhaps I could farm deathclaws?


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/04 12:41:51


Post by: Geifer


 Whirlwind wrote:
 Lone Cat wrote:


With the map that's 4 times bigger than Fallout 4, either optimum player limit per server or login queuing mechanism is needed so each game will not be too lonely, nor too dense to be safely supported by an entire game engine...

I don't think player can use CAMP to dig a tunnel and build another vault out of any undug soil. the only possible option to build base underground AFAIK is to find a cave and build a base there (and .. not the V76 itself, AFAIK there's some mechanism to prevent players from doing so). or the closest thing is to occupy any existing underground facility (except aforemented V76 where player begins) and build/repair there.


Yes I've seen that V76 is unbuildable within a certain distance. Walling it off might be amusing for a few minutes but it's a good idea to prevent that type of nonsense. I suppose if you can build anywhere with no distance limitation from the tool box then you could still do that and follow outside the exclusion radius but it might be a bit long. That's why you need pick axes so you can dig your way out!

It would be good to build your own vault, then perhaps I could farm deathclaws?


#freealldeathclaws
#deathclawshaverightstoo
#farmerjoeisafascist



New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/04 14:12:20


Post by: Whirlwind


 Geifer wrote:


It would be good to build your own vault, then perhaps I could farm deathclaws?


#freealldeathclaws
#deathclawshaverightstoo
#farmerjoeisafascist



Lol...
I promise to ensure that they are treated humanely and that the minimum number of bullets are used to terminate them when I need their claws and meat.

Can imagine the headlines now.

"In a surprising move, Bethesda has withdrawn all access to Fallout 76. Fallout 76 was designed to be an open world friendly mulitplayer experience.

However some players decided to start farming the creatures that lived there and another group, calling itself 'Freedom for Deathclaws" (FFD) has decided that the practices of filling the creatures with lead is inhumane.

Initially the protests were peaceful, with protest marches and petitions. Things escalated when FFD launced a nuclear weapon at the largest farm on the map housing over 500 deathclaws with unexpected consequences. The beasts mutated to 200ft monstrosties by the server and now no player can do anything and Fallout 76 is currently the beasts's latrine.

Bethesda's spokesperson stated "Well we did want players to choose how they play....we now realise that this was an incredibly stupid idea. We are unsure at the moment when the servers will return. It's like a virus we just can't get rid of the large deathclaws."





New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/04 15:19:46


Post by: Lone Cat


 Whirlwind wrote:
 Lone Cat wrote:


With the map that's 4 times bigger than Fallout 4, either optimum player limit per server or login queuing mechanism is needed so each game will not be too lonely, nor too dense to be safely supported by an entire game engine...

I don't think player can use CAMP to dig a tunnel and build another vault out of any undug soil. the only possible option to build base underground AFAIK is to find a cave and build a base there (and .. not the V76 itself, AFAIK there's some mechanism to prevent players from doing so). or the closest thing is to occupy any existing underground facility (except aforemented V76 where player begins) and build/repair there.


Yes I've seen that V76 is unbuildable within a certain distance. Walling it off might be amusing for a few minutes but it's a good idea to prevent that type of nonsense. I suppose if you can build anywhere with no distance limitation from the tool box then you could still do that and follow outside the exclusion radius but it might be a bit long. That's why you need pick axes so you can dig your way out!

It would be good to build your own vault, then perhaps I could farm deathclaws?


Before you can farm the Deathclaws, you must catch them alive, and tame them first. I'm Not sure if Beth permits you to do so, (and which skills or at what level do the Deathclaws taming perk becomes available)
in the entirety of Fallout universe, Enclave (as well as its predecessor, the US Federal Government) was the first to tame the Claws, (In truth the US Govt. created them as a type of war hounds to deploy against the in-universe 'equal enemy' like PRC)
then in Fallout 2, a hostel in Modoc also serve deathclaw omelette.! (and there's a 'chicken coop' that actually housed a deathclaw mother (hen) ... suggesting that wastelanders can somehow tame them but not a complete docile, a Claw hen can still wound its owner)
in Fallout Tactics (if you consider the in game story as canon), there's a tribe/faction that can tame wasteland dangerous beasts (Radscorpions and Deathclaws, both of which are vicious to humans). Also both in F2 and FT, there's a strain of intelligent deathclaws that talks (and can befreind with. in F2 you can recruit one Claws as a permanent companion, and can rescue another caged inside an Enclave base, through the latter did not join player nor pursue him/her if left alone)
Not sure about F3 and New Vegas though, whether is there a group of humans who can tame Deathclaws and none of the Enclave Remnants figure out how to do that (none.. including Gannon) are trained for that.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/04 16:13:12


Post by: Geifer


Fallout 3 had mind-controlled Deathclaws under Enclave control (until you hacked the terminal nearby...). Fallout 4 has workshop options to catch (cage) and control Deathclaws (beta wave emitter).

Love the headline, Whirlwind. Long live eco-terrorists.

I really hope you can use your C.A.M.P. to run a farm if you want to do that. Plant crops, have a Brahmin or two, optionally with dogs and cats. Would then be cool if you had the cage options from Fallout 4, although with human players out there that could specifically target generators or beta wave emitters, keeping around five Deathclaws might not be... safe.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/04 21:19:55


Post by: Whirlwind


 Geifer wrote:
Fallout 3 had mind-controlled Deathclaws under Enclave control (until you hacked the terminal nearby...). Fallout 4 has workshop options to catch (cage) and control Deathclaws (beta wave emitter).

Love the headline, Whirlwind. Long live eco-terrorists.

I really hope you can use your C.A.M.P. to run a farm if you want to do that. Plant crops, have a Brahmin or two, optionally with dogs and cats. Would then be cool if you had the cage options from Fallout 4, although with human players out there that could specifically target generators or beta wave emitters, keeping around five Deathclaws might not be... safe.


Well if people want to target the beta-wave emitters and the generators and they release 5 angry deathclaws then, well, I think they may come to regret their decision. The animals are their own anti-rustling deterrent! Anyway I was thinking factory farming them. I don't want five, I want hundreds to turn a tidy profit!


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/08 14:41:04


Post by: Wyrmalla


* Watches Trailer .Sees Super Mutants.

Eugh.

Bethesda quit including bloody Super Mutants in every game. New Vegas was justified in having them as it was concluding the story of The Master's Army.

Fallout 3 came up with a dumb Vault which was messing about with FEV (instead of having it exclusively held at the Mariposa Military Base, where they were created through trial and error, not randomness).

Fallout 4 was even dumber by having them as a by product of Institute experiments seemingly dating to the early days of the Post-War World - where the Institute created Super Mutants and decided to dump them in the world above (presumably to study ...but that's just assumption).

They're iconic, but damn when I saw them I groaned as much as the Enclave resurfacing in Fallout 3. And this game's supposed to be set a few decades after the War. ¬¬


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/08 16:17:13


Post by: Lone Cat


Too inconsistent Supermutants appearance in every game!
Actually Beth doesn't really like The Old Gang much (New Vegas was entirely made by The Old Gang that made first two Fallout games, under Beth supervisions to use their engines and options)

Supermutants introduced in Westcoast story arc had their well-written backstories. those in eastcoasts are random FEV foul-up experiments either by Vault Tec or The Institute and no consistency at all! in addition the prime humans infected with FEV are rarely present.. only known four exists
- Talus... the first Vault 13 inhabitants to see surface, sent by Jacoren to find a new Water Chip and almost made it! only to be caught by Super Mutant army and dipped in Mariposa base.. he mutated, but not became Supermutants, instead a ghoul (or Harold-like mutant).
- Harold.
- Master. (formerly Richard Moreau). founder and leader of the Unity (He's the first person to create Supermutants, not just one but an entire great army, the main antagonist in F1)
- Frank Horrigan (Enclave One-of-a-kind Supermutant, )
And you've been away for so long..... when I see F76 news here you are the first person comes to mind.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/08 17:57:13


Post by: Wyrmalla


I gave up on making models based on the series when Fallout 4 came out, and turned to other settings. Fallout 4 drained me of any love for the setting following New Vegas as it was just so soulless (on par with a Ubisoft game).


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/08 19:10:02


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 Wyrmalla wrote:
I gave up on making models based on the series when Fallout 4 came out, and turned to other settings. Fallout 4 drained me of any love for the setting following New Vegas as it was just so soulless (on par with a Ubisoft game).


I'll have to post up a new thread sometime of my Fallout miniatures for This is Not a Test. You directly inspired me to start Fallout and back the TNT kickstarter. Maybe I can return the favour.

I did have a thread but the links to all the photos expired.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/09 13:35:30


Post by: Voss


 Lone Cat wrote:
Too inconsistent Supermutants appearance in every game!
Actually Beth doesn't really like The Old Gang much (New Vegas was entirely made by The Old Gang that made first two Fallout games, under Beth supervisions to use their engines and options)
.


'Entrirely made' is a pretty inaccurate oversimplification. A few of the black isle folks (particularly at the management level) went from black isle to troika to obsidian, but others dropped out of the industry or went to other developers (like inXile). They also hired new people in the intervening years, and even the old hands had very different attitudes than they had during the black isle days- several have been fairly contemptuous of the job they did on FO2 and the setting bible they used at the time.

'Bethesda supervision' is also vaguely true, but not really. It was licensed out, and included the engine, but there wasn't really a presence sitting over their shoulder constantly.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/10 08:17:10


Post by: Lone Cat


Voss wrote:
 Lone Cat wrote:
Too inconsistent Supermutants appearance in every game!
Actually Beth doesn't really like The Old Gang much (New Vegas was entirely made by The Old Gang that made first two Fallout games, under Beth supervisions to use their engines and options)
.


'Entrirely made' is a pretty inaccurate oversimplification. A few of the black isle folks (particularly at the management level) went from black isle to troika to obsidian, but others dropped out of the industry or went to other developers (like inXile). They also hired new people in the intervening years, and even the old hands had very different attitudes than they had during the black isle days- several have been fairly contemptuous of the job they did on FO2 and the setting bible they used at the time.

'Bethesda supervision' is also vaguely true, but not really. It was licensed out, and included the engine, but there wasn't really a presence sitting over their shoulder constantly.


OK Tim Cain and his goons left BI after F2 is finished and created Steampunk version of Fallout games.. the Arcanum, many Fallout aspects did appear in Arcanum too. including two-headed bovine (Brahmin in Fallout, appeared only in Tarant city museum in Arcanum) power armor, and Water Chip parody quest.

and why Beth chose not to use western USA as their FO settings anymore? did they conclude westcoast story arc in New Vegas?


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/10 14:16:37


Post by: Voss


Fallout 3's map is roughly centered on Bethesda's headquarters in Rockville, Maryland (up the road from Bethesda, where they started/named themselves after). They did what they know (and would have an easier time visiting landmarks in person), just as black isle did in FO1.

They also probably (rightly) thought that east coast population centers had more history, landmarks and story potential than the big empty spaces of the west.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/10 14:55:19


Post by: Wyrmalla


Or rather they didn't want to touch the existing canon which had been established with the original games,and instead went for a new area. By doing that they could create an entirely separate plot without having to involve the existing factions - whom they may not have felt attached to, or known what to do with. Additionally, when "restarting" the series they may have wanted some iconic imagery for new fans - so went for the Nation's capital in order to select landmarks which would be known world wide - rather than less well known landmarks found in the core region.

Given Bethesda's handling of the setting with Fallout 3 and later 4, be glad that they largely didn't touch the Western United States (outside of broad strokes canon, and elements in Fallout 4). They lack any nuance when it comes to plot, so would likely have made the war between the factions rather black and white (and not given you a choice of faction at all, like they did in 3 at least). That is, if they included the wars, and didn't go for something smaller scale.

Bethesda's representation of the Brotherhood of Steel in Fallout 3 was to have them be White Knights. They then swung around in 4 and turned them into Nazis. Neither of which really was accurate to how they appeared in Fallout 2 (a dying order being taken over by the NCR) or especially in Fallout: New Vegas. Similarly that the Enclave appeared at all in Fallout 3 was a bit daft. Going for a faction which had been decimated in Fallout 2, to somehow a regional power by Fallout 3 - ignoring Black Isle's intentions with the faction to have them - like the Brotherhood, die out after Fallout 2.

Of course, there's always the option to ignore Bethesda's games and just play New Vegas. At least most of that makes sense in terms of the previous canon, barring where they had to deal with areas Bethesda screwed the plot up in (like setting it 200 years after the war, instead of 100 and something, leaving decades where the NCR didn't do much).


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/10 16:24:21


Post by: Lone Cat


 Wyrmalla wrote:

Bethesda's representation of the Brotherhood of Steel in Fallout 3 was to have them be White Knights. They then swung around in 4 and turned them into Nazis. Neither of which really was accurate to how they appeared in Fallout 2 (a dying order being taken over by the NCR) or especially in Fallout: New Vegas. Similarly that the Enclave appeared at all in Fallout 3 was a bit daft. Going for a faction which had been decimated in Fallout 2, to somehow a regional power by Fallout 3 - ignoring Black Isle's intentions with the faction to have them - like the Brotherhood, die out after Fallout 2.
.


So this compels Obsidian team to to creates a band of six Navarro survivors called Enclave Remnants? (and how did they get goin' for almost 40 years without knowing that the Enclave had a new leader by 2077 and not relocated to the old DC? dunno if they recieved any orders or remain blacked out for some 40 years.?


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/14 17:26:53


Post by: Da Boss


I think Bethesda were going for a "Soft Reboot". I can see how it would be annoying for fans of the older fallout games, but they had been dormant for a fair while at that point. It was all new to me when I picked the game up and I loved the Enclave and the Super Mutants and spent a good few hours getting myself up to speed on the cool background. I especially liked FEV as a sort of handy explanation for how there are so many mutants in the Wasteland.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/15 18:48:18


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 Lone Cat wrote:
 Wyrmalla wrote:

Bethesda's representation of the Brotherhood of Steel in Fallout 3 was to have them be White Knights. They then swung around in 4 and turned them into Nazis. Neither of which really was accurate to how they appeared in Fallout 2 (a dying order being taken over by the NCR) or especially in Fallout: New Vegas. Similarly that the Enclave appeared at all in Fallout 3 was a bit daft. Going for a faction which had been decimated in Fallout 2, to somehow a regional power by Fallout 3 - ignoring Black Isle's intentions with the faction to have them - like the Brotherhood, die out after Fallout 2.
.


So this compels Obsidian team to to creates a band of six Navarro survivors called Enclave Remnants? (and how did they get goin' for almost 40 years without knowing that the Enclave had a new leader by 2077 and not relocated to the old DC? dunno if they recieved any orders or remain blacked out for some 40 years.?


Perhaps they were simply deserters who chose not to go East, or by the time rumours of a regrouped Enclave on the East Coast filtered back to the West Coast, these 6 were already pretty advanced in years or had settled down.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/16 14:45:45


Post by: Dark Apostle 666


If my recollection is right, you did need to do some convincing to get the Remnants out of retirement - they'd been living their own lives for... well, how old was Arcade? Definitely 20 years or more.

And considering that travel for most people in the Mojave was plenty dangerous (Deathclaws, Cazadors), an old timer who did pick up a transmission from the DC Enclave might not respond to it. After all, it's a long journey from California to DC.

Also, remember that in FO4, Danse's team had trouble getting a message from Boston to DC, so it's possible that the DC Enclave's transmissions never made it to California, especially if the Remnants weren't listening out for them.

Thinking about it, considering that they were mostly trying to blend in, they probably didn't have military communications tech lying around, or spend a lot of time scanning the airwaves for transmissions from what they thought was a defunct organisation.

So I don't think it's unreasonable that the Remnants never tried to get to DC and re-enlist.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/17 04:04:11


Post by: Wyrmalla


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
 Lone Cat wrote:
 Wyrmalla wrote:

Bethesda's representation of the Brotherhood of Steel in Fallout 3 was to have them be White Knights. They then swung around in 4 and turned them into Nazis. Neither of which really was accurate to how they appeared in Fallout 2 (a dying order being taken over by the NCR) or especially in Fallout: New Vegas. Similarly that the Enclave appeared at all in Fallout 3 was a bit daft. Going for a faction which had been decimated in Fallout 2, to somehow a regional power by Fallout 3 - ignoring Black Isle's intentions with the faction to have them - like the Brotherhood, die out after Fallout 2.
.


So this compels Obsidian team to to creates a band of six Navarro survivors called Enclave Remnants? (and how did they get goin' for almost 40 years without knowing that the Enclave had a new leader by 2077 and not relocated to the old DC? dunno if they recieved any orders or remain blacked out for some 40 years.?


Perhaps they were simply deserters who chose not to go East, or by the time rumours of a regrouped Enclave on the East Coast filtered back to the West Coast, these 6 were already pretty advanced in years or had settled down.


Arcade at least was written before Fallout 3 was ever conceived, so their plot line seems to exist in a world where the Enclave fell into ruin just as had originally been intended. Of course it could be said that the Enclave was in shambles, so people got left behind (I believe that their Vertibird can be found in game with a unique laser weapon beside it, and the missing rotor is used by a Companion). Ah, but for me to really enjoy New Vegas's plot its better to follow the original intent behind much of the plot from the Van Buren and pen and paper days, and just act like Fallout 3 never happened.

...Because having replayed many of Bethesda's games in the past few years since Fallout 4's came out, I can say with some conviction that their writing's not very good (and leave it at that).


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/17 13:35:41


Post by: Voss


Mostly Bethesda doesn't bother to have writing in a traditional sense, preferring their 'radiant quests' to fill in for content. You can take a 100 hours to peer into every corner, but the main quests of skyrim and the fallouts take about 10 or so. On the other hand, this is true of New Vegas as well- you don't need to do much to get to the pointless final boss bullet sponge.

I find it amusing that fallout 4 is probably the most personal their quest writing has ever gotten, but came at a cost of fixed content that squelched replay options.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/17 20:07:36


Post by: Da Boss


I find the main quests in Bethesda games pretty insipid. I am in it to tell my own stories in their world - true roleplaying in that I take on a role and try to fulfill it.

The idea of being someone who gradually improves the wasteland through setting up defended settlements and trader routes really appeals to me and the kind of character I am playing, so I am just cracking on with that. The stuff about my son is really just a bit of jarring narrative dissonance I wish was not in the game. I hope they do not do this in future.

(I also modded out the voiced protagonist. I don't like my RPG characters having an accent that is so different to my own.)


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/17 22:05:59


Post by: Wyrmalla


I modded out that you were that kid's parent in Fallout 4. Instead just being some guy looking for a dead Vault Dweller's kid. The mod author went as far as removing every reference towards you being a Vault Dweller/ Shaun's parent.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/18 08:44:43


Post by: Da Boss


I like being a Vault Dweller because it allows me to learn about the Wasteland at the same time as my character, but it really annoyed me that they wrote the protagonist as such a dumbass. He takes forever to begin to understand that time has passed since he was locked up in the vault and to realize that he was frozen a second time and therefore his baby might not be a baby any more.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/18 09:03:52


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Wyrmalla wrote:
I modded out that you were that kid's parent in Fallout 4. Instead just being some guy looking for a dead Vault Dweller's kid. The mod author went as far as removing every reference towards you being a Vault Dweller/ Shaun's parent.

Man, that must have taken a lot of work to accomplish. But I don't get how anyone cared about the baby as you had all of 5 seconds of interaction with that creepy doll before its over, its like RL synths designed that part for Bethesda. "Here is baby, you love and protect baby because baby is yours. Engage emotional investment now!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Da Boss wrote:
I like being a Vault Dweller because it allows me to learn about the Wasteland at the same time as my character, but it really annoyed me that they wrote the protagonist as such a dumbass. He takes forever to begin to understand that time has passed since he was locked up in the vault and to realize that he was frozen a second time and therefore his baby might not be a baby any more.

To be fair you get no frame of reference for the time that's passed since being frozen again and Kelogg still looks exactly the same plus the bit of Shaun being seen as still a little kid in Diamond City. The game is actively trying to convince even the player that little time has passed, as in some years. Its not hard to understand why the PC does not fully grasp it at the start.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/18 09:46:12


Post by: Geifer


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Wyrmalla wrote:
I modded out that you were that kid's parent in Fallout 4. Instead just being some guy looking for a dead Vault Dweller's kid. The mod author went as far as removing every reference towards you being a Vault Dweller/ Shaun's parent.

Man, that must have taken a lot of work to accomplish. But I don't get how anyone cared about the baby as you had all of 5 seconds of interaction with that creepy doll before its over, its like RL synths designed that part for Bethesda. "Here is baby, you love and protect baby because baby is yours. Engage emotional investment now!"


I thought they did a way better job with Fallout 3. You get to live out episodes of you childhood. You get to shape your character's background and don't wake up in the Vault one day without any memory.

The pre-war stage of Fallout 4 is very limited by comparison.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Da Boss wrote:
I like being a Vault Dweller because it allows me to learn about the Wasteland at the same time as my character, but it really annoyed me that they wrote the protagonist as such a dumbass. He takes forever to begin to understand that time has passed since he was locked up in the vault and to realize that he was frozen a second time and therefore his baby might not be a baby any more.

To be fair you get no frame of reference for the time that's passed since being frozen again and Kelogg still looks exactly the same plus the bit of Shaun being seen as still a little kid in Diamond City. The game is actively trying to convince even the player that little time has passed, as in some years. Its not hard to understand why the PC does not fully grasp it at the start.


It's a side effect of having a voiced protagonist/only ever playing Nate or Nora. Your S.P.E.C.I.A.L. doesn't matter, only what Bethesda envisioned for their characters. You can be as bright or as dim as you like, it has no effect on gameplay.

If Bethesda hadn't taken out S.P.E.C.I.A.L. and skills (or in Fallout 4's case, perks) affecting dialogue options, except very weirdly in one or two cases (which doesn't mesh with the rest of the game), there could have been a wider range of options for players.

But of course extra lines of voiced dialogue cost money...


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/18 10:05:18


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Geifer wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Wyrmalla wrote:
I modded out that you were that kid's parent in Fallout 4. Instead just being some guy looking for a dead Vault Dweller's kid. The mod author went as far as removing every reference towards you being a Vault Dweller/ Shaun's parent.

Man, that must have taken a lot of work to accomplish. But I don't get how anyone cared about the baby as you had all of 5 seconds of interaction with that creepy doll before its over, its like RL synths designed that part for Bethesda. "Here is baby, you love and protect baby because baby is yours. Engage emotional investment now!"


I thought they did a way better job with Fallout 3. You get to live out episodes of you childhood. You get to shape your character's background and don't wake up in the Vault one day without any memory.

The pre-war stage of Fallout 4 is very limited by comparison.
For all its flaws at least I feel F3 had a good arch. You could care less about the dad, but it had an underlying story about being able to improve everybody's lives by finding and helping him through the purifier.

F4 meanwhile crashes and burns when you find Shaun. You don't know the guy and his agents have tried to murder you, but lets team up and commit genocide because you're family? What? How is the PC even suitable except for being the guy's dad? At least F3 didn't have them crown you king because your genitals delivered a lord and saviour, being very much a cog in the greater machine.

 Geifer wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Da Boss wrote:
I like being a Vault Dweller because it allows me to learn about the Wasteland at the same time as my character, but it really annoyed me that they wrote the protagonist as such a dumbass. He takes forever to begin to understand that time has passed since he was locked up in the vault and to realize that he was frozen a second time and therefore his baby might not be a baby any more.

To be fair you get no frame of reference for the time that's passed since being frozen again and Kelogg still looks exactly the same plus the bit of Shaun being seen as still a little kid in Diamond City. The game is actively trying to convince even the player that little time has passed, as in some years. Its not hard to understand why the PC does not fully grasp it at the start.


It's a side effect of having a voiced protagonist/only ever playing Nate or Nora. Your S.P.E.C.I.A.L. doesn't matter, only what Bethesda envisioned for their characters. You can be as bright or as dim as you like, it has no effect on gameplay.

If Bethesda hadn't taken out S.P.E.C.I.A.L. and skills (or in Fallout 4's case, perks) affecting dialogue options, except very weirdly in one or two cases (which doesn't mesh with the rest of the game), there could have been a wider range of options for players.

But of course extra lines of voiced dialogue cost money...

Yeah I have zero investment in Nate or Nora, it kind of ruins the experience to an extent that its voiced (they only part that helps is that Nora to an extent resembles my partner as far as a character model can do that, so they being married part and getting vengeance is less jarring if I just headcannon it). That S.P.E.C.I.A.L. doesn't matter is just terrible, it was always hilarious to see what kind of responses an intelligence 1 PC could come up with. It really takes out some of the soul together with the rigid part of you being Nate/Nora, no ifs ands or butts.

Hopefully they dump the PC voice acting and add more dialogue options, not going to hold my breath on this one though.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/18 10:38:35


Post by: Da Boss


I really hope the voiced protagonist goes away, but Bethesda seem content to ignore sections of their fanbase to gain more mainstream appeal generally. Often, this results in a tight focus on the moment to moment play, which I think is to the good, but with stuff like voice acting, well, I have never liked it in roleplaying games. I stopped playing even JRPGs once voice acting became common. FFX was unbearable with the gurning dumbass as the main character, I just could not get into it.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/18 10:45:59


Post by: Geifer


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
For all its flaws at least I feel F3 had a good arch. You could care less about the dad, but it had an underlying story about being able to improve everybody's lives by finding and helping him through the purifier.

F4 meanwhile crashes and burns when you find Shaun. You don't know the guy and his agents have tried to murder you, but lets team up and commit genocide because you're family? What? How is the PC even suitable except for being the guy's dad? At least F3 didn't have them crown you king because your genitals delivered a lord and saviour, being very much a cog in the greater machine.


Yeah, I think Fallout 3 was set up elegantly, leaving your response to Dad leaving pretty open (love him, hate him, look for him, do your own thing - all's fair) and then putting you in the conflict between the Brotherhood and the Enclave as little more than just another wastelander. If they had enabled you to side with the Enclave, I'd have precious little to criticize about the game's story. I actual tried to role play an Enclave friendly character in my second playthrough. It's not that hard, but there are a few key Enclave decisions that make it hard and, obviously, at some point you are left no choice but to fight them.

I opted for the Institute the first time I played Fallout 4. You can't let Institute agents trying to kill you get in the way of even greater dislike for the Brotherhood and Railroad.

But of course, as Nate or Nora it's hard to justify. I like that the option is there to join that faction, as opposed to Fallout 3 that gives you no choice. I think Bethesda did a good job of opening options for the player even while cutting down options elsewhere. But you certainly get the impression that the Institute is not the faction for Nate or Nora. I think canonically Bethesda wants to put Nate with the Brotherhood and Nora with the Minutemen, but that's just me.

The real issue with all this is again that the roleplay elements got taken out of the storyline. During the meeting of directors, one of them protests your appointment because you're not even a scientist. Hello? I have I 10. 4 ranks in science. 4 Ranks in chemist. 3 ranks in nuclear physicist. Yeah, not a scientist at all!

Although I will give Bethesda credit for mixing it up. You get to be the boss of the Minutemen and Institute, but not of the Railroad or Brotherhood. So it's not entirely about you becoming the savior of the wasteland.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Yeah I have zero investment in Nate or Nora, it kind of ruins the experience to an extent that its voiced (they only part that helps is that Nora to an extent resembles my partner as far as a character model can do that, so they being married part and getting vengeance is less jarring if I just headcannon it). That S.P.E.C.I.A.L. doesn't matter is just terrible, it was always hilarious to see what kind of responses an intelligence 1 PC could come up with. It really takes out some of the soul together with the rigid part of you being Nate/Nora, no ifs ands or butts.

Hopefully they dump the PC voice acting and add more dialogue options, not going to hold my breath on this one though.


I like Nora better than Nate. She's voiced with a little spirit, something I missed when playing a guy. As a result most of my characters ended up being female in Fallout 4.

I'm not entirely opposed to voiced characters, but I've learned to ignore what doesn't suit my character in video games. It obviously gets harder with voiced characters, but there's potential, too.

Everyone's a fan of I1 characters (sure, why not?), but I thought it was actually neat that if you're drunk and call for someone's attention, your character actually sounds drunk What I wouldn't give for every line of dialogue being voiced drunk.

For me the entire issue is the lack of options. The voiced character is just the likely explanation behind it, which makes it the problem.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/18 12:24:06


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Da Boss wrote:
I really hope the voiced protagonist goes away, but Bethesda seem content to ignore sections of their fanbase to gain more mainstream appeal generally. Often, this results in a tight focus on the moment to moment play, which I think is to the good, but with stuff like voice acting, well, I have never liked it in roleplaying games. I stopped playing even JRPGs once voice acting became common. FFX was unbearable with the gurning dumbass as the main character, I just could not get into it.

Yeah, nothing like a voiced protagonist to take you out of an open world RPG imo. The whole premade character just adds another level on top of that, unmodded you really have to ignore it to have replay value.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/18 13:20:18


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Geifer wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
For all its flaws at least I feel F3 had a good arch. You could care less about the dad, but it had an underlying story about being able to improve everybody's lives by finding and helping him through the purifier.

F4 meanwhile crashes and burns when you find Shaun. You don't know the guy and his agents have tried to murder you, but lets team up and commit genocide because you're family? What? How is the PC even suitable except for being the guy's dad? At least F3 didn't have them crown you king because your genitals delivered a lord and saviour, being very much a cog in the greater machine.


Yeah, I think Fallout 3 was set up elegantly, leaving your response to Dad leaving pretty open (love him, hate him, look for him, do your own thing - all's fair) and then putting you in the conflict between the Brotherhood and the Enclave as little more than just another wastelander. If they had enabled you to side with the Enclave, I'd have precious little to criticize about the game's story. I actual tried to role play an Enclave friendly character in my second playthrough. It's not that hard, but there are a few key Enclave decisions that make it hard and, obviously, at some point you are left no choice but to fight them.

I opted for the Institute the first time I played Fallout 4. You can't let Institute agents trying to kill you get in the way of even greater dislike for the Brotherhood and Railroad.

But of course, as Nate or Nora it's hard to justify. I like that the option is there to join that faction, as opposed to Fallout 3 that gives you no choice. I think Bethesda did a good job of opening options for the player even while cutting down options elsewhere. But you certainly get the impression that the Institute is not the faction for Nate or Nora. I think canonically Bethesda wants to put Nate with the Brotherhood and Nora with the Minutemen, but that's just me.

The real issue with all this is again that the roleplay elements got taken out of the storyline. During the meeting of directors, one of them protests your appointment because you're not even a scientist. Hello? I have I 10. 4 ranks in science. 4 Ranks in chemist. 3 ranks in nuclear physicist. Yeah, not a scientist at all!

Although I will give Bethesda credit for mixing it up. You get to be the boss of the Minutemen and Institute, but not of the Railroad or Brotherhood. So it's not entirely about you becoming the savior of the wasteland.

Its a little sad that F3 had a slim story, not much choice and it made the overall world feel a little hollow when it came to organized communities.

I think most jarring about the Brotherhood and Institute options is that its been weeks at most since you woke up. So a pre war human once society gives way just signs up to either commit genocide or team up with the people casually doing horrific human experiments? Are Nate and Nora just psychopaths that hid it well before the bombs fell? They go about it pretty casually (as well as relationships, "my wife/husband died two weeks ago, lets feth!").

True about the faction part. Nate's whole background seems to railroad him into the Brotherhood. Afaik they are really the only ones who even bring up his background.

As for meeting the director part, this coincides with removing S.P.E.C.I.A.L. options. It doesn't matter what you do, as the premade character is already on rails for a good part of their responses and events, its incredibly boring. You could be an absolute combat monster and they will still say, wow you beat a courser(?)! Yeah I mean its one special synth, meanwhile you already wiped out the Gunners HQ with two fingers up your nose... There is no sense of progression.

 Geifer wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Yeah I have zero investment in Nate or Nora, it kind of ruins the experience to an extent that its voiced (they only part that helps is that Nora to an extent resembles my partner as far as a character model can do that, so they being married part and getting vengeance is less jarring if I just headcannon it). That S.P.E.C.I.A.L. doesn't matter is just terrible, it was always hilarious to see what kind of responses an intelligence 1 PC could come up with. It really takes out some of the soul together with the rigid part of you being Nate/Nora, no ifs ands or butts.

Hopefully they dump the PC voice acting and add more dialogue options, not going to hold my breath on this one though.


I like Nora better than Nate. She's voiced with a little spirit, something I missed when playing a guy. As a result most of my characters ended up being female in Fallout 4.

I'm not entirely opposed to voiced characters, but I've learned to ignore what doesn't suit my character in video games. It obviously gets harder with voiced characters, but there's potential, too.

Everyone's a fan of I1 characters (sure, why not?), but I thought it was actually neat that if you're drunk and call for someone's attention, your character actually sounds drunk What I wouldn't give for every line of dialogue being voiced drunk.

For me the entire issue is the lack of options. The voiced character is just the likely explanation behind it, which makes it the problem.
True, Nate feels a bit phoned in, but I played both. Sure, you can ignore it, but say compared to Skyrim its really noticable, could you have imagined Bethesda putting it in there? It would make it a completely different game.

I1 characters had some of the funniest lines in the game, sadly because of the voice acting and the premade backstory they couldn't possibly convey I1 so it just gets cut. I feel like voice acting is one part and the filled out backstory the other, which makes it feel forced down a particular road.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/19 03:05:43


Post by: Maddok_Death


FO4 had way to many misses overall with everything.

I never played as Nora, but does it explain how she knows how to use power armor? I understand Nate because he was a war vet.

I really think 76 is going to be cool for about a week and then just get tossed to the wayside. There is no way just Radiant quests can make the game fun. I'm going to get it just because it's Fallout, which isn't a good excuse.

A random question but why did Bethesda remove Tactics from Canon?


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/19 06:32:57


Post by: Disciple of Fate


I assume it removed tactics from cannon because the implication is some sort of rainbow holding hands BoS superpower coalition at the end. It doesn't really mesh with how they want to portray the BoS I guess.

It used to have a more modern look too, but Bethesda brought elements of that into F3. Didn't it have semi modern weapons too? Plus the talking deathclaws and weird supermutants. It was just a bit of a clusterfeth when it came to BoS lore as well. Still, its not that much worse than some of the stuff Bethesda came up with.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/19 13:40:47


Post by: Eumerin


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I assume it removed tactics from cannon because the implication is some sort of rainbow holding hands BoS superpower coalition at the end. It doesn't really mesh with how they want to portray the BoS I guess.

It used to have a more modern look too, but Bethesda brought elements of that into F3. Didn't it have semi modern weapons too? Plus the talking deathclaws and weird supermutants. It was just a bit of a clusterfeth when it came to BoS lore as well. Still, its not that much worse than some of the stuff Bethesda came up with.


The talking Death Claws were introduced in Fallout 2. And that's still canon. I didn't reach the Super Mutants in Tactics. So I can't comment on those.

If I had to guess, then -

1.) The background for Tactics involves Brotherhood of Steel background that doesn't fit with what Bethesda wants to do now, and
2.) The idea of Vault Zero doesn't fit with Bethesda's new (and stupid, imo) lore about the purpose of the Vaults - i.e. laboratories to study humans under long-term conditions.

(That begs the question - it's 200 years after a devastating nuclear war wiped out most of civilization as we know it; who exactly from the Vault-Tec Corporation is still around to collect this data, and what exactly are they doing with it?)


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/19 14:02:12


Post by: Disciple of Fate


Eumerin wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I assume it removed tactics from cannon because the implication is some sort of rainbow holding hands BoS superpower coalition at the end. It doesn't really mesh with how they want to portray the BoS I guess.

It used to have a more modern look too, but Bethesda brought elements of that into F3. Didn't it have semi modern weapons too? Plus the talking deathclaws and weird supermutants. It was just a bit of a clusterfeth when it came to BoS lore as well. Still, its not that much worse than some of the stuff Bethesda came up with.


The talking Death Claws were introduced in Fallout 2. And that's still canon. I didn't reach the Super Mutants in Tactics. So I can't comment on those.

If I had to guess, then -

1.) The background for Tactics involves Brotherhood of Steel background that doesn't fit with what Bethesda wants to do now, and
2.) The idea of Vault Zero doesn't fit with Bethesda's new (and stupid, imo) lore about the purpose of the Vaults - i.e. laboratories to study humans under long-term conditions.

(That begs the question - it's 200 years after a devastating nuclear war wiped out most of civilization as we know it; who exactly from the Vault-Tec Corporation is still around to collect this data, and what exactly are they doing with it?)

The talking Death Claws were also killed off in F2 though, which is why they don't make sense in tactics. As they clearly state in game themselves that their race ends with them, having been engineered as talking ones by the Enclave. Unless Tactics wants to go for the Bethesda Super Mutant approach that people find super original! (Seriously F76 )

Also how is the study of humans in Vaults new lore? Bakersfield and Vault 15 (or 17?) were both in F1 and they clearly were meant as experiments. Even the no longer canon Fallout Bible already references the experiments.

Wasn't the Vault-Tec experiment that is still ongoing more about the futility of overseers still conducting experiments because they don't know Vault-Tec was gone? I believe they originally wanted the Enclave to be the monitors, but that got scrapped.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/19 19:57:47


Post by: Eumerin


The fact, though, is that whether the FO2 deathclaws survive is irrelevant. Even if the Enclave is destroyed quickly enough to keep the deathclaws from being killed, there's no way that it's the same group in Tactics. The geographical distance is too great. But if one group independently evolved to the point where they could talk, then another group in the region where Tactics takes place could do the same.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/19 21:02:51


Post by: Disciple of Fate


That's the point though, their ability to talk is specifically because the Enclave engineered them to be smarter, not a natural evolution, that group went to vault 13. So them being in Tactics, like a lot of other things from Tactics makes little sense. Fallout Tactics was made by a different developer, it even directly contradicts the origin story of the BoS by saying they came from a military vault, which even in F1 (the preceding game) was already wrong.

Even though the Fallout Bible is also no longer canon according to Bethesda, Avellone wrote this:
BTW, the talking deathclaws were destroyed at the end of Fallout 2. Xarn and Goris did not go on to create a new species. They are gone. Kaput. Icon sic Goodbye. In fact, any mutant animal that talks can safely be assumed to have died at the end at the exact minute that Fallout 2 was over.
Any last words, talking animals?
I thought not.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_Bible_6


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/24 15:41:26


Post by: Voss


So they've announced the beta date: October, just about a month before release. Preorders only, and set times for each platform, xbox first.


This sounds like server tests for their infrastructure. They did much the same for Elder scrolls online. Don't expect changes to gameplay to result, there isn't enough time.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/24 21:41:52


Post by: Disciple of Fate


Voss wrote:
So they've announced the beta date: October, just about a month before release. Preorders only, and set times for each platform, xbox first.


This sounds like server tests for their infrastructure. They did much the same for Elder scrolls online. Don't expect changes to gameplay to result, there isn't enough time.

Really pre-order only? They must smell a dumpster fire in the making because at least the Elder Scrolls Online had a free beta (which heavily turned me off ESO because of the mechanics). The more I hear the less appealing it sounds, maybe they can turn it around? I would love a multiplayer Fallout, not a soft MMO with Fallout bolted on like ESO did for the Elder Scrolls.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/25 11:46:33


Post by: Geifer


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Voss wrote:
So they've announced the beta date: October, just about a month before release. Preorders only, and set times for each platform, xbox first.


This sounds like server tests for their infrastructure. They did much the same for Elder scrolls online. Don't expect changes to gameplay to result, there isn't enough time.

Really pre-order only? They must smell a dumpster fire in the making because at least the Elder Scrolls Online had a free beta (which heavily turned me off ESO because of the mechanics). The more I hear the less appealing it sounds, maybe they can turn it around? I would love a multiplayer Fallout, not a soft MMO with Fallout bolted on like ESO did for the Elder Scrolls.


Beta access has been tied to pre-orders from the beginning. This is no change.

Six weeks of beta testing at most seems a bit short for a Bethesda game, though.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/25 14:53:20


Post by: Dark Apostle 666


I'd say six months would be optimistic, personally!

It does make me wonder whether they're concerned about the reception - I've only got this thread and my own opinions to go by, but it seems that a fair few people (myself included, I admit) don't think this game will be any good. I wonder if the overall response has been better or worse around the wider internet?


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/25 16:09:31


Post by: Geifer


I think they may have already gotten all the major backlash they can expect. I wouldn't go so far as to say everyone criticizing the game thinks it won't be any good, just that it won't be what the core fan base of Fallout would like to play. Which, for a lot of people, makes it a bad entry in the franchise

I doubt the response was better on the wider Internet than it was here. Reception has been pretty mixed wherever I looked (disclaimer: not based on a representative sample).


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/25 21:38:49


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Geifer wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Voss wrote:
So they've announced the beta date: October, just about a month before release. Preorders only, and set times for each platform, xbox first.


This sounds like server tests for their infrastructure. They did much the same for Elder scrolls online. Don't expect changes to gameplay to result, there isn't enough time.

Really pre-order only? They must smell a dumpster fire in the making because at least the Elder Scrolls Online had a free beta (which heavily turned me off ESO because of the mechanics). The more I hear the less appealing it sounds, maybe they can turn it around? I would love a multiplayer Fallout, not a soft MMO with Fallout bolted on like ESO did for the Elder Scrolls.


Beta access has been tied to pre-orders from the beginning. This is no change.

Six weeks of beta testing at most seems a bit short for a Bethesda game, though.

I just hadn't heard before that it was pre-order only, didn't think they changed it. I feel like betas in exchange for pre-orders are just traps anyway.

6 weeks of beta is more than ESO got, but most Bethesda releases tend to fall on glorified betas on release, as Voss said, this is likely just a server test in everything but name.




New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/26 07:29:16


Post by: Maddok_Death


I remember when ESO came out, the US servers were down for a week an a half. I ended up joining a Europe server instead.

I dont think a month will cut it. The game is going to have a rocky start.

Pete Hines did say on reddit I think that people that did pre order it have a chance to be small batch beta testers, but its more like a lottery.

I wish they would answer the communities questions rather than giving vague garbage answers. Sounds like a repeat of No Man's Sky lol. Having flash backs. I would like to see some more gameplay footage, even if it is scripted. Like the PGarvy guy getting killed and whiffing 2 missile shots.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/26 07:56:25


Post by: Disciple of Fate


Well following up on what Geifer said with the mixed reception it might be that because of that they just want to offload as many copies before the full story comes out and more people go "meh", a pre-order 'beta' fits into that. I don't think it will be deceit and failure on the level of No Man's Sky (no one remotely competent should be able to make a game that boring after 5 min), it will be a by the numbers survival/building fps with a very dissapointing Fallout theme.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/26 12:20:51


Post by: Dark Apostle 666


To be honest, a "by-the-numbers survival-building fps with a very disappointing Fallout theme" sounds like Fallout 4 to me, and to be entirely honest, I probably would have still bought the new game if it had been "FO4 but set right after the bombs dropped". In fact, that sounds like more fun than FO4!

What really puts me off is the whole online multiplayer thing. I'm aware that's really just one of my own hangups but I really hate playing online, especially if I'm playing console and therefore paying to do so. It annoys me a bit that it seems like a lot of games I would otherwise love to play are pushing the multiplayer side of their game, at the expense of the quality (or even presence of) the singleplayer game. But YMMV, that's just me, etc, etc.

I feel bad for wanting this game to fail, but I'm almost hoping it does, in the hope that Bethesda doesn't end up turning it's back on producing single-player RPGs in favour of MMORPGs.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/26 12:32:56


Post by: Paradigm


I don't think there's any risk of Bethesda abandoning single-player games any time soon. Their next two big releases (Starfield and TES:VI) are both set to be the kind of games they've made a name doing, and as a publisher they're continuing to back smaller single-player games like Prey, Dishonored, Wolfenstein ect.

FO76 is simply an experiment based on a lot of preexisting work done in making FO4, not a whole new direction for the series. ESO has been out for years now and while it gets regular support, it hardly seems to be inspiring a whole new style for the studio.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/26 12:38:25


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
To be honest, a "by-the-numbers survival-building fps with a very disappointing Fallout theme" sounds like Fallout 4 to me, and to be entirely honest, I probably would have still bought the new game if it had been "FO4 but set right after the bombs dropped". In fact, that sounds like more fun than FO4!

What really puts me off is the whole online multiplayer thing. I'm aware that's really just one of my own hangups but I really hate playing online, especially if I'm playing console and therefore paying to do so. It annoys me a bit that it seems like a lot of games I would otherwise love to play are pushing the multiplayer side of their game, at the expense of the quality (or even presence of) the singleplayer game. But YMMV, that's just me, etc, etc.

I feel bad for wanting this game to fail, but I'm almost hoping it does, in the hope that Bethesda doesn't end up turning it's back on producing single-player RPGs in favour of MMORPGs.


I guess you have a point there. But then F4 had more features and the possibility for heavy modding which made it much better. The way F76 is set up there is little chance you can improve on the increased number of features stripped out.

I think I would have bought it if it even was only a rehash of F4 with only optional multiplayer and the ability to run your own server you could mod. This is what made Ark for me, my own place running on anothet PC in the house, with my own mods and with my own friends. But yes, I share the sentiment that crowbarring in multiplayer is seriously hurting the single player elements. If it had been added on top I would have had no issue.

I kinda feel the same way, I hope its decent (which it doesn't look like so far), but not more succesful than F4, because that would mean the end for Fallout as an RPG (even though mods really made F4). I think the Elder Scrolls dodged a bullet in that regard with ESO getting such a mediocre reaction that they decided to make 6 as well.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/26 22:40:12


Post by: Paradigm


Word is moddable private servers will be coming at some point after launch, I believe. I've seen that mentioned in a few places.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/27 03:12:49


Post by: Voss


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well following up on what Geifer said with the mixed reception it might be that because of that they just want to offload as many copies before the full story comes out and more people go "meh", a pre-order 'beta' fits into that. I don't think it will be deceit and failure on the level of No Man's Sky (no one remotely competent should be able to make a game that boring after 5 min), it will be a by the numbers survival/building fps with a very dissapointing Fallout theme.

i don't think it will go that far, but some important things to remember:

ESO's (public) beta was largely just weekend events. Somewhere around 48-60 hours, repeated off and on over time.
Given that they're cycling through platforms (Xbox, PC, PS4) and saying they have specific dates for each one, this is going to be a fairly exaggerated and even shorter version of the same thing

Bethesda has been really militant about press copies and no early reviews. This isn't a new thing for FO76, for example, it hit Dishonored 2 really hard, because that was a mess on release and the policy created even more backlash.
Of course, since its a beta for a large amount of preorder fans, early impressions are going to be really widespread. But if some content is closed off, that should raise eyebrows.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/27 06:17:29


Post by: Disciple of Fate


Yes Bethesda has never been good with press copies and early reviews, of course considering the buggy start a lot of Bethesda games seem to have we all know the probable reason.

But it is new concerning F76, because they create the implication that if you pre order now you can start playing sooner. A lot of people have more money than patience. Its likely that more people have pre ordered because of the promise to play earlier, while otherwise they might not have. ESO had a paid base game too, but didn't ask money for the beta access. Did they have more faith in ESO than F76?


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/27 10:00:50


Post by: Geifer


 Paradigm wrote:
Word is moddable private servers will be coming at some point after launch, I believe. I've seen that mentioned in a few places.


Todd Howard said so in an interview after E3. One hopes he should know.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Yes Bethesda has never been good with press copies and early reviews, of course considering the buggy start a lot of Bethesda games seem to have we all know the probable reason.

But it is new concerning F76, because they create the implication that if you pre order now you can start playing sooner. A lot of people have more money than patience. Its likely that more people have pre ordered because of the promise to play earlier, while otherwise they might not have. ESO had a paid base game too, but didn't ask money for the beta access. Did they have more faith in ESO than F76?


I take it as a sign that they have significant faith in the franchise (which Fallout 76 is now part of). Asking voluntary helpers to pay for the honor only works if you're confident that early access to the game is desirable to a lot of people.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/27 10:35:12


Post by: Disciple of Fate


Hehe that's the cynic in me thinking they are trying to squeeze out as much as fast as possible. And asking people to pay for helping a company is pretty bad from a consumer point of view. Not a fan at all.

As for private servers, they have talked about it, but for now it seems more of an if option which would then turn into a when option. If private servers (as in full local control, not via Bethesda) become available I might try, as long as it didn't turn out badly on release of course.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/27 14:14:39


Post by: Geifer


Yeah, the video game industry is very good at being "pretty bad from a consumer point of view". You ask me, they get away with far too much, but eh, there's apparently not enough of my kind to hurt their wallets enough to deliver better, more attractive product at a reasonable price. Instead we get release day bug fests with bits cut out to sell as DLC later.

This is why I usually don't subject myself to the business side of video games, hardly keep up with new releases and enjoy a game on its own merits without real life interferences. Makes things much more palatable.

Obviously that doesn't work with Fallout 76 due to the multiplayer aspects. My friends will be playing from the beginning, so I will be playing from the beginning. Got to keep up to be ready at release (or perhaps already for beta) because of that. Frankly, all the fuzz that is made about Fallout 76 and it being multiplayer and all that controversy has been as puzzling to me as it has been amusing. Heh!


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/29 21:56:34


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 Paradigm wrote:
I don't think there's any risk of Bethesda abandoning single-player games any time soon. Their next two big releases (Starfield and TES:VI) are both set to be the kind of games they've made a name doing, and as a publisher they're continuing to back smaller single-player games like Prey, Dishonored, Wolfenstein ect.

FO76 is simply an experiment based on a lot of preexisting work done in making FO4, not a whole new direction for the series. ESO has been out for years now and while it gets regular support, it hardly seems to be inspiring a whole new style for the studio.


It didn't inspire a new style for Bethesda Studios because they didn't make ESO. That was Zenimax Online.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/29 22:45:37


Post by: Wyrmalla


Its unfortunate that they went this route with their spin off game using the same engine, rather than giving us another Obsidian game (or even single player, with different writers). Though given that going into Fallout 4 there were criticisms that it had dated graphics, taking the game online may be a way to excuse those (not that I had any issue with them).

...Why aren't we having another Obsidian game again? No, I don't need to know the answer to that.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/07/29 22:48:07


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


Most of the ex-Black Isle devs who worked on Fallout 2 and New Vegas left Obsidian. Obsidian isn't really the same team that made New Vegas anymore. So asking why we're not getting another Obsidian Fallout game is a moot point anyway.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/08/10 02:20:51


Post by: Maddok_Death


With the new news about the BETA and how you will keep your save, and you are downloading the full game. I think they are grasping for more preorders.

Plus the only on Bethesda.net (i guess is a thing but I'm not part of the master race yet)


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/08/12 09:39:11


Post by: Geifer


Got a link to those news?

I'll be honest, even though I prefer to have everything on one platform and for me that platform is Steam, I've come to hate having Ubisoft's launcher on top of that. Better to not get the game on Steam than having to go through another launcher because the publisher is... OK, I'm not going to finish that sentence. You get the idea. I have nothing nice to say about that practice.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/08/12 21:34:41


Post by: Geifer


Thank you. Yeah, sounds interesting. Looking forward to what mutations I can get.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/08/16 01:50:48


Post by: Maddok_Death


The progress will be saved Link | https://fallout.bethesda.net/faq | Its the last tab on the bottom.

Post Quake Con, I haven't watched the panel but watched reviews of it. I think mutation are going to be interesting.

My worries are that getting stuck on a server with a team of 4 is going to be nightmarish. I dont know if the charisma perks stack but holy crap the perks that I've seen seem like a huge buff. I wonder if lone wanderer is going to some how counter act this.

I remember hearing somewhere that you can block people so they cant grief you. Why not block everyone?
The wanted system seems a little so-so without seeing it work in action. If you kill someone they drop their junk and that's about it, no armor or weapons. When you get killed you get caps taken from you if you are wanted.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/08/16 13:29:23


Post by: vonjankmon


It will be interesting to see if Bethesda will be the first company in gaming history to solve the troll/griefer problem. Personally I think it has a snow balls chance in hell of working but hopefully they prove me wrong.

I love Fallout but they won't be getting my money until after release and I can clearly see what I may be paying for. Fallout used to be about the story, 4's story was lack luster at best and it doesn't look like this one will have any story to speak of. When they allow private servers and I can play with a group of friends though they'll likely get my money if I'm honest with myself though, story or not.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/08/30 02:49:58


Post by: Maddok_Death


So little more info to feast upon from quakecon and twitter posts.

1) If you find another player and shoot at them and they do not shoot back and you kill them then you are wanted. When wanted you show up on the mini map and have a bounty (which is paid from your caps) The higher your level the higher the bounty

2) If they do shoot back at you and you kill them you get some caps per the level difference and you get their junk, but they can respawn nearby and try to kill you again

3) You can block players like if they are greifing you or are being trolls, But that just means you are not shown on their mini map but they can still find you, so not a complete block.

4) There are NPC vendors through out the map, Pete Hines said when he plays he doesnt trade with other players but you can.

5) Trading works like you drop the item or put it in a container to exchange it. (reminds me of people in some old school games where people can run up and steal outright before a trade is completed)

6) Fast Traveling works like ESO, you pay more caps for the farther you are fast traveling. Fast traveling to Vault 76 is free.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/08/30 03:26:18


Post by: Voss


#1 sounds like the ultimate griefing tool:

Find some way to announce your presence (or find the right angle so you aren't shooting 'at them'), they respond and you don't shoot back, they get pinged as wanted, you wander off and laugh. And yes, people *will* make starting characters with no stuff to troll others with.

#2, oo. So, the opposite of graveyard camping in MMOs. Once you kill someone, they've got the option to just keep hounding you.

#3, so... useless.

#5, yep. Another griefing tool. Whoever drops first is an idiot, even if there isn't a sprinter lurking to just take it and run.


This sounds.... great.



New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/08/30 11:11:08


Post by: Maddok_Death


For 1 and 2 from how I interpreted what Todd H said when the shoot you their guns do less damage until they shoot back. Meaning hits I'm assuming. You are always on the map as long as you are not crouched, but its not a exact spot like every couple seconds it refreshes is what P Hines said.

But with it I think if a group is coming to get you and only one is firing or trying to get you to shoot him and the other waits for you to go wanted then kills you on the spot.

I'm thinking Beth is in for it, especially trying to not make this DayZ or the like, but have it open for players.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/08/30 13:30:17


Post by: vonjankmon


I will be waiting until the paid beta period(first 6 months of the games release) of this game is up before *maybe* getting it, if they can fix the troll problem that it seems like they have designed the game to cater to then I will be interested.

They're seriously opened it up to be a griefer/troll dream and I have yet to see anything that really makes me believe that they have a workable plan to prevent it. Anyone that has been playing online games for a long time will recognize a lot of the things they want to implement and will also recognize that those things did not work. There is a reason that PvP in basically every MMO is heavily restricted to either specific servers for it, specific areas for it, or a player controlled on/off switch, no one has figured out a good way to allow it game wide without it being abused. And I do not have a whole lot of faith that Bethesda will be the ones to discover that particular trick.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/08/30 20:14:19


Post by: master of ordinance


I can tell you now its going to be a gak-show
>No private servers
>Anti troll/griefer support basically doesnt exist
>Players that get slaughtered get respawned (probably sans stuff) close to their opponent
>Bounties on PK'ers are probably not going to matter much, or will be exploited
>Early. Access

Early Access players will build god-level characters and then just farm kills/XP off of the new, underequipped, players.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/08/30 22:38:43


Post by: Togusa


 master of ordinance wrote:
I can tell you now its going to be a gak-show
>No private servers
>Anti troll/griefer support basically doesnt exist
>Players that get slaughtered get respawned (probably sans stuff) close to their opponent
>Bounties on PK'ers are probably not going to matter much, or will be exploited
>Early. Access

Early Access players will build god-level characters and then just farm kills/XP off of the new, underequipped, players.


This is the reason, along with how massively toxic gaming culture has become with online games, that I have migrated to table top. At least there if someone is being an A-Hat I can haul of and punch them in the face for it to relieve my anger.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/08/31 15:54:44


Post by: Voss


I find the 'punch-people-in-the face' mentality to be part of the same problem.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/08/31 16:14:05


Post by: feeder


I find the ratio of decent people to overt tools to be far far better in person. Even in casual pick up play or tournament enviroments, it's way better. Something about human interaction takes the edge off, or maybe griefers don't get out much. Either way, I don't get any enjoyment out of online play hardly at all anymore.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/08/31 16:55:02


Post by: Dark Apostle 666


I suppose a "Greifer" in real life situations faces some kind of a risk (whether that be getting slugged in the face, or social repercussions), whereas the online greifer's risk only extends to maybe getting banned from a server, or whatever.

Either way, I'm no expert in online gaming, but even I can see that what they've got in place now is full of loopholes for people like that to abuse.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/08/31 22:26:48


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 Maddok_Death wrote:
3) You can block players like if they are greifing you or are being trolls, But that just means you are not shown on their mini map but they can still find you, so not a complete block.


That sounds useless as an anti-griefing tool, but I do like the idea of being able to block everybody on a server to make myself invisible I can be more stealthy and avoid people.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/09/01 05:51:33


Post by: Maddok_Death


there could be more to it like no damage from the blocked players or you cant see them either. Who knows really Beth had been a little trolly in their own way by not showing anything. They are showing all up coming games within the next coming days ESO, the ESO app game, Rage 2, and Prey but no 76... I'm glad that Dakka is on the same page that Beth isn't god (or T Howard). Love the hate


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/09/03 13:40:51


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 master of ordinance wrote:

Early Access players will build god-level characters and then just farm kills/XP off of the new, underequipped, players.


That is easily solved. Server and character reset when it goes to build 1.0. Everyone starts on a clean slate.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/09/04 02:51:23


Post by: dogma


 feeder wrote:
I find the ratio of decent people to overt tools to be far far better in person. Even in casual pick up play or tournament enviroments, it's way better. Something about human interaction takes the edge off, or maybe griefers don't get out much. Either way, I don't get any enjoyment out of online play hardly at all anymore.


Oh, yeah, the internet makes people feel like they're insulated from consequences; anonymity and all that.

Lots of people turn into "that guy" who tries too hard during the pick-up game at the YMCA: they believe that they're on a path towards basketball/streaming greatness.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/09/05 17:07:09


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 Togusa wrote:
 master of ordinance wrote:
I can tell you now its going to be a gak-show
>No private servers
>Anti troll/griefer support basically doesnt exist
>Players that get slaughtered get respawned (probably sans stuff) close to their opponent
>Bounties on PK'ers are probably not going to matter much, or will be exploited
>Early. Access

Early Access players will build god-level characters and then just farm kills/XP off of the new, underequipped, players.


This is the reason, along with how massively toxic gaming culture has become with online games, that I have migrated to table top. At least there if someone is being an A-Hat I can haul of and punch them in the face for it to relieve my anger.


This right here. . . I was fairly interested in this game, had they set it up more like Borderlands series where the MP is entirely optional, I would've probably gone for this game at some point.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/09/05 20:44:38


Post by: Deathklaat


It is almost like none of you have read any of the articles or watched any of the videos that have come out and are just running rampant on speculation.

They specifically said private servers will be a thing, just not at launch. There are plenty of mechanics that are going to let you avoid trolls and griefers. They answered quite a few questions about pvp and griefing.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/09/06 18:13:17


Post by: vonjankmon


Yeah they've answered all kinds of questions about pvp and griefing in the same ways that I have seen developers answer for the past 20ish years. I haven't seen anything in any of the interviews that made me think that Bethesda had come up with some new awesome way to prevent griefing, it's all stuff that has been tried before and it didn't work then.

Look I am a massive Fallout fan but the odds of this not being a dumpster fire of a mess are really low.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/09/07 10:51:34


Post by: Maddok_Death


To me their isn't incentive to kill other players, you gain nothing, except their junk... so killing people who are farming for high end stuff. I dont think there will be one shots, with damage being reduced if the fight isn't reciprocated. So said farmer killer is going to have to work at it. Then you re-spawn and attack them because they are wanted (see where they are) and maybe get your stuff back.

The trolls and A hats, are where Beth doesn't have enough to stop them. they say you cant camp 76, but you can camp any location, especially where there is good loot, or a raid area. Sitting outside of your camp, waiting until after a trade to kill you, and the list goes on.

They keep saying that you might only see 1 other player when you play per session, but thats closed testing. I'm still going to get the game, only because its fallout.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/08 13:28:22


Post by: Paradigm


For those not following that closely, the embargo from the press event Bethesda put on last week ends today, so over the next few hours there should be plenty of actual gameplay, overviews ect going up.

Looking forward to seeing a good chunk of the gameplay, see what the pacing, gameplay look, mechanical changes look like.



New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/10 16:57:27


Post by: Voss


Ugh. Its FO4 with all the 'complexity' ripped out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjl_9Sl0wBk

Highlights:
level 2 before leaving the vault. All stats start at 1, with an increase each level

Pushing 'interact' on the vault robots does... nothing.

A few random audio logs provide some vague context in a very empty world.

Bobbleheads give temporary buffs for an hour

Monsters have explicit levels- around 10:00 he's fighting 'level 5 super mutants,' while level 4. They don't seem any more or less threatening than the ghouls.

There is also level 10s a minute later, but they die quickly to the group.

Region map 12:00. Looks like a cheesy tourist map, with major landmarks.

Despite the other people running around, loot and scavenging seems to be individual. Which is good but weird.

PVP is disabled until level 5


They run into level 14 'mole miners' later (17:00), levels seem to mean nothing at all.
I can only assume the group is on Discord or something, because they don't interact in game in any way at all after an early 'thumbs up' exchange.

Level 59 guy in power armor roof hopping around 19:00, the jumping looks really terrible and the ensuing PVP goes exactly the way you'd expect.


Huh. Weird. Around 26:00 they've found a resort that isn't irradiated or ruined at all. Perfectly healthy non-irradiated wolves and completely painted, functional robots are running around.
But despite being full of robots... its empty of content and nothing happens.

Radio music is notably recycled from previous titles.

----
Eh. There are a couple new monster models and a whole lot of nothing.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/10 18:04:06


Post by: Whirlwind


Voss wrote:

Huh. Weird. Around 26:00 they've found a resort that isn't irradiated or ruined at all. Perfectly healthy non-irradiated wolves and completely painted, functional robots are running around.
But despite being full of robots... its empty of content and nothing happens.


Well, the nukes are obviously duds - just create pretty light shows. After all at the end you can watch a nuclear explosion without burning your retina out, there's *no* blastwave - trees are quite happily standing upright. I would question whether the developers have actually ever witnessed videos of nuclear test explosions.

It does seem rather light on gripping content though. I had high hopes but there doesn't appear to be much of a challenge. Death means nothing other than an inconvenience. Base building (which lets face it is a mechanism to protect your stuff) has little purpose (especially with prevalent facilities to make stuff scattered around anyway). As it stands it appears that it's an online chat room based in the Fallout universe and I wonder what the long term viability of this game will be.

Perhaps most telling is the lack of responses to this post of the videos were released. Think I will watch the console beta gameplay when it comes out in two weeks and make a (better?) judgement on the nearly complete game.



New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/10 18:20:09


Post by: Voss


Yeah, I'm actually confused about base building. When you die, you only seem to drop crafting junk (wood, steel, etc). You keep weapons and armor and health items.

There are crafting stations to improve weapons and whatnot elsewhere, so... basically you lose nothing. Once you get the good stuff, all you need is materials for repairs. You can't seem to ever 'miss out' on loot, so... whatever.


A lot of the complaints I'm seeing revolve around a lot of performance and texture issues. As well as lag spikes and weapon feedback mismatches (gunshots and impacts happening late or not at all) But apparently they took these folks to a resort in WV and plunked them on Xboxes, so... no idea what it looks like on a PC.


Later in this video there are some thoughts on PVP and AI, and the problems with both (17:00 onwards, or thereabouts).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7wDfWVlBWg


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/10 18:23:14


Post by: Paradigm


To be honest, I like everything I've seen thus far. The world looks great and varied, the mechanical tweaks make a lot of sense (real time VATS looks as good as it could be and I like the new progression a lot), crafting looks even more interesting than FO4s, new enemies look fun.

Even my big worry (the lack of NPCs) is kind of belayed, as while they're not alive, the fact you can still pick up quests and tidbits from the plentiful holotapes and notes fills exactly the same role without the risk of some git coming in and shooting the questgiver dead, ruining the fun for everyone else. It's a compromise, but a neat one.

As for the more intact areas, it's been suggested that West Virginia does not take a nuke directly, hence the presence of non-mutated creatures and a more intact infrastructure. Which, of course, doesn't make sense from a real-world PoV but this is a game so let's cut it some slack, it's not like Fallout has ever dealt with radiation/nukes anywhere near 'realistically'. It holds some water anyway, the whole reason the real bunker was built there at Greenbriars is because it was assumed the region would be a low-priority target.

Ultimately, it looks fun, which is all I really ask. The things I liked from FO4 are still there in spades, and the multiplayer aspect honestly doesn't seem that intrusive. It's quite busy in the footage that's out there, but once people have more than a guided 3 hours to play with, I imagine the players will spread out an awful lot more.

Here's a decent dive into some of the new mechanics and systems:
https://youtu.be/MjIwdQYIpGg


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/11 15:34:37


Post by: Wolfblade


So it's looking like the BoS is getting retconned to ignore fallout 1 and 2's timeline. There was a note suggesting the BoS hands the player a quest despite that fact the BoS didn't emerge until 2150ish or get vertibirds until 2220ish iirc


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/11 17:01:06


Post by: Voss


 Wolfblade wrote:
So it's looking like the BoS is getting retconned to ignore fallout 1 and 2's timeline. There was a note suggesting the BoS hands the player a quest despite that fact the BoS didn't emerge until 2150ish or get vertibirds until 2220ish iirc


Yeah, I saw another bit where someone mentioned ghouls going off to the sanctuary of Underworld, and it seems really early for that (Underworld was founded around 2230) and odd, since there are zero humans to make ghouls feel unsafe, which was the premise of the place.

Since we have 76 dated to 2102, thats... absurdly early. Good job Bethesda on failing on the timeline of your own creations.


---
Honestly, I still find the premise of the game confusing. Ignoring game based respawn mechanics (which are genre conceit I'll accept for progression), a population comes out of a Vault after an Apocalypse and instead of setting up a town and recreating civilization in the immediate vicinity of all their supplies, clean water and power sources, they scatter to the winds and start killing each other, the people they've known and lived with for years, for no reason?

It'd be one thing if it were raider groups competing for limited supplies, but reasonably this should be a co-op town building game, with some exploration and scavenging aspects and a bit of gunplay.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/11 18:21:36


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


immediate vicinity of all their supplies, clean water and power sources


They don't have any of that. The experiment of Vault 76 was to force all the Dwellers out into the wasteland to fend for themselves and achieve the mission that Vault Tec set for them. And as such, the water and power systems of Vault 76 are programmed to shut down within a specified time frame after the Vault opens to force the Vault Dwellers to leave. The only supplies are whatever they can carry with them.

They don't have access to the Vault after they leave.

See Oxhorn's livestreams, he went through all the Lore (Terminals) inside Vault 76.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/11 18:53:51


Post by: Whirlwind


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
immediate vicinity of all their supplies, clean water and power sources


They don't have any of that. The experiment of Vault 76 was to force all the Dwellers out into the wasteland to fend for themselves and achieve the mission that Vault Tec set for them. And as such, the water and power systems of Vault 76 are programmed to shut down within a specified time frame after the Vault opens to force the Vault Dwellers to leave. The only supplies are whatever they can carry with them.

They don't have access to the Vault after they leave.

See Oxhorn's livestreams, he went through all the Lore (Terminals) inside Vault 76.


Nah. It's an alternative version of the plans for Vault 112 but testing what happens when people are encouraged to go out and pillage and murder.

This would explain why all the story and background is messed up.

You travel the world and at the end of the game the Overseer tells you it has been just a
.
.
.
.
.
DREAM!

After which point everyone throws their controller on the floor in disgust. Or perhaps just resets the simulation and you get to start all over again...



New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/11 20:32:02


Post by: Voss


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
immediate vicinity of all their supplies, clean water and power sources


They don't have any of that. The experiment of Vault 76 was to force all the Dwellers out into the wasteland to fend for themselves and achieve the mission that Vault Tec set for them. And as such, the water and power systems of Vault 76 are programmed to shut down within a specified time frame after the Vault opens to force the Vault Dwellers to leave. The only supplies are whatever they can carry with them.

They don't have access to the Vault after they leave.

See Oxhorn's livestreams, he went through all the Lore (Terminals) inside Vault 76.


So, working together with your friends and family and getting infrastructure going is even more important? Great.

The point remains, I can see ways of doing Battle Royal Fallout, but that would involve teams of raiders, ghouls, and normals pitted against each other over too few resources, not normal human settlers who all know each other in a relatively untouched West Virginia (there are un-mutated animals, green plants and for example, raspberries, not 'mutfruits'), with enough threats that staying together and functioning as a society is still a super great idea.

That all of the local human population is dead or gone is outright baffling, given the condition of several areas that were shown off.



New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/12 06:25:00


Post by: Maddok_Death


I'm getting destiny feels from hearing about weekly events, and the way the leveling system works. The game isn't finished, so maybe the issues will get fixed.

As far as the lore goes, I think its just out the window... Beth cant really make a good story. All the fallouts make you think you are in control but you are not, they are a linear hybrid open world games. But I'm still wondering the Mohave lol. Am I going to get it, yes, will it be the Fallout game that I want no, but I will hope there will be another in the future that takes a new turn, maybe to another country.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/12 08:42:33


Post by: Riquende


I have over 540 hours now on F4. I love settlement buliding and hate other people in my games so I can see that increase rather than getting on this new game.

But for the sake of people looking forward to it, I hope it does turn out alright.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/12 08:48:55


Post by: Ratius


I havent followed this at all. Its basically Fallout 3/4 but online with multiplayer and PvP added in?


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/12 09:00:05


Post by: Paradigm


 Ratius wrote:
I havent followed this at all. Its basically Fallout 3/4 but online with multiplayer and PvP added in?


By and large, yes. The biggest changes are:

- Much bigger map than any of the others
- Earlier in the timeline (2102)
- Multiplayer with optional co-op and/or PvP (which can be either disabled or at least mitigated, it's not yet clear exactly what the Pacifist mode does)
- Bigger focus on crafting, building, scavenging
- 'Survival mode' is always on but it's a lot more lenient than FO4's
- Real-time VATS
- Overhauled progression system
- No NPCs, though there's still plenty of notes/holotapes/terminals/robots to get quests and info from



New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/12 20:18:02


Post by: Grimskul


Another issue I noticed regarding timeline issues are the presence of super mutants. As far as I remember, they didn't show up until much later, when the master was created. Even in exceptions like their presence in FO4, they were created by the Institute with FEV, so unless they're shoehorning another FEV experiment vault again, it's very weird for the "past" to be so similar to the future.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/12 21:53:59


Post by: Riquende


 Paradigm wrote:

- No NPCs, though there's still plenty of notes/holotapes/terminals/robots to get quests and info from



I dunno, this one seems weird. Wandering around an empty world.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/12 23:48:35


Post by: squidhills


I had a feeling I was going to skip Fallout '76, and watching several of those game play videos convinced me that was the correct decision. I love Fallout 4 (I'm not some Obsidian purist) but the idea of a massive, empty world with no NPCs or storyline to interact with doesn't appeal to me.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/12 23:54:16


Post by: Wolfblade


Oh, there's story and stuff supposedly, it's just all handled through notes. There are just no friendly NPCs (such as vendors)


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/13 09:56:44


Post by: Paradigm


The flip side of that is that while a lot of the narrative is being carried by environmental/emergent storytelling, that is what Bethesda are consistently great at. Some of the most interesting Fallout locations (for instance, most of the Vaults) reveal their history through notes, holotapes, terminals, little vignettes ect, and they have a track record of creating great atmosphere through those.

It'll definitely be a more lonely world without human NPCs, but then Fallout has always been a very lonely experience in one way or another. Bethesda's worlds are at their best when you just go off the beaten track in a random direction searching for a story, and 76 does seem to offer plenty of that.

It kind of makes sense from another angle as well; unlike New Vegas, Megaton or Diamond City, the apocalypse is still fresh and civilisation hasn't bounced back to something resembling normal so there aren't these big hubs of trade or sanctuary yet. We see factions in the game that tried, such as The Responders, but it's apparent from the fact they're all dead that their efforts failed; the world was still too hostile and dangerous.



New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/13 15:38:00


Post by: squidhills


 Paradigm wrote:

It kind of makes sense from another angle as well; unlike New Vegas, Megaton or Diamond City, the apocalypse is still fresh and civilisation hasn't bounced back to something resembling normal so there aren't these big hubs of trade or sanctuary yet. We see factions in the game that tried, such as The Responders, but it's apparent from the fact they're all dead that their efforts failed; the world was still too hostile and dangerous.



Which doesn't fit at all with how lush and alive the world of '76 looks. I can buy that West Virginia wasn't hit directly by any nukes, thus leaving it relatively untouched. I cannot buy that such an area would then be devoid of any settlements at all. If active perpetual warzones like DC and Boston can have civilizations then a comparative paradise like WV should have several. Or several dozen. And I don't buy that the survivors couldn't handle the dangers of the post war world. This is rural WV we're talking about. This is prepper country. These people hunt. These people fish. They know how to survive without scavenging 200 year old irradiated Salisbury steak and they've already drawn up plans on how to stay alive after the bombs fall. IF DC and Boston, two cities with factions actively trying to exterminate all life have managed to produce viable settlements (Rivet City and Diamond City) then WV should be teeming with little survivor communities.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/13 22:45:05


Post by: Voss


squidhills wrote:
 Paradigm wrote:

It kind of makes sense from another angle as well; unlike New Vegas, Megaton or Diamond City, the apocalypse is still fresh and civilisation hasn't bounced back to something resembling normal so there aren't these big hubs of trade or sanctuary yet. We see factions in the game that tried, such as The Responders, but it's apparent from the fact they're all dead that their efforts failed; the world was still too hostile and dangerous.



Which doesn't fit at all with how lush and alive the world of '76 looks. I can buy that West Virginia wasn't hit directly by any nukes, thus leaving it relatively untouched. I cannot buy that such an area would then be devoid of any settlements at all. If active perpetual warzones like DC and Boston can have civilizations then a comparative paradise like WV should have several. Or several dozen. And I don't buy that the survivors couldn't handle the dangers of the post war world. This is rural WV we're talking about. This is prepper country. These people hunt. These people fish. They know how to survive without scavenging 200 year old irradiated Salisbury steak and they've already drawn up plans on how to stay alive after the bombs fall. IF DC and Boston, two cities with factions actively trying to exterminate all life have managed to produce viable settlements (Rivet City and Diamond City) then WV should be teeming with little survivor communities.


Totally agree. I can see a lot of the large towns collapsing, but there are fresh raspberries on the bush and completely normal and un-irradiated wolves roaming about. There were survivalists and descendents within spitting distance of the big target of Washington in Fallout 3 (and Boston in 4), there would be a far higher percentage up in West Virginia. Not just absolute legions of new ghouls in completely unirradiated areas (which seems to be the actual case in game)


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/13 22:47:54


Post by: Wyrmalla


 Grimskul wrote:
Another issue I noticed regarding timeline issues are the presence of super mutants. As far as I remember, they didn't show up until much later, when the master was created. Even in exceptions like their presence in FO4, they were created by the Institute with FEV, so unless they're shoehorning another FEV experiment vault again, it's very weird for the "past" to be so similar to the future.


Zenimax gave up on canon continuity after buying the license, so a silly little thing like that's beneath their radar.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/14 02:01:12


Post by: Triple9


Just got finished participating in the Stress Test. I really like it. Initially, I was very worried as I do not like online games, It really didn't feel all that much like an online game and the other players were pretty unobtrusive. In Fallout 4 the joy for me was going toward a quest marker and being distracted to the point of completing a bunch of other quests by the time I got to the initial one. The biggest frustration in Fallout 4 was having to constantly jump to settlements to defend them in the middle of quests. I finished up thinking that my favorite part was intact and the biggest frustration removed. On the negative side, I do miss the companions a little bit and the still not sold on the the game tracking hunger and thirst.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/14 05:46:06


Post by: Avatar 720


What was the difficulty like in terms of how far above your own level an enemy could be before you had trouble?

I saw a very interesting suggestion that some aspects of the game could have been toned down for the press events the other week--and according to several people who went, there were a good number of attendees who had little idea what Fallout even was, so it's a reasonable theory--as it was fairly easy for players versed in Fallout, especially F4, to tackle enemies 10-15 levels higher than themselves, by themselves. Worth seeing if that still stood up in the stress test.

---

As for worries about the lore... there are people far more knowledgeable about the Fallout universe than me who've convincingly pointed out how swathes of lore criticisms are unfounded and pretty knee-jerk-y.

The BoS one springs to mind, with many people--I should note, 'people' in a very broad, internet-ranging sense, with no direct references to anyone in this thread--rabidly holding a belief that the BoS, an organisation whose founders can be placed in Lost Hills in 2077, cannot possibly exist in the world until 2134, because that's when we first know objectively they exist. Except not really. We know a faction within them emerged at that point. We also know the Brotherhood are very fractious, with many factional splits and desertions--hell, that's what the 2134 faction did; they left Lost Hills in a temper tantrum because they had an expedition disallowed. There's no reason why, in the 57 years between 2077 and 2134, the Brotherhood collectively sat on their tin bums, suggestively polishing laser rifles until one of them decided they wanted to go out, got denied, and left in a huff with his mates, and thus the idea of the Outside was born.

If anything, the first objective "Brotherhood" info we know being that a group decided to splinter off after taking a decision poorly should reinforce the idea that the Brotherhood in some form could turn up in odd places. All it would've taken is a disillusioned group taking off, believing themselves to be the REAL Brotherhood of Steel--because if there's one thing BoS splinter factions are known for it's their "No True Brotherhood of Steel-sman" type rhetoric--and making their way eventually into WV, cleansing as they went. The F76 note doesn't mention power armour, or sophisticated weaponry, so they could well have had to leave it behind after it wasn't able to be maintained any longer, carrying just their name with them. They might've picked up some recruits along the way who carry the banner. Might be a group were taken by what some BoS deserters/exiles/patrolers had to say, and decided to 'join' them in spirit.

There's also very much potential for Vertibirds, because while Fallout 2 has the BoS stealing blueprints for them from the Enclave, by 2242 the BoS had already taken a huge decline in standing, and instead of trying to procure the blueprints so they could have their first ever vertibirds could have been aiming to procure them to replace ones they could've lost in the 165 years since 2077. I wouldn't say it's beyond belief that Mariposa could've had a small number to be taken to Lost Hills, given it was a top-secret military base in the middle of bumflip nowhere handling sensitive research. Not exactly the sort of thing you want to pull up at with an armoured convoy.

Sending a precious Vertibird out in the 25 intervening years between 2077 and 2102, no doubt using the few experienced pilots and soldiers of the Old World, to the state which also happens to be the location of a governmental nuclear bunker where one might be able to extract remnants of an Old World government to a safe location in the hopes of starting anew, is not implausible. To me, it sounds very plausible, in fact, and we know from a 76 trailer that there is a crashed vertibird with BoS markings on the barriers around it. A governmental rescue Vertibird being brought down by Scorched, which are then hunted down by survivors seems like a fair possibility, which nothing in Fallout canon contradicts. Nothing says the Brotherhood never had Vertibirds at a stage before 2242--indeed, the first records we ever have of the Brotherhood using Vertibirds is Fallout 4 and the arrival of the Prydwen, but it would obviously be nonsense to assume that they were never utilised before then, even though the BoS of both F3 and F:NV neglect to reference them. I'm not saying it's definitely the answer, because in all honesty only Bethesda know that; it's simply one of several workable theories.

But for some reason, in the face of 0 hard evidence, people are intent on kicking up a stink not just based around an organisation for which 53 years of initial background is not only lacking but completely nonexistent, but also on information after that which is vague at best. We know of an an emergant faction of the BoS in 2134, not the first. We know the 2242 BoS wanted Enclave vertibird plans, but not that they never had vertibirds at all. We know of vague general tidbits, but nothing more.

It's similar with the Super Mutants. We know Vault 87 ran experiments with modified FEV, and created the first V87 Super Mutants in 2078 which promptly took over. That's 24 years for some of them to reach WV, a state practically next door to Washington. Again, information on the Capital Wasteland mutants especially pre-Fallout 3 is either vague or nonexistent, but conclusions are happily being drawn regardless.

Instead of poo-pooing it all, perhaps it should offer incentive for the vocal 'fans' of Fallout complaining about it to instead play and find out the lore reasons behind it all. Though I imagine that might be too much work for some serial internet complainers.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/14 09:19:51


Post by: A Town Called Malus


squidhills wrote:
...and they've already drawn up plans on how to stay alive after the bombs fall.


If any of the multitude of TV shows about hardcore preppers are anything to go by, these people who are the most prepped will be the first people to start shooting everyone else in order to protect their own little bunker.

Rarely do their plans include anything about finding other survivors and working with them to build a community. They are more the shoot first and never ask questions type.

In other words, a large percentage of preppers might actually reduce the potential for large stable communities to develop as the groups that go all-in on prepping are typically doing so from a very egocentric viewpoint. As such they'd be more likely to raid others for supplies than to share or trade. If they think they have the strength to get something for nothing, that is what they would try and do rather than give something for something else.

Then again, they also often manage to combine ignorance of an event which overestimates the likelihood of said event with ignorance of that event which underestimates the impact of that event were it to occur. Like thinking that the earths polar shift would mean that the earth would literally, physically flip upside down without warning but also thinking their little compound made of storage containers would survive such an event.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/14 09:25:50


Post by: Paradigm


 Avatar 720 wrote:

Instead of poo-pooing it all, perhaps it should offer incentive for the vocal 'fans' of Fallout complaining about it to instead play and find out the lore reasons behind it all. Though I imagine that might be too much work for some serial internet complainers.


Take an exalt. I've seen a few of those suggestions floating about but that post summarises them all nice and succinctly. And you're absolutely right; there will almost certainly be some effort in the game to explain it, and there's a lot of info we don't have yet. If anything, I'm looking forward to discovering all that and working out how it all fits together.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/14 13:48:10


Post by: Triple9


 Avatar 720 wrote:
What was the difficulty like in terms of how far above your own level an enemy could be before you had trouble?

I saw a very interesting suggestion that some aspects of the game could have been toned down for the press events the other week--and according to several people who went, there were a good number of attendees who had little idea what Fallout even was, so it's a reasonable theory--as it was fairly easy for players versed in Fallout, especially F4, to tackle enemies 10-15 levels higher than themselves, by themselves. Worth seeing if that still stood up in the stress test.

---



Difficulty seemed fine. I only made it to level 5 by the time it ended (which is the first level you can even use a 10mm), so I was stuck with a machete and pipe pistol for quite a while and hoping I didn't run into anything overly powerful. Pretty much just mole rats, feral ghouls and mutant hounds and then started to get protectrons at level 4 or 5. I didn't wander off the "main story", so didn't enter anywhere with higher-level enemies. The new real-time VATS will take some getting used to, but I think it will work out. Being real-time, it doesn't give you much time to think and there weren't tool tips (yet), so I finally figured out how to change target location but never quite got down how to switch enemies without dropping out of VATS; bit chaotic when melee enemies are surrounding you.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/15 04:09:30


Post by: Wyrmalla


 Paradigm wrote:
 Avatar 720 wrote:

Instead of poo-pooing it all, perhaps it should offer incentive for the vocal 'fans' of Fallout complaining about it to instead play and find out the lore reasons behind it all. Though I imagine that might be too much work for some serial internet complainers.


Take an exalt. I've seen a few of those suggestions floating about but that post summarises them all nice and succinctly. And you're absolutely right; there will almost certainly be some effort in the game to explain it, and there's a lot of info we don't have yet. If anything, I'm looking forward to discovering all that and working out how it all fits together.


My own criticisms aren't so much attempts at plugging plot holes which Bethesda's induced. Its that they've so far with the series just gone ahead with what they thought would be cool, disregarding what's came before, and barely bothered to hand wave the conflicts.

As with other titles, I'd like to not have to fill in the blanks and made up backwards solutions for when writers disregard the lore. ...It'd be nice if they just didn't do it in the first place. The folks who put Super Mutants in this game have done so, as with Fallout 3 and 4, to have a cool enemy. Canon continuity wasn't on their list of priorities - as that's not something most players care about beyond a surface level anyway.


New Fallout? Let's all get aboard the hype train! @ 2018/10/19 01:01:57


Post by: epicbreck


I know it's not much like the other games, but I'm pretty exited for 76.