Fallout 76

[Commander Clueless]

It's legitimately interesting because so much of Bethesda's player base has been focused on single player.

ESO (different developer I know, but same content) came out to mixed reviews so we shall see.

Sometimes I think developers see "Fortnite" or "Playerunknown's Battlegrounds" and the massive player base and potential dollar signs and jump to try and emulate whatever is hot.

The move towards Skyrim (which was all the rage) in DA:Inquisition and in ME: Andromeda by Bioware was a step backwards.

I liked both games but the story was sacrificed in a way that diluted the series.

It is odd, considering variety is the spice of life. Instead of trying to bring around the next big thing, they play copy cat and hope to jump the cash cow.

If you can truly take something and innovate and improve upon it, by all means. Fallout 76 (assuming it is in fact a survival game) has potential for this by incorporating what makes Fallout great.


Side note, but I think the problem with ESO initially was that it was much too close to a WoW clone. They had a chance to make something similar, but different in their own popular world, but fell far short of it IMO. Haven't played since Beta, though...might be better now.

I'll say the same thing I said to one of my friends - I don't expect them to make the survival game I really really want - but IF they do - I have been craving a good survival game for a long time. You mentioned the Long Dark - I do have it, maybe I should break it out and give it a try. Anyhow, I'm cautiously hopeful for 76, but I'm keeping expectations low.

A word of warning - The Long Dark is slow. I mean VERY slow. As in almost no action save for getting attacked by the occasional scary animal.

It's almost like a survival management game more than a survival action game. The biggest threat is the cold.

 

[Osprey]

I'm perfectly willing to let them judge whatever they wish, provided I'm able to judge them on that basis as well.

I'm not sure why there's a double standard here.

There isn't a double standard. They're not judging you or any other people. The only thing that they're judging is whether the game will be up their alley, which they have every right to do because they know their own situations and tastes. What you're doing is judging them without knowing what their situations and tastes exactly are. I'm surprised that you seem to believe that one is no different than the other.

For the record, I'm a single-player gamer, first and foremost. I'm still willing to keep my options open.

I'm exactly the same way, but that doesn't stop me from being a little disappointed at what the game isn't. Being disappointed and keeping your mind open are not mutually exclusive. Being disappointed doesn't mean that you've made up your mind about the game and are henceforth pessimistic about it. To be honest, I suspect that you're a bit disappointed that it isn't a single-player game, too, but you're hesitant to say so because you're trying to be positive and not let yourself get deflated like others have. I understand that. I just don't agree with criticizing others who are more willing to share their reactions towards what we know so far, even if it's not much.

 

[Kestrel]

A word of warning - The Long Dark is slow. I mean VERY slow. As in almost no action save for getting attacked by the occasional scary animal.

It's almost like a survival management game more than a survival action game. The biggest threat is the cold.

Thanks for the heads up. That's probably largely how I would want the game to be anyway. A Fallout survival game on the other hand, I would definitely want and expect a solid action component.

 

[CBJx614]

Thanks for the heads up. That's probably largely how I would want the game to be anyway. A Fallout survival game on the other hand, I would definitely want and expect a solid action component.

My question is what is going to be alive after a nuclear fallout only 25 years later. I'm sure they're will be lots of animals and possibly other human survivors scattered throughout.

 

[Kestrel]

My question is what is going to be alive after a nuclear fallout only 25 years later. I'm sure they're will be lots of animals and possibly other human survivors scattered throughout.

Good question. As long as it's not too obnoxious though, I'm willing to employ a healthy suspension of disbelief.

 

[Bjorn Le]

My question is what is going to be alive after a nuclear fallout only 25 years later. I'm sure they're will be lots of animals and possibly other human survivors scattered throughout.

The lore already has people out this early. It might not be realistic but the game has already established lore wise, that this is fine.

For example, Vault City from Fallout 2 (Vault 8) opened in 2091. Of course, they do so with a GECK (Fallout magic). For the most part, the game has established that anyone outside when the bombs dropped turned into a ghoul, and that humans are decedents of either people in vaults or other somewhat safe places, though that's contradicted plenty, with Fallout 1 settlements being too big and too developed to have come from solely sheltered sources. The Hub has a population likely in the low 5 figures in Fallout 1 and there's no way all those people came from vaults/fallout shelters in about 80 years.

This is one area the Bethesda games have kind of got wrong. In Fallout 1 and 2, we see huge settlements and very civilized areas, but in Fallout 3 and 4, it's still the state of nature and the big settlements (Rivet City and Diamond City) are more like the tiny settlements from the first games, like Junktown and Redding.

 

[Desdichado93]

My question is what is going to be alive after a nuclear fallout only 25 years later. I'm sure they're will be lots of animals and possibly other human survivors scattered throughout.

This will give you an idea about animal life. It is a documentary about life in
Chernobyl Exclusion Zone"/ Pripyat with surroundings.

 

[Osprey]

The Hub has a population likely in the low 5 figures in Fallout 1 and there's no way all those people came from vaults/fallout shelters in about 80 years.

I don't know. It doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to me. If 100 people leave a single vault to establish a single city above ground and the population doubles every 10 years, that would end up being over 25,000 people in 80 years. Account for early and frequent death because quality of life is poor and the wasteland being dangerous and you're still probably over 10,000. That's not even taking into account that vaults may release more than 100 people, multiple vaults are likely to join together to create the bigger settlements or that they may want to breed like rabbits to re-populate the species. It doesn't seem to me to be out of the realm of possibility.

This is one area the Bethesda games have kind of got wrong. In Fallout 1 and 2, we see huge settlements and very civilized areas, but in Fallout 3 and 4, it's still the state of nature and the big settlements (Rivet City and Diamond City) are more like the tiny settlements from the first games, like Junktown and Redding.

Bethesda definitely did roll the level of civilization back. What we see in Fallout 1 and 2 is more like we got from Fallout: New Vegas. Obsidian got it more right than Bethesda. It's easier to see the world in New Vegas being the same as the one in the first two games. For example, Vegas in NV doesn't look all that different from Reno in Fallout 2:

(This reminds me that I used to be a little bugged by how nicely painted all of the street lines were. The world could actually be a little too neat and clean for the setting.)

 

[offkilter]

There's a lot Bethesda botched when it comes to the world of Fallout.

 

[Hasbro]

Fallout: Canada

It would be called Falloot then.

 

[Desdichado93]

Some more info from Schreier.
No DayZ or Rust clone, but co-op and base building.

 

[NyQuil]

Bethesda definitely did roll the level of civilization back. What we see in Fallout 1 and 2 is more like we got from Fallout: New Vegas. Obsidian got it more right than Bethesda. It's easier to see the world in New Vegas being the same as the one in the first two games. For example, Vegas in NV doesn't look all that different from Reno in Fallout 2:

(This reminds me that I used to be a little bugged by how nicely painted all of the street lines were. The world could actually be a little too neat and clean for the setting.)

It depends on where you are looking.

Boneyard:

Necropolis:

I think the lore established pretty clearly that the NCR developed into the most advanced civilization of the United States.

New Vegas avoided a lot of the worst of the war thanks to Mr. House's interventions. (Fallout Wiki)

"House went to work on a secret plan to ensure the city would survive this apocalypse and that he would live to see the world after the war. He programmed multiple mainframes with satellite links meant to disable the vast majority of the Chinese missiles while in flight, then designed an array of high powered laser cannons, which he had installed on the roof of the Lucky 38, to deal with any missile his program had missed."

New Reno (Fallout Wiki):

"Isolated and partially shielded by mountains, Reno survived the apocalypse in enough of one piece to be rebuilt as New Reno."

Washington D.C. (Fallout Wiki):

"During the events of 2077, the city of Washington, D.C. was hit by a bombardment of nuclear weapons that completely destroyed the city and irradiated the surrounding area. Being the capital, it was hit harder than most of the country. By comparison to the west coast, the D.C. area is mostly rubble and ruins. "

Capital Wasteland

I think that both visions of the post-apocalyptic Fallout universe are pretty compatible.

 

[XX]

Side note, but I think the problem with ESO initially was that it was much too close to a WoW clone. They had a chance to make something similar, but different in their own popular world, but fell far short of it IMO. Haven't played since Beta, though...might be better now.

ESO has turned around completely and now makes Bethesda money and is generally considered good after all the changes they've made. They want the same live game-as-a-service-so-we-can-sell-you-shit thing for their next biggest franchise, which is Fallout.

 

[Commander Clueless]

ESO has turned around completely and now makes Bethesda money and is generally considered good after all the changes they've made. They want the same live game-as-a-service-so-we-can-sell-you-**** thing for their next biggest franchise, which is Fallout.

It's hard to blame them for how much money this stuff makes, but the more companies like Bethesda do this the less really good single player games we get. That strikes me as a real shame.

Unless we get ESO/Fallout 76 AND ESVI/Fallout 5. That seems like the ideal scenario for everyone, but it seems (generally) like once you go MMO you don't go back.

 

[Beau Knows]

I kind of hope ESVI has some multiplayer. I don't want it to be an MMO, but some co-op and maybe the ability to fight other players in an arena would be fun.

 

[NyQuil]

I kind of hope ESVI has some multiplayer. I don't want it to be an MMO, but some co-op and maybe the ability to fight other players in an arena would be fun.

I imagine multiplayer is tough to code.

You can have the "mute" companion that quest givers don't even acknowledge but that takes some of the immersion away.

If people don't mind just helping out the quest receiver (and you take turns or something) that could work.

 

[XX]

Unless we get ESO/Fallout 76 AND ESVI/Fallout 5. That seems like the ideal scenario for everyone, but it seems (generally) like once you go MMO you don't go back.

There are certain things an always-on game just can't do. Last I heard, Bethesda is waiting for the next tech leap (probably the next console generation) to do ESVI. I assume Fallout 5 will follow. Starfield will launch before both.

These aren't really 'replacements' for core games in the series, but they do give Bethesda some breathing room. As long as they are good.

 

[aleshemsky83]

I imagine multiplayer is tough to code.

You can have the "mute" companion that quest givers don't even acknowledge but that takes some of the immersion away.

If people don't mind just helping out the quest receiver (and you take turns or something) that could work.

I don't think that's too immersion breaking, it'd basically be the housecarl in Skyrim, the coop partner would serve under you and would naturally not agree to anything without player 1. Would make sense to be muted. Not that that's super important to me.

But I think ES6 would be an extremely easy game to make coop.

 

[Beau Knows]

I imagine multiplayer is tough to code.

You can have the "mute" companion that quest givers don't even acknowledge but that takes some of the immersion away.

If people don't mind just helping out the quest receiver (and you take turns or something) that could work.

I don't think that's too immersion breaking, it'd basically be the housecarl in Skyrim, the coop partner would serve under you and would naturally not agree to anything without player 1. Would make sense to be muted. Not that that's super important to me.

But I think ES6 would be an extremely easy game to make coop.

The 2nd player being a housecarl is a good idea, it works with the system they already had in Skyrim, so instead of playing with your friend when you're on your own you can just have an AI companion. And there could always be some quests that can't be done in multiplayer, or vice versa.

I guess as long as the housecarl can bring his experience points, money and maybe equipment with him back into his own game players wouldn't mind not being the host.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

I imagine multiplayer is tough to code.

You can have the "mute" companion that quest givers don't even acknowledge but that takes some of the immersion away.

If people don't mind just helping out the quest receiver (and you take turns or something) that could work.

In SWTOR companions were included in the conversations. Also that game while being an MMO you could play solo, for your classes main story anyway.

 

[NyQuil]

In SWTOR companions were included in the conversations. Also that game while being an MMO you could play solo, for your classes main story anyway.

Yeah, I played SWTOR quite a bit (finished about half of the eight storylines and the KOTFE and subsequent storylines with two of them).

It was also an enormous undertaking in terms of resources.

For those who don't know, with respect to having another player as a companion, basically what would happen is you would roll the dice against one another to see whose response would be used in a conversation. Whatever the winner selected would not reflect on your alignment - but rather the choice you made, to keep people from messing with your character development.

Still, what ended up happening is I would always pick the more ridiculous response just to f*** with my friend with his earnest aspirations and to move the quest into bizarre places. I ended up as the most evil Jedi in the world.

In any event, while the two of you were standing there, the conversation would only acknowledge the person who got to say the line. It was a clunky approach but I suppose it worked a little bit.

Quests directly related to an individual's storyline didn't allow the companion to say anything, and they were often excluded even from cut-scenes which was disappointing because you'd have to just sit there and wait while the other person had a conversation bubble over their head.

You could be involved in a quest with them and yet have no real idea what was going on.

 

[Blitzkrug]

Generally I don't pay attention to leaks but Jason Schreier is very well connected in the industry so what people are telling him are likely not lying.

….And that's kinda disappointing

 

[Osprey]

It depends on where you are looking.

Sure, there are dumps in Fallout 1 and 2, as well as in New Vegas. There will always be dumps in a post-apocalyptic world. Even our modern-day society has them if you know where to look. You don't really judge how civilized a society is by its worst areas, though, but by its best. My point is that those games did also have a few relatively civilized areas that I'm not aware that Fallout 3 and 4 had. Washington DC in Fallout 3 is rubble and barely a city at all, Rivet City is more of a fortress than a city and Diamond City in Fallout 4 looks more like a salvage yard. They're not as civilized as the most civilized areas of 1, 2 and NV.

I think that both visions of the post-apocalyptic Fallout universe are pretty compatible.

They might be excused as compatible, but the fact that Bethesda decided to show a junkier, less civilized slice of the world affects how much it feels like it's the same world as other games in the series. It's like how George Lucas' decision to have the world of the prequels look clean and pristine is compatible with the OT because it's set long before it, but it's still valid to argue that he decided to dial back the grit factor and show a cleaner universe. Bethesda did the opposite by dialing back the level of civilization, maybe not literally, but for all intents and purposes, since that's what we were shown. It's not as much a criticism as it is an observation (though I do prefer consistency).

 

[Turin]

The backtracking by Schreier and other potentially accurate leaks have me more excited than I was.

Obligatory f*** Kotaku.

 

[Bjorn Le]

It depends on where you are looking.

Boneyard:

Necropolis:

I think the lore established pretty clearly that the NCR developed into the most advanced civilization of the United States.

New Vegas avoided a lot of the worst of the war thanks to Mr. House's interventions. (Fallout Wiki)

"House went to work on a secret plan to ensure the city would survive this apocalypse and that he would live to see the world after the war. He programmed multiple mainframes with satellite links meant to disable the vast majority of the Chinese missiles while in flight, then designed an array of high powered laser cannons, which he had installed on the roof of the Lucky 38, to deal with any missile his program had missed."

New Reno (Fallout Wiki):

"Isolated and partially shielded by mountains, Reno survived the apocalypse in enough of one piece to be rebuilt as New Reno."

Washington D.C. (Fallout Wiki):

"During the events of 2077, the city of Washington, D.C. was hit by a bombardment of nuclear weapons that completely destroyed the city and irradiated the surrounding area. Being the capital, it was hit harder than most of the country. By comparison to the west coast, the D.C. area is mostly rubble and ruins. "

Capital Wasteland

I think that both visions of the post-apocalyptic Fallout universe are pretty compatible.

That was also only 90 years after the bombs fell. Plus, with the limitations of the game, even the biggest and must affluent city (The Hub) doesn't look particularly nice.

It makes sense the DC Metro was absolutely destroyed, but having literally no attempt at a greater civilization? The West Coast was hit by a ton of bombs too (Los Angeles was completely destroyed, and only the San Fran China Town survived. No other cities are recognizable anymore, but still someone emerged to form a new state.