Fallout 76 - From BETA To Wastelanders

[AgentBJ09]

We made one for Fallout 4. Why not 76 as well?

Wastelanders being pushed back means some content won't be covered if such a review comes out this or next month, but probably no big loss.

Thoughts?

 

[Millim]

I would say a post mortem, but considering Bethesda do a silly every time we think it's over, it maybe a '10 years on' kinda thing

 

[AgentBJ09]

I would say a post mortem, but considering Bethesda do a silly every time we think it's over, it maybe a '10 years on' kinda thing

Maybe a...prognosis instead? After all, if the release content is slowing down, that could mean game death is on the horizon.

 

[Canaris]

Its a Bethesda game without modding, console commands and offline single player...
No amount of time from release to now will fix that.

 

[AgentBJ09]

Its a Bethesda game without modding, console commands and offline single player...
No amount of time from release to now will fix that.

Maybe not, but no harm in taking a few shots at Bethesda.

 

[Korin]

I don't know if an objective one exists yet. The short version would be it was released with a lot of problems and has received a lot of fixes and updates since then. The game it is today should have been the one that was released a year ago. In the present day it still has a lot of issues but despite the ongoing drama about Fallout 1st, a lot of minor bugs and a few major but relatively rare bugs the biggest problem is actually the lack of content for people that have been playing long term. A lot of people were hoping for a Wastelanders release but with it delayed till next year there's not much to do aside from Nuclear Winter/dailies/challenges, etc.

The best thing they can do hopefully is get all their ducks in a row and then do a major "re-opening" with Wastelanders because my understanding is NPCs will fundamentally change the game and if you've already done a lot of the quests you'll need to make a new character to experience some of that content.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

 

[Korin]

I didn't watch the video but I've been following the drama on Reddit as well as Discord (I share some Discords with people involved) and have some thoughts on the matter.

Having done work in the security sector I can tell you it doesn't matter how "helpful" you think you're being, if you spend several days doing unsanctioned exploit/penetration testing then you're going to have a bad time. Bethesda's reaction to his intrusion was justified. He wasn't sanctioned by Bethesda to do this, despite the fact he shares a Discord channel with a couple of the community managers (which has been implied as his license to do this). This is essentially a case of someone having done a lot of good/popular things and then doing something criminal because they believe the rules no longer apply, it doesn't work that way. It's also important to note, that the stuff he was doing was a much different and more aggressive form of exploitation than the canned cheats people are getting banned/temp banned for in NW, though people seem to want to conflate the two. It's about the same difference as smoking meth vs. cooking it.

I actually feel for the guy but this is mostly his fault. He was sloppy in his testing, using both his real accounts and the same game client to perform the tests. He should have done it in a VM or on a throwaway PC that wasn't tangibly tied to his main account. He's garnering a lot of sympathy online but it doesn't change the fact he did this to himself. He self-authorized himself to do these things because of popularity and hubris and assumed he'd either be above reprisal or that he had a "get out of jail free card" because of presumed importance. The only legitimate complaint he has is that Bethesda's customer support sucks ass and getting a timeline/sensible response takes forever, if it ever comes.

 

[JKRDU]

It's still awful, the end.

 

[JDogindy]

One year later: Fallout 76 still exists. Scientists are baffled as it defies all common knowledge.

...okay, enough goofy shit. In theory and in practice, a game like Fallout 76 has the potential to turn around and become something decent, if not valuable, to a company. Anyone who recalls the disaster of the original Final Fantasy XIV launch will be familiar with how Square Enix decided to fix a majority of the experience, rework the narrative, and A Realm Reborn: Final Fantasy XIV was created. To this day, that and the Japan exclusive Dragon Quest X remain two of its largest streams of income. And nobody needs a reminder about how awful No Man's Sky first year was in terms of what was promised and what came out.

The average person on the internet probably tires of hearing 'bout "Final Fantasy XIV" this and "No Man's Sky" that but in terms of comprehension, it's hard to consider any other game that had such a sloppy debut but eventually righted the ship and managed to make amends for its early mistakes (maybe, for the much smaller scale, American Truck Simulator? But that's a very niche product for specific types of players), since if you fail to stick the landing, it's damn near impossible for games nowadays to get a second chance at redemption; you might as well be "Raven's Cry" or "Day One: Garry's Incident".

The issue is that we're dealing with Bethesda... primarily, Todd Howard's Bethesda. The Fallout experience we've gotten since 3 from Bethesda proper, as well as the Elder Scrolls (and Starfield, when it comes out in 2027) tend to focus on the panache rather than the circumstance. Rather than delve into "what the hell am I doing in this dump, and what will my actions cause to make this place slightly better or somehow much worse once I leave?" in terms of Fallout alone, the experience is more about you doing these cool things while being drip-fed rewards since if the player isn't being rewarded for the littlest of tasks, they get bored and will just go back to their Call of Duty or whatever FPS is hot (Escape from Tarkov? The hell is that?). There is nothing wrong with the feeling of wonderment and satisfaction as you get rewarded for doing your errands, but at the same time, the sense of progress should be a reward, not being given weapons that will affect the meta game and render other missions meaningless in terms of a challenge.

That covers the narrative aspect, which explains why Fallout 76 lacks it so much. But once we meander into the technical aspect, and things further go against the game's future. Everyone is most likely familiar with how Bethesda likes to build games that can be assembled in components and then pieced together on-site? That logic creates dull dungeons/vaults and caves, not to mention fragments the idea of how the world can interact with one another, which, again, goes back to the narrative. It's bad enough things are screwy when the game is single-player, but an online game that requires server access and is on a larger scale where if a server messes up, everything is boned... it only adds to the frustration.

Ultimately, while Fallout 76 could recover, I don't see how it will. We were promised something that, thankfully, was delayed, which meant that they probably will take time to adjust and debug, but more than likely, will be released with broken skill checks and instances where you can accidentally lock yourself out of completing a mission without meaning to. And those will be the minor glitches.

 

[AgentBJ09]

As of today, I have changed the title to reflect what this thread is about.

The review in question is the document linked in this post. I'll give everyone interested a chance to look it over before I post it. If you see something you think needs fixing or I got wrong, let me know.

 

[Deleted member 116891]

I like this review, and it certainly carries in it the amount of bile necessary in order to convey this communities's outrage towards this game.

I particularly enjoyed how you took down the notion that we should be thankful for wastelanders, because however good it is, it does not justify 18 months or so of a bad game, full stop.

However.... (and this is merely a thought and not a hill I am prepared to die on. You can see from other posts I have made on here that I am no fan of Bethesda)

Those on the codex that are defending the game are unfortunately putting up better arguments than those attacking it, merely because they are playing it. The stuff they are saying about quest design and writing are largely left unanswered. I get why, few want to step into the rabbit-hole that is f76. However, unless a few unlucky saps (of which I am prepared to consider being one if it means a better review and I can stand the mental scarring.) do get the full experience as is, we risk leaving ourselves open to the criticism that Bethesda can never do anything right, it can never turn the corner and so we fulfil the stereotype of NMA that is shared elsewhere.

Our entire critique of fallout (or at least, for many of us it seems, I don't want to assume we are a monolith) is based on the idea that quality of Fallout games can be measured objectively, and that we don't hate Bethesda blindly, we hate it because of specific reasons as to why they ruined Fallout. Thus, it is better if some of us, however painfully, struggled through it and then showed objectively and conclusively why it is decline, and why those that are saying it is the best Fallout that Bethesda made are either wrong in that statement, or right, but inferior to the 3 best (and only true) fallouts.

There is the other, very minor possibility that it is an improvement, or even actually okay/good. I realise that if any of us were to come back or say that, then accusations would be made, about the author's sensibilities., and to me for even entertaining the idea. Those would be reasonable to make. However, it is a 1% chance, maybe 5 if I am being charitable. We could never recommend the game even then because it is 18 months too late, and even if its on par, with say, NV (I shudder to think), this would not excuse that. However, we may as well arm ourselves with the greatest knowledge that we can, so that when the next trolls come on here to attack us, we can refute them with the same facts and evidence- based approach that we do with Fallout 3 and 4.

Just a thought. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. Stow away the pitchforks. On the other hand, let me ( and the review authors) know if this is a good idea.

 

[Black Angel]

The stuff they are saying about quest design and writing are largely left unanswered.

Here's the thing: the very fact that the game isn't an RPG, but an MMO, means whatever implementation of RPG designs into the game will never even be close to that which proper RPGs demonstrated. Hell, we still even have to factor the fact that the game is more shooter than RPG, and whatever RPG elements there is are very, very trivial they might not as well be there at all.
Until I personally see an implementation that's on par or at least close to that of New Vegas's, I'll stand by my current stance: it was all style, no substance. Bethesda can shove as much stat and skill checks as much they want like they did with Far Harbor, but if they aren't as integrated and interwoven into the gameplay as any other proper RPGs did, it doesn't matter.

And all that doesn't even factor in their horrible, horrible predatory business model. At the end of the day, no matter how good a game was made, if they're being used to utilize anti-costumer practices, I'll never accept the truth of their quality, like I did with Dark Souls 2: Scholar of the First Sin.

 

[AgentBJ09]

I like this review, and it certainly carries in it the amount of bile necessary in order to convey this communities's outrage towards this game.

I particularly enjoyed how you took down the notion that we should be thankful for wastelanders, because however good it is, it does not justify 18 months or so of a bad game, full stop.

However.... (and this is merely a thought and not a hill I am prepared to die on. You can see from other posts I have made on here that I am no fan of Bethesda)

Those on the codex that are defending the game are unfortunately putting up better arguments than those attacking it, merely because they are playing it. The stuff they are saying about quest design and writing are largely left unanswered. I get why, few want to step into the rabbit-hole that is f76. However, unless a few unlucky saps (of which I am prepared to consider being one if it means a better review and I can stand the mental scarring.) do get the full experience as is, we risk leaving ourselves open to the criticism that Bethesda can never do anything right, it can never turn the corner and so we fulfil the stereotype of NMA that is shared elsewhere.

Our entire critique of fallout (or at least, for many of us it seems, I don't want to assume we are a monolith) is based on the idea that quality of Fallout games can be measured objectively, and that we don't hate Bethesda blindly, we hate it because of specific reasons as to why they ruined Fallout. Thus, it is better if some of us, however painfully, struggled through it and then showed objectively and conclusively why it is decline, and why those that are saying it is the best Fallout that Bethesda made are either wrong in that statement, or right, but inferior to the 3 best (and only true) fallouts.

There is the other, very minor possibility that it is an improvement, or even actually okay/good. I realise that if any of us were to come back or say that, then accusations would be made, about the author's sensibilities., and to me for even entertaining the idea. Those would be reasonable to make. However, it is a 1% chance, maybe 5 if I am being charitable. We could never recommend the game even then because it is 18 months too late, and even if its on par, with say, NV (I shudder to think), this would not excuse that. However, we may as well arm ourselves with the greatest knowledge that we can, so that when the next trolls come on here to attack us, we can refute them with the same facts and evidence- based approach that we do with Fallout 3 and 4.

Just a thought. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. Stow away the pitchforks. On the other hand, let me ( and the review authors) know if this is a good idea.

Hmm. I can see where you're coming from. Better to know the whole thing and tear it all down versus stop and have little to defend this review with.

Problem is, there's two paths: Raider and Settler. Using two characters would slow the posting time of the final review, but since Bethesda took so long to do anything pro-Raider in Fallout 4, and yet still mucked it up despite a decade of history to look back on, I think going the Raider side would be the better option for getting the rest of Wastelanders.

Here's the thing: the very fact that the game isn't an RPG, but an MMO, means whatever implementation of RPG designs into the game will never even be close to that which proper RPGs demonstrated. Hell, we still even have to factor the fact that the game is more shooter than RPG, and whatever RPG elements there is are very, very trivial they might not as well be there at all.
Until I personally see an implementation that's on par or at least close to that of New Vegas's, I'll stand by my current stance: it was all style, no substance. Bethesda can shove as much stat and skill checks as much they want like they did with Far Harbor, but if they aren't as integrated and interwoven into the gameplay as any other proper RPGs did, it doesn't matter.

And all that doesn't even factor in their horrible, horrible predatory business model. At the end of the day, no matter how good a game was made, if they're being used to utilize anti-costumer practices, I'll never accept the truth of their quality, like I did with Dark Souls 2: Scholar of the First Sin.

Yeah, I'm getting that impression as well. All flash, no substance. The fact that very little has changed about the world even with Wastelanders and the original quest targets are in the spots you think they are only help that observation.

And I have to roll my eyes at the Steam plebs who think Wastelanders is on par with New Vegas. Caesar and the Legion had much more to them than the Free Radicals do.

 

[RangerBoo]

And I have to roll my eyes at the Steam plebs who think Wastelanders is on par with New Vegas. Caesar and the Legion had much more to them than the Free Radicals do.

Can I chime in and say how stupid that name for a raider gang is. Fucking Hell Bethesda! You could have come up with a less cringey name on the Fantasy Name Generator.

 

[AgentBJ09]

Can I chime in and say how stupid that name for a raider gang is. Fucking Hell Bethesda! You could have come up with a less cringey name on the Fantasy Name Generator.

Yeah, that name is baked in the idea of 'Isn't this punny?'

The other two Raider groups -- Blood Eagles and Mothman Cultists -- are always hostile though so outside of notes and such, we'll never know much about them. I'd wager Bethesda settled on the Mothman one to make up for the loss of the Children of Atom.

 

[SquidWard]

I'm about halfway through your review right now.

I'll probably get around to checking out Wastelanders out of curiosity soon enough. There's no way that it's on par with NV. But I imagine there is an improvement made there. But the thing is, we aren't ever the target audience for this.

If this game shows up on a recommendation list in your Steam store and it says "Because you played 1, 2, and NV" it's by brand recognition alone. Nothing they do to improve what is a live service Fallout will ever be good enough to a bunch of fans of a series that was known for its RPG design. They could improve the games like 3 and 4 to be more like what NV did and appeal to most of us but mind you there are still fans of 1 and 2 who think NV doesn't deserve the recognition it gets.

This game is a literal theme park. The idea of permanence is silly. I've already stated this but I'll put here too, with the disclosure that I don't know how the Wastelanders update is yet:
The choices you make and consequences of those choices are likely to be minimal. This is still an open, shared world. The game will have to remember your choices and you'll have to still occupy the same world as other players. I'd imagine if you have to choose between the lives of two NPCs, they'd be functionally identical when it comes to gameplay later on. In that, they won't matter at all or they'll be shopkeepers or some shit but share the same shop inventory to sell to the player. I really doubt they'd lock out characters from buying or accessing something later on in the game.

It's a theme park. That's it. It's a very MMO-esque game. You don't beat the final boss and go back to Vault 76 and say, "HEY!!! What the fuck are you doing?! The boss is dead!!! Quit doing this quest!" any more than you would in a typical MMO. Permanence of player choice in an always online game like this would be very off putting to many people interested in this type of game. At least, in any meaningful way. They might slide a few cool ones in or something but it'll likely never be what you want.

I fully expect Wastelanders to be shallow and at best exposition to the world they've written up. Maybe some fun missions for their players. I dunno.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Squadcar unless you already own this game I honestly recommend that you do not buy this.
It is a waste of your money and there are much better things you can get for it.

I can understand the urge of wanting to play a Fallout game again (for some reason I want to give FO3 another try despite that I know how incredibly crap it is)

From the review I understand not much has changed to the game other than two NPC settlements and a couple of NPCs spread across the Virginia map.
Most of the content of the game it still as it was before the Wastelanders expansion and at some point you have to do those quests in order raise your levels high enough before you can proceed.

The main end quest is partially a rip off of that of Dead Money and the build up is not interesting.

 

[SquidWard]

I wouldn't buy it thinking it would turn out well.

But I already own it. I saw that T-51b helmet. I feel no regret or shame. If it had been the Bethesda Power Armor helmet I wouldn't have gone for it. Or any other really. Not even the advance power armor helmet would likely have convinced me.

I tried it out around launch and one night sometime last year. I already have opinions on it. Ultimately, it's not good but that's just it simply and something everyone already knows. No point in going on about it. I'm much more interested now in how bad Wastelanders is. I'll check it out someday for myself. Might not even make it all the way through it.

 

[AgentBJ09]

The main end quest is partially a rip off of that of Dead Money and the build up is not interesting.

That is something I noticed but forgot to put into the text. I'll be sure to remedy that before posting the full thing.

I'm about halfway through your review right now.

I'll probably get around to checking out Wastelanders out of curiosity soon enough. There's no way that it's on par with NV. But I imagine there is an improvement made there. But the thing is, we aren't ever the target audience for this.

If this game shows up on a recommendation list in your Steam store and it says "Because you played 1, 2, and NV" it's by brand recognition alone. Nothing they do to improve what is a live service Fallout will ever be good enough to a bunch of fans of a series that was known for its RPG design. They could improve the games like 3 and 4 to be more like what NV did and appeal to most of us but mind you there are still fans of 1 and 2 who think NV doesn't deserve the recognition it gets.

This game is a literal theme park. The idea of permanence is silly. I've already stated this but I'll put here too, with the disclosure that I don't know how the Wastelanders update is yet:
The choices you make and consequences of those choices are likely to be minimal. This is still an open, shared world. The game will have to remember your choices and you'll have to still occupy the same world as other players. I'd imagine if you have to choose between the lives of two NPCs, they'd be functionally identical when it comes to gameplay later on. In that, they won't matter at all or they'll be shopkeepers or some shit but share the same shop inventory to sell to the player. I really doubt they'd lock out characters from buying or accessing something later on in the game.

It's a theme park. That's it. It's a very MMO-esque game. You don't beat the final boss and go back to Vault 76 and say, "HEY!!! What the fuck are you doing?! The boss is dead!!! Quit doing this quest!" any more than you would in a typical MMO. Permanence of player choice in an always online game like this would be very off putting to many people interested in this type of game. At least, in any meaningful way. They might slide a few cool ones in or something but it'll likely never be what you want.

I fully expect Wastelanders to be shallow and at best exposition to the world they've written up. Maybe some fun missions for their players. I dunno.

From what I've seen so far, I'm not too impressed. It's in no way New Vegas caliber, unless, as @The Dutch Ghost pointed out you look at the story similarities between Wastelanders and Dead Money.

You are correct on this however: Your choices have minimal consequences, and they're restricted to designated areas. After all, you can blow up parts of Appalachia with the nukes, and they'll reset upon leaving the server. For Wastelanders, if you are in a team, you don't progress your story when going into the designated story instances so you have to do so on your own or be the leader of the group to make progress.