Fallout 76: General thread

[Heisenberg]

Many people complain about this game, but there are many elements of which show Bethesda are going forwards, not backwards. I believe Fallout 76, in addition to being an MMORPG keeping Fallout alive up until Fallout 5 releases, is a test. It is intended to measure what Fallout players want and to respond to their criticisms in preparation for the next Fallout game.

This is evident by Bethesda's "No Man's Sky" approach to 76. When the game released, it was about as barebones as a Fallout experience could be. Players criticized it and rightly so. Bethesda responded with Wastelanders and while they still have made questionable demands of their player base (Fallout 1st for example), Fallout 76 even rivals past Fallout games in content now. This is one of the most understated redemption stories in the video game industry over the past year or two.


1. Static Leveling

Due to the MMORPG nature of 76, every area is it's own unique contained zone with different varieties of loot scattered around. The enemies within these areas do not level with the player. Morrowind fans have been wanting static leveling back in a BGS game since forever. Not only does this add to the feeling of progression, but it also marks a turning point in Bethesda's goals and aims. They're not trying to make it accessible to everyone at level 1 like in Skyrim, they're fully aware some areas need to be end-game areas. They managed to throw a few of these areas in past games, Old Olney and the Glowing Sea for instance, but they were never as high-level as say, The Mire and Cranberry Bog for instance.

2. Dialogue

Odd for someone to say this about an MMO, but the dialogue in the Wastelanders update for Fallout 76 is well done, at least in comparison to Fallout 4's dialogue wheel. The inclusion of a dialogue box similar to Fallout 3/New Vegas shows that Bethesda are listening to their consumers, if that was ever was a concern.

3. Silent Protagonist

Much like the above point, the silent protagonist makes a return in Fallout 76 in large response to criticisms of Fallout 4. Some people argue this is because it's an MMO, but Bethesda easily could have gone with The Old Republic approach and had their four option dialogue wheel make a return. They decided to go with the older, more beloved system. Whether you like 76 or not, you have to give the devil his due in that he's gone out of his way to make people who didn't like it, like it.

4. No Player Backstory

Fallout 76 features no character backstory like in 3/NV/4. All that is known about your character is that they wake up after a party in Vault 76 and they escape to roam the wasteland. That is all. You HAVE to be a Vault Dweller like in 1/3/4, but you don't have to be a SPECIFIC Vault Dweller, much like you had to be a Courier in NV, but you don't have to be a specific Courier. Your character is your own.

5. World Design

Fallout 76 features a sprawling, active and well-designed world filled with content, unique environments and ways to alter those environments. In many ways, it's map and world design is superior to any Fallout game before it, even the Bethesda ones. Every area features a unique atmosphere, ripe with beauty.


So to finalize this post, I will say that Fallout 76 has it's problems deeply rooted at it's core design. However it was never intended to be a Fallout spin-off in the vein of New Vegas. It was always intended to be a fun experience diverging from the traditional Fallout formula and New Vegas was similar in that aspect. New Vegas diverged from Fallout 1/2's isometric aspects while also diverging in atmosphere and tone from Fallout 3. While it never fully diverged in game mechanics from Fallout 3, it was unique to every Fallout game that preceded it in tone and inspiration. New Vegas was the only Fallout game to completely embrace the western aspects that have been embedded within the franchise since the very start. Cowboys, gambling, Eastwood-esque setpieces? All of those have arguably had a small part in Fallout, but they were only ever brought to the forefront with New Vegas.

Fallout 76 tries something new and covers uncharted ground. If Bethesda wanted money they would make another singleplayer Fallout game, since they know that sells well. If they wanted a live service, they would attach the multiplayer onto that singleplayer experience. They haven't done that, even if they have made poor decisions in the past, likely a result of the Softworks branch of their company or Zenimax, not the Game Studio itself. The game studio has done everything it can to appease players, even if it is impossible to change the baseline of the game itself.

 

[PaxVenire]

If Bethesda just went ahead and said Fallout 76 was for the most part non-canon and was akin to Tactics, I'd probably enjoy it a lot better. But even then some things they do in it, ESPECIALLY the Steel Dawn update, really just grinds my gears when they go and use the original games for no reason just to member berries the Lost Hills BOS or Desert Ranger armor when they could have literally just used their own Brotherhood lore. Hell, they even added Outcast Power Armor paint to the game. Y'know, that faction that doesn't exist for another 200 years. I do agree that the world map is nice (I still don't like the Futurama /Jetsons looking buildings in Charleston though), the return to stuff like silent protagonist dialogue, player background freedom, and the mix-match of both new and classic Fallout aesthetics also nice. But when you go and declare this entire game to be 100% canon and then fuck with literally every game's lore that's come before it, I start to lose interest. Especially when the PR of the company comes out and declares that they don't give a shit about lore consistency in a game where there are talking mutants or whatever the fuck Pete Hines tried to use as an excuse. Really cool to know that's what they think of the franchise they sought out to create new content for. When playing on a public server, this game feels like New Vegas' Wild Wasteland perk: the video game. Sometimes it even feels like Fallout the Frontier's Wild Wasteland. If you wanna play solo though? "Buy the private server."

Incredible. Ironic enough playing on a private server makes the game feel so much better to me, and I only have a private server subscription because my brother pays for it and I have a character on mhis profile that I use to pop in and play here and there.

 

[Atomic Postman]

Everything in your post can be made irrelevant by its spin-off status and its development by a seperate studio to mainline Bethesda. If these are maintained in the next game then I'd agree they're taking a handful of steps forward to catch-up again for the mile backward they moved after New Vegas. However, it's equally possible that the development team for Fallout 5 builds off the design philosophy of Fallout 4, TES VI or Starfield rather than 76.

I would disagree that it's Bethesda "moving forward" however, it's all catch-up for lobotomizations they didn't need to make.

I'd also say outside of the realm of gameplay, the worldbuilding and lore of 76 are further double downs on the absolutely inane decisions of Fallout 4, and shows zero sign of improvement.

 

[Jogre]

Ah, I remember when I was this naive.

"Bethesda are listening guyz, they'll make the next one good I swear"

Nah, that ship has sailed my friend. The series is damaged beyond repair and has been since 3. We're not the base for Fallout games anymore and never will be again.

 

[Heisenberg]

Everything in your post can be made irrelevant by its spin-off status and its development by a seperate studio to mainline Bethesda.

What? Fallout: New Vegas was made by a separate studio to mainline Bethesda. In addition to being more Fallout 3, that was it's main selling point. You're telling me that Bethesda never absorbed innovations that New Vegas made into it's mainline Fallout games because it was a spin-off? Iron sights, multiple main story factions, multiple faction-related endings, etc. All of that was a result of New Vegas. So tell me. Why can't Fallout 76 be treated in the same way? Arguably, it would have even more so of an impact of mainline Bethesda Fallout games, being that it was developed by a different studio within Bethesda themselves, not Obsidian or any other company.

And even if we discount that entire argument, your point can be made irrelevant by the fact Bethesda have taken ideas from third parties before not even involved in the production of their games. Modders for instance. Not even a month after the release of Fallout: New Vegas, Real Time Settler by arcoolka and Fellout by Hattix were created. These mods went on to be considered in the design of Fallout 4, hence why Fallout 4 shipped with no orange/green tint like the previous two Fallout games and also had a settlement building system which was core to it's marketing.

Fallout 76 will definitely be considered in the development of Fallout 5, spin-off or not. I don't know where you got the idea that spin-offs are ignored by Bethesda because they aren't a mainline game. Arguably Fallout 4 contained much more of New Vegas than Fallout 3.

I would disagree that it's Bethesda "moving forward" however, it's all catch-up for lobotomizations they didn't need to make.

In response to the criticisms of poor writing, they removed Emil Pagliarulo as lead writer/designer and placed him as a design director. Call it what you want, but that's an improvement, which is what I would call "moving forward".

I'd also say outside of the realm of gameplay, the worldbuilding and lore of 76 are further double downs on the absolutely inane decisions of Fallout 4, and shows zero sign of improvement.

Fallout 76 is an MMORPG. It's worldbuilding and design has to be constructed differently than how you would a singleplayer RPG. Bethesda also own Fallout lore. Their version of events doesn't have to be consistent with the Fallout Bible. They only work off it to maintain the integrity of the franchise.

Nah, that ship has sailed my friend. The series is damaged beyond repair and has been since 3. We're not the base for Fallout games anymore and never will be again.

I'm not part of your little "base" or cult. And thank God you aren't the demographic for Fallout games anymore. If you were, Fallout would be dead in the sea in a manner similar to Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel.

 

[Atomic Postman]

What? Fallout: New Vegas was made by a separate studio to mainline Bethesda. In addition to being more Fallout 3, that was it's main selling point. You're telling me that Bethesda never absorbed innovations that New Vegas made into it's mainline Fallout games because it was a spin-off? Iron sights, multiple main story factions, multiple faction-related endings, etc. All of that was a result of New Vegas. So tell me. Why can't Fallout 76 be treated in the same way? Arguably, it would have even more so of an impact of mainline Bethesda Fallout games, being that it was developed by a different studio within Bethesda themselves, not Obsidian or any other company.

And for each adoption of NV mechanics it performed (Which other than the shooting it did universally worse) it took two steps back in other areas. There's no signs of some universal progression of their design quality. You'll also want to calm down cowboy, considering I said it's equally possible that they do build off of it, but because of its status as a spin-off by a different dev team (IIRC a subsidiary studio based out of Austin, TX?) it's also equally possible they don't. You're trying to create a false image of some unilateral improvement when that's not the case. They could take one or two improvements from 76, and make far worse decisions that leave 76 superior in other areas. Or not. But there's certainly more precedent for the former than the latter.

In response to the criticisms of poor writing, they removed Emil Pagliarulo as lead writer/designer and placed him as a design director. Call it what you want, but that's an improvement, which is what I would call "moving forward".

Considering the writing is just as bad in 76, not really. I'd consider an improvement an improvement, not just a change.

is an MMORPG. It's worldbuilding and design has to be constructed differently than how you would a singleplayer RPG. Bethesda also own Fallout lore. Their version of events doesn't have to be consistent with the Fallout Bible. They only work off it to maintain the integrity of the franchise.

Explain how the worldbuilding has to be constructed differently? Outside of the core justification of the narrative and main characters, how does the actual lore of the setting, factions etc have to significantly differ? Because most of the things worth complaining about in 76's lore decisions would have no impact on the MMO gameplay whatsoever. They're just poor writing.

Also, pointing out corporate law is not an argument for quality by literally any metric whatsoever. I really don't give a shit who owns the legal licenses when I'm talking about the consistency or quality of the worldbuilding. It's just not a factor unless you're making a false appeal to authority, which I don't know why you would.

I'm not part of your little "base" or cult. And thank God you aren't the demographic for Fallout games anymore. If you were, Fallout would be dead in the sea in a manner similar to Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel.

We're a 'cult' because we have different opinions to you? Nice one man. I actually agree with you that 76 is better than 4 but you are acting like a prick.

Also, no, BoS was not appealed to the classic fanbase lmao. It was meant to appeal to wider action-orientated and storylight consumer audiences (sound familiar?) as part of a series of terrible decisions by suits at Interplay that crashed the whole company. I realize a lot of people on Reddit who weren't around then (much like me!) conflate the era of classic Fallout with the crashing of the company, but they really weren't part of the same gig. In fact, Fallout 1 and 2 were well recieved critically and commercially many years before Interplay went the way of the dodo.

I'd also warn off of the appeal to commercial success as an argument for quality. It's not a hill you want to die on, I'd wager. The continued commercial presence of the franchise means nothing to me if the quality is dirt poor and completely alien from what made it appealing in the first place.

Do you know what game did make an appeal to the classic fanbase in the modern era though? New Vegas, and to this day it's still one of (if not the) best games in the franchise.

 

[Deleted member 116891]

Arguably Fallout 4 contained much more of New Vegas than Fallout 3

That can be doubted to a large extent. While Fallout 4 superficially takes elements from New Vegas, such as the faction choice at the end (iron sights doesn't count to those of us who think Fallout was better in its original isometric guise) the quests otherwise were extremely linear and featured little player choice, even discounting the radiant quest system. If we add to that the gutting of the skill and dialogue systems (the two elements that New Vegas crucially retained and refined from the all-important first 2 games, especially the first one) we can see that Fallout 4 is far more similar to Fallout 3.

multiple faction-related endings

Fallout 4 does not retain this. There is an institute ending and there is a non-institute ending in the 'slides' (and this is more of a cutscene. It is far more similar to Fallout 3 here.)

Bethesda also own Fallout lore. Their version of events doesn't have to be consistent with the Fallout Bible. They only work off it to maintain the integrity of the franchise.

They certainly do own it, and they also see fit to ret-con lots of lore that even ruin plot points of previous games. Somehow that means they retain the integrity of the franchise....

I'm not part of your little "base" or cult. And thank God you aren't the demographic for Fallout games anymore.

Well, how nice of you to say. Good to know. I wonder if we have ever seen anyone like you here before...

I actually agree with you that 76 is better than 4

As do I. I even made a thread about it a fair while back, talking about how much more honest 76 was by Bethesda in that they couldn't be bothered to make rpg's anymore. As I have said before on here, what is the difference between nuking megaton and nuking Appalachia. It's all part of the glorious theme park, not a serious world. Most disagreed with me when I made the thread, but its nice to see others agreeing now.

 

[Atomic Postman]

My preference for 76 over 4 mainly came from the fact that I prefer CAMP to the settlements and that a complete absence of story was way more enjoyable than the constant annoyance of 4's world and writing. Barebones, they're effectively the same game.

 

[Norzan]

Fallout 4 adopted the faction system from New Vegas, but did such a poor fucking job at copying that it might as well not used it. Legion, arguably the most underdeveloped faction in New Vegas, is more developed than any faction in Fallout 4.

Bethesda isn't listening, they are just pretending to do so. All the changes to Fallout 76 were done because they wanted any cost to have more players due to the game being a live service. And live service means microtransactions up the ass (the Creation Club was the warning sign).

Expect Fallout 5 being even more dumbed down than previous titles and the lore to get buttfucked even harder so that they can do "funny" quests.

Their version of events doesn't have to be consistent with the Fallout Bible. They only work off it to maintain the integrity of the franchise.

Their version of events is not consistent with Fallout 1 and 2, forget the Bible. It's not even consistent with itself, with Fallout 4 having a ghoul surviving for 200 years with no food or water, but then have another ghoul claimed he needed water and food to survive.

 

[Atomic Postman]

Fallout 4 adopted the faction system from New Vegas, but did such a poor fucking job at copying that it might as well not used. Legion, arguably the most underdeveloped faction in New Vegas, is more developed than any faction in Fallout 4.

Bethesda isn't listening, they are just pretending to do so. All the changes to Fallout 76 were done because they wanted any cost to have more players because of the game being a live service. And live service means microtransactions up the ass.

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised if one of the 'design improvements' going into Fallout 5 is the introduction of the Atom Store.

 

[Jogre]

I'm not part of your little "base" or cult. And thank God you aren't the demographic for Fallout games anymore. If you were, Fallout would be dead in the sea in a manner similar to Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel.

With that kind of hostile attitude, maybe you should go back to r/Fallout.

Either that or show some basic respect and politeness to people with differing opinions on Fallout games.

This is NMA. I'm not going to tolerate people saying disrespectful and impolite things to me for the crime of expressing the oh so controversial opinion that maybe Bethesda doesn't get the spirit of the original Fallout games.

 

[Heisenberg]

There's no signs of some universal progression of their design quality

Well here's a hint: Fallout 3 did not have multiple faction endings. It did not have multiple unique storyline factions other than the BoS and the Enclave. Fallout 4 did. Fallout: New Vegas and Fallout 4 also did not have very wide or diverse map design. Fallout 76 has this in spades. There is a continual improvement in design quality and an acknowledgement of flaws from the last game. If game design is an example of trial and error, this can be called universal progression.

it's also equally possible they don't

Going off the observable pattern of how they've tackled previous games, it's an educated guess that they will include elements of the past game which were received well. Iron sights for example.

Considering the writing is just as bad in 76, not really. I'd consider an improvement an improvement, not just a change.

Fallout 76 has better writing than Fallout 4 in it's Wastelanders update. This has been acknowledged by many members of the community, apart from you. But don't just take my word for it, there was a Reddit post 10 months ago that garnered 2.4k upvotes claiming that the Wastelanders writing was in fact superior to the Fallout 4 base game. This proves that 2.4k people agree with or respect the viewpoint that Fallout 76 is superior in the writing department to Fallout 4.

And this isn't purely an appeal to the consensus, the writer that was slammed for Fallout 4 has been repositioned within the company. From what I can observe, there have been no witch hunts for the writers of the Wastelanders update, so I can assume that people felt differently than they did about Fallout 4.

Explain how the worldbuilding has to be constructed differently?

Singleplayer video games are centered on the individual and their contributions to the wasteland. Multiplayer games are centered around multiple players playing the game simultaneously on the same server. Singleplayer world has to be mostly prebuilt before the player's arrival, while a multiplayer world, especially in a game about crafting settlements and forts, must have more free space for the player to build upon themselves. CAMP was one of the key marketing elements of 76. The world has to be open enough to allow multiple players to build their own camps. Singleplayer games do not have this issue. The world has to be compact and dense enough for the player to immersed in the world wherever they go. Not to say 76 doesn't have an intriguing world, but it's world has to be more sparse in order to allow spots for CAMP building.

actual lore of the setting, factions etc have to significantly differ

In short, if players want Brotherhood of Steel and the Enclave, Bethesda add Brotherhood of Steel and the Enclave. Both factions are mascots of the series and players would feel betrayed if they didn't appear in the game. Bethesda are well within their rights to rewrite such lore to allow these factions to exist. They own the IP. Avellone doesn't have any say anymore. Fallout lore is their lore.

Also, pointing out corporate law is not an argument for quality by literally any metric whatsoever. I really don't give a shit who owns the legal licenses when I'm talking about the consistency or quality of the worldbuilding.

We were talking about the lore, yes? And I was bringing up the point that Bethesda own the lore, therefore they can do whatever they see fit with it. If they choose to not be consistent with Avellone's Bible, they can do just that. Be thankful they even retcon the slight little mistakes they actually do make.

Also, no, BoS was not appealed to the classic fanbase lmao. It was meant to appeal to wider action-orientated and storylight consumer audiences (sound familiar?) as part of a series of terrible decisions by suits at Interplay that crashed the whole company. I realize a lot of people on Reddit who weren't around then (much like me!) conflate the era of classic Fallout with the crashing of the company, but they really weren't part of the same gig. In fact, Fallout 1 and 2 were well recieved critically and commercially many years before Interplay went the way of the dodo.

This forum, No Mutants Allowed, has been home to a very vocal community of Fallout fans for years. NMA users have consistently criticized Fallout 3 to such extent where this place wasn't accepting of anyone who liked the game so many years ago.

Is it ironic for me to say that the only games that they have actually ever influenced the creators of, done terribly? Fallout: Tactics featured Roshambo, a former admin for this forum, as an NPC in the game. Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel had "No Mutants Allowed" featured as graffiti on the walls.

So yes. You are right in saying that Fallout 1 and 2 were successful. They were successful because they didn't listen to the people on here though. Same reason Fallout 3, NV and 4 were so successful and will continue to be.

the quests otherwise were extremely linear and featured little player choice, even discounting the radiant quest system.

New Vegas had very similarly structured quests. Take the quest "Classic Inspiration" from New Vegas for instance.

This side quest has no optional stages, nothing of any note. If we avoid cherrypicking, New Vegas has other quests with optional stages and paths, but so does Fallout 4, so your argument is irrelevant.

If we add to that the gutting of the skill and dialogue systems (the two elements that New Vegas crucially retained and refined from the all-important first 2 games, especially the first one) we can see that Fallout 4 is far more similar to Fallout 3.

Fallout 3 had the exact same dialogue box and selection of options as Fallout: New Vegas. Fallout 4's dialogue system is much closer to Mass Effect than Fallout 3.

Fallout 4 does not retain this. There is an institute ending and there is a non-institute ending in the 'slides' (and this is more of a cutscene. It is far more similar to Fallout 3 here.

Very similar to New Vegas then. In New Vegas, you had the NCR ending which was extremely similar in quest stages to House and Independent, only differing with the quests preceding it. The Legion ending was, from a quest design perspective, the most unique out of all of them.

And funny enough, Fallout 4 actually has more unique faction questlines than New Vegas. New Vegas puts the player in the same boat of recruiting/eliminating each side faction in the game regardless of what faction they side with. You will have to recruit/eliminate the Khans, the Boomers, the BoS and the Casinos no matter what you do. The only differences are your goal and some dialogue options. Fallout 4 however, gives the player different quest stages, different tasks, even different areas depending on faction. Check out the "Tactical Thinking" quest for Fallout 4 and it's alternative quest "Rocket's Red Glare". Both of these quests feature different ways of destroying each faction not merely through 1 dialogue option and short cinematic of a robot kicking a general off Hoover Dam.

They certainly do own it, and they also see fit to ret-con lots of lore that even ruin plot points of previous games. Somehow that means they retain the integrity of the franchise....

Examples?

Well, how nice of you to say. Good to know. I wonder if we have ever seen anyone like you here before...

It's my first time coming here. If I was here just to upset you I wouldn't be making such long, detailed posts.

Fallout 4 adopted the faction system from New Vegas, but did such a poor fucking job at copying that it might as well not used it. Legion, arguably the most underdeveloped faction in New Vegas, is more developed than any faction in Fallout 4.

Really? The faction that crucifies people and rapes women, pillages tribes and aims to turn the Mojave into a province of their evergrowing empire?

I saw more reason to side with every Fallout 4 faction than the Legion. That makes them better developed from my perspective.

Bethesda isn't listening, they are just pretending to do so. All the changes to Fallout 76 were done because they wanted any cost to have more players due to the game being a live service. And live service means microtransactions up the ass (the Creation Club was the warning sign).

I've been playing 76 a lot recently. Not had 1 incentive to buy anything from the Atom store. I checked it, and it's mostly just skins and other useless stuff. I'm not a child, so I never had any incentive to actually buy such things.

but then have another ghoul claimed he needed water and food to survive.

Ghouls don't need to eat or drink. They feel the need to because of their former life as a human.

With that kind of hostile attitude, maybe you should go back to r/Fallout.

Either that or show some basic respect and politeness to people with differing opinions on Fallout games.

This is NMA. I'm not going to tolerate people saying disrespectful and impolite things to me for the crime of expressing the oh so controversial opinion that maybe Bethesda doesn't get the spirit of the original Fallout games.

Too bad. I'm not from r/Fallout. And you don't have to "tolerate" anything. Nobody is holding you to the keyboard and forcing you to type words into a text box for an online forum to read. Maybe you should take your own advice and go back to r/Fallout if you don't like my opinion or harsh words.

 

[Jogre]

Too bad. I'm not from r/Fallout. And you don't have to "tolerate" anything. Nobody is holding you to the keyboard and forcing you to type words into a text box for an online forum to read. Maybe you should take your own advice and go back to r/Fallout if you don't like my opinion or harsh words.

I expected you to either point out that maybe I had talked down to you in my initial response (Which I adknowledge was shitty of me), or otherwise adknowledge that maybe your comments were a bit shitty. Either would have been a good response.

Instead you doubled down on it and chose to express toxicity in response to someone saying you had a bad attitude.

So let me remind you of your place here a bit:

I've been using this forum on and off for 6 years. I come to this place because it's one of the few Fallout forums where you don't get shit on for expressing and defending the opinion that the original Fallout games represented something that can never be replicated. You created your account today, and are replicating the exact toxic behaviour that I come to this forum to avoid.

I outright welcome disagreement to my admittedly limited view on the series, but from people who are respectful and tolerant. If you want to come here for actual discussion and debate, maybe it's not a good idea to be a wanker in response to people.

 

[Atomic Postman]

So much disingenuousness in one post. Good lord.

Well here's a hint: Fallout 3 did not have multiple faction endings. It did not have multiple unique storyline factions other than the BoS and the Enclave. Fallout 4 did. Fallout: New Vegas and Fallout 4 also did not have very wide or diverse map design. Fallout 76 has this in spades. There is a continual improvement in design quality and an acknowledgement of flaws from the last game. If game design is an example of trial and error, this can be called universal progression.

So wait, is Fallout 4 a progression off the building block of Fallout NV or Fallout 3? Which is it? Because Fallout 4's faction system is a direct downgrade from New Vegas. Writing aside (Which it is also inferior on), Fallout 4 only has two seperate ending slides (much like Fallout 3) compared to the plethora of New Vegas showing the concequences of your faction decisions. Similarly, Fallout 4's structuring of factions is extremely flimsy. New Vegas's introductions to each faction are far more clean cut and effective (not only in how they present hooks to the player, but how each faction is seeded throughout the main quest beforehand), and the reputation system is used to much greater effect ."Playing all sides" and having no concequences for floating between all of them is something that is cut off very early, whereas Fallout 4's faction storyline forms into a nebulous, entangled blob.

But even ignoring quest structure, the complete lack of connection with sub-groups and factions (Of which there really weren't any) and the total lack of ending slides or portrayal of your choices make it less effective already. If we were assuming they're going off of Fallout 3, it is an upgrade. However, you already said that wasn't the case. So which is it?

Going off the observable pattern of how they've tackled previous games, it's an educated guess that they will include elements of the past game which were received well. Iron sights for example.

You keep clinging to that iron sights as if it's a great point when it was absurd it was missing from Fallout 3 in the first place, and literally any sequel would have fixed that instantly. It's also an observable pattern that they'll dump elements of previous games that were well recieved, such as branching dialogue utilizing a plethora of skills beyond that of Speech, Skills, Traits and a blank slate protagonist. There is no uniform progression of quality in their design philosophy, it's equally evidenced that for each improvement they make, they take three downgrades. Testament to this is people clapping for 76's reintroduction of simplified features that were already present in New Vegas ten years ago.

Fallout 76

has better writing than Fallout 4 in it's Wastelanders update. This has been acknowledged by many members of the community, apart from you. But don't just take my word for it, there was a Reddit post 10 months ago that garnered 2.4k upvotes claiming that the Wastelanders writing was in fact superior to the Fallout 4 base game. This proves that 2.4k people agree with or respect the viewpoint that Fallout 76 is superior in the writing department to Fallout 4.

And this isn't purely an appeal to the consensus, the writer that was slammed for Fallout 4 has been repositioned within the company. From what I can observe, there have been no witch hunts for the writers of the Wastelanders update, so I can assume that people felt differently than they did about Fallout 4..

Literally all of this is an appeal to consensus. Why does Reddit's opinion weigh into this at all? There's currently a post highly upvoted on /r/Fallout praising Megaton's fantastic writing. Fallout 76's vanilla game writing was atrocious on numerous levels and the apology that is Wastelanders is massively double-edged to your argument, considering it's only moderately better than the vanilla game and still not up to the quality of an entry released 10 years prior.

Singleplayer video games are centered on the individual and their contributions to the wasteland. Multiplayer games are centered around multiple players playing the game simultaneously on the same server. Singleplayer world has to be mostly prebuilt before the player's arrival, while a multiplayer world, especially in a game about crafting settlements and forts, must have more free space for the player to build upon themselves. CAMP was one of the key marketing elements of 76. The world has to be open enough to allow multiple players to build their own camps. Singleplayer games do not have this issue. The world has to be compact and dense enough for the player to immersed in the world wherever they go. Not to say 76 doesn't have an intriguing world, but it's world has to be more sparse in order to allow spots for CAMP building.

None of this has anything to do with the argument. I acknowledged already that 76 needs a differing core-conceipt to allow for the gameplay and the players, but this has literally zero to do with the quality of the background writing of the setting and the factions.

In short, if players want Brotherhood of Steel and the Enclave, Bethesda add Brotherhood of Steel and the Enclave. Both factions are mascots of the series and players would feel betrayed if they didn't appear in the game. Bethesda are well within their rights to rewrite such lore to allow these factions to exist. They own the IP. Avellone doesn't have any say anymore. Fallout lore is their lore.

We were talking about the lore, yes? And I was bringing up the point that Bethesda own the lore, therefore they can do whatever they see fit with it. If they choose to not be consistent with Avellone's Bible, they can do just that. Be thankful they even retcon the slight little mistakes they actually do make.

This would be a respectable opinion if you were a producer or member of the PR team trying to "refocus" the product, but unfortunately espousing company lines on what makes the most dollars is not really compelling at all as an argument for quality amongst the audience, and comes off as pretty absurd unless you're being paid to say it. I'm a Fallout fan, not a shareholder. I care about the quality of the writing and the setting, not what sells the most toys. I don't care what they legally can, I care what they actually do. Your argument is an absolutely hollow appeal to authority, the authority of the Bethesda corporation has zero relevance to the discussion of quality.

As such, your argument in favour of devaluing and flanderizing the setting based on the marketability of mascost rings completely hollow.

This forum, No Mutants Allowed, has been home to a very vocal community of Fallout fans for years. NMA users have consistently criticized Fallout 3 to such extent where this place wasn't accepting of anyone who liked the game so many years ago.

Is it ironic for me to say that the only games that they have actually ever influenced the creators of, done terribly? Fallout: Tactics featured Roshambo, a former admin for this forum, as an NPC in the game. Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel had "No Mutants Allowed" featured as graffiti on the walls.

You're aware of course that this forum was created by fans of the original two games, by people who adored specific aspects of those games and didn't just materialize during the development of the spin-offs, right? The reason they were prominent were because they were a community of Fallout 1 and 2 fans and so were notable enough to be referenced during development. The same type of Fallout 1 and 2 fans that New Vegas appealed to in many ways, and the reason New Vegas is well-liked on here is because it reflected the qualities of Fallout that NMA champion.

 

[TheGM]

But don't just take my word for it, there was a Reddit post 10 months ago that garnered 2.4k upvotes claiming that the Wastelanders writing was in fact superior to the Fallout 4 base game.

See that folks. Reddit had a post months ago. they being the arbiters of quality and the paragons of acceptability have passed their judgement and let it be known to the world nay the universe that the wastelanders had a better story than Fallout 4. which is not saying much but still people voted on it!

 

[Atomic Postman]

New Vegas had very similarly structured quests. Take the quest "Classic Inspiration" from New Vegas for instance.

This side quest has no optional stages, nothing of any note. If we avoid cherrypicking, New Vegas has other quests with optional stages and paths, but so does Fallout 4, so your argument is irrelevant.

Disingenuous, and so easily disproved by just taking a basic glance at the Wiki to look at the quests. Fallout 4's branching quests are far few numerically and the branches are far less meaningful, as is the connectivity regarding factions and perspectives. Really not sure why you bothered with one.

And funny enough, Fallout 4 actually has more unique faction questlines than New Vegas. New Vegas puts the player in the same boat of recruiting/eliminating each side faction in the game regardless of what faction they side with. You will have to recruit/eliminate the Khans, the Boomers, the BoS and the Casinos no matter what you do. The only differences are your goal and some dialogue options. Fallout 4 however, gives the player different quest stages, different tasks, even different areas depending on faction. Check out the "Tactical Thinking" quest for Fallout 4 and it's alternative quest "Rocket's Red Glare". Both of these quests feature different ways of destroying each faction not merely through 1 dialogue option and short cinematic of a robot kicking a general off Hoover Dam.

It says so much that the champion examples you use are alternate "Kill faction by shooting them" and "Kill faction by shooting them", a diversity already fulfilled by the Wild Card questline fully accomodating a murder-playthrough, and exceeded by the differing options of handling the factions. The Great Khans, a minor tribe, alone have more variety in outcome than any of the factions in Fallout 4.

Similarly, your argument is undermined by the fact that Fallout 4 only has major factions and has little to nothing in the way of tribes or sub-groups that both feeding into the structure of the main questlines and into the worldbuilding and characters. Fallout New Vegas simply on a numerical level exceeds the faction diversity of 4, and that's nothing to say of the writing quality. An easy comparison would be the difference in depth and varieties of approach of two minor 50's greaser groups: The Kings and the Atom Cats.

Really? The faction that crucifies people and rapes women, pillages tribes and aims to turn the Mojave into a province of their evergrowing empire?

I saw more reason to side with every Fallout 4 faction than the Legion. That makes them better developed from my perspective.

I know, it's terrible how shockingly bad the quality of Fallout 4 factions are that even the faction that NV devs have repeatedly said was underdeveloped comes off stronger.

As for your perspective, it's shallow then. The Minutemen are more morally cleaner than NCR and I'd choose the former over the latter but that says nothing to the quality of writing of either faction. NCR is infinitely more imperialistic and immoral than the Minutemen, but also infinitely more interesting and depthful. The Legion are a morally repulsive regime but they are written with greater detail, flavour and depth than Fallout 4's equivalent, the Institute. At least we actually know what Caesar wants to do.

Ghouls don't need to eat or drink. They feel the need to because of their former life as a human.

Then why does the Ghoul community at Necropolis perish from dehydration without water if you choose to take it from them?

I can see where this argument is going already, we've had it so many times here and your types always pack up and leave after getting flustered. You'll continue to act uncharitably reductionist to NV as a reflex and act in the reverse to 4, you'll back your arguments with false appeals to corporate authority, commercial success and mainstream appeal with no regard to quality.

I find it important to clarify by "your type", too. That doesn't refer to Bethesda Fallout fans, we have plenty of those on here that are active users. By "your type" I mean pricks.

 

[Jogre]

Honestly, at this point, I'd say don't feed the troll: he's making every disingenous arguement in the book, and has literally necroed years old threads just to brag about Fallout 3, has made posts on multiple threads with no substance beyond "Fallout 3 is good" without any elaboration, and has repeatedly shown an immediate hostility to this forum in multiple posts.

This is not someone here to argue in good faith. This is somene who's heard shit about this forum and has come to stir the pot.

I know it's fun to argue, but engaging with bad faith people only encourages them.

 

[Atomic Postman]

Honestly, at this point, I'd say don't feed the troll: he's making every disingenous arguement in the book, and has literally necroed years old threads just to brag about Fallout 3, has made posts on multiple threads with no substance beyond "Fallout 3 is good" without any elaboration, and has repeatedly shown an immediate hostility to this forum in multiple posts.

This is not someone here to argue in good faith. This is somene who's heard shit about this forum and has come to stir the pot.

I know it's fun to argue, but engaging with bad faith people only encourages them.

Yeah I'm writing more words on arguing with a troll right now than on my on my uni assignment

 

[Jogre]

Yeah I'm writing more words on arguing with a troll right now than on my on my uni assignment

Oh my God, too real.

I have multiple essays due that I have to do well on to keep on track after a lecturer deducted two grades over some really minor mistakes, and I'm instead spending the time procastinating online.

 

[TheGM]

Honestly, at this point, I'd say don't feed the troll: he's making every disingenous arguement in the book, and has literally necroed years old threads just to brag about Fallout 3, has made posts on multiple threads with no substance beyond "Fallout 3 is good" without any elaboration, and has repeatedly shown an immediate hostility to this forum in multiple posts.