Jan
04
2019

I don’t really know what to do about Fallout 76.

I still play Fallout 76, actually: log on, go wandering around, level up a little, then advance the plot a bit, although I doubt that I’ll actually get around to launching a nuke on my own or in a group.  It’s even still enjoyable. But I still don’t get what Bethesda was trying to do with this game.  I mean, what’s the final point of it?  At least when you nuke the Institute or Alduin you can say hey! I did that.  I’m almost ready to start another game of Fallout 4, or maybe even New Vegas.  Although I’d love a New Vegas where I could build actual settlements… but I digress.

Bottom line: I will probably play Fallout 76 until something new comes out, and then I will drop it for that.  And that is not my usual style for Bethesda games.  Seriously, you gotta give me a reason why I should care about popping back to Appalachia.

6 Comments

  • UnmovingGreatLibrary says:

    A best-case, optimistic guess as to what Bethesda was trying to do was test out features they’d like to include in new games on a new engine. A more pessimistic (and based on the information that their next games will be running on the same engine they’ve been on since Morrowind, realistic) one is that they wanted to make more money by throwing together a game with pieces they had lying around and make $70 a pop selling it.
    .
    “Although I’d love a New Vegas where I could build actual settlements…”
    .
    There’s a mod for that. Seriously. They got the idea for building settlements in Fallout 4 from a New Vegas mod. (Like how iron sights and weapon mods in New Vegas were inspired by Fallout 3 mods.)

  • acat says:

    So … the $70 that I never spent on Fallout 76 was the right choice? Good to know.
    .
    Mew
    .
    .
    .
    .
    p.s. I recommend attempting the Deathclaw promontory in a vault jumpsuit (your choice of vault number) and with only the anti-materiel rifle…..

  • Luke says:

    I think it was mainly that they’d heard so many requests for multiplayer Fallout that they knew there was a market, but weren’t quite clear on what the market was or how to serve it.
    Add in some rank incompetence from marketing and public relations (the canvas bag fiasco and responses to the criticism being the most obvious examples) and you’ve got the epic saga of Fallout 76.

    .

    As for something new…
    Bioware is running an open demo of Anthem February 1-3. It’s supposed to be a good cross section of the gameplay and give a good feel for what the game’s about.
    Try it before you buy it.
    Trying it out for myself beats the heck out of waiting for reviews. (Especially given the level of objectivity and expertise games journalism generally brings to game reviews.)

    • UnmovingGreatLibrary says:

      I read someone say (and I may have repeated here) that a multiplayer/online system similar to the Dark Souls games could work well for Bethesda’s Fallout games.

  • junior says:

    I suspect that Bethesda’s been angling for an online Fallout game since they purchased the property. Interplay was originally going to try and make one, but failed to do so by the agreed upon deadline and lost the on-line rights as a result. So this wouldn’t be the first time that someone has considered an online Fallout.

    The difficulty, in part, is that the online paradigms have shifted. WoW is still something companies need to be aware of, but is now reportedly the 800 pound *dying* gorilla (apparently Battle for Azeroth has driven a lot of people away). The only game that I’m aware of that is even somewhat competing with WoW – even in its current state – is Final Fantasy XIV, which has its own pre-installed fan-base (i.e. Final Fantasy fans, particularly those who had already played FFXI). Given WoW’s juggernaut status, it seems likely that Bethesda didn’t want to directly compete with Blizzard when the F76 developers were doing the initial planning on what kind of game they wanted.

    Instead, Bethesda seems to have taken the same attitude that Funcom did. i.e. “Online survival games are popular right now. Lets make one of those and cash in.”

    • acat says:

      The tricky part in making Fallout work as an online includes ..
      .
      It’d need to be written in a way that it *can’t* accidentally retcon existing properties (i.e. Appalachia is *way too close* to D.C.)
      .
      It’d need to allow players to join at various times and not be instantly horribly outclassed / outgunned
      .
      It’d need to let players do teams and factions .. but include some side-quests for lone super-boy-or-girl-scout stuff too
      .
      It has to be easy enough to mess with other groups for “league play” to be fun .. but hard enough that a new solo or intermittent player can set out and not get camped/killed/looted ..
      .
      If they were interested, I’d suggest that a *heavy* “viper gang” accretion around settlements would answer this effectively. That way, a newbie is surrounded by level 1 vipers, but there’s some level 99 vipers in between the newbie and the next settlement over. The newbie can sneak past the uber-vipers for trade or exploration purposes, but the vipers will de facto augment newbie-settlement guards from overly-powerful other players trying to raid or “camp”.
      .
      Doesn’t have to be “viper gang”, obviously .. supermutants would work nicely, as would organized and militant ghouls with disorganized ghoul elements on their flanks.
      .
      Anyway, still glad I didn’t bother shelling out for Fallout 76.
      .
      Mew
      .
      .
      .
      .
      p.s. still grumbling that Fallout: Chicago is off the table .. and looking forward to Fallout: Portlandia

RSS feed for comments on this post.



Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com