Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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

 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.

 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

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 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

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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?

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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

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".

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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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

 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.

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?

 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.