Fallout 76 Really Sucks. People Act Shocked.

  • Thread starter Thread starter TorontoReign
  • Start date Start date
nkchan16 said:
bleak01.png

Probably fake, but I know the CEO he's talking about...
nope
Click to expand...

Honestly, I believe it. The RDR2 leaker was 100% spot on (and this was 4 years ago).

I think the Star Wars Battlefront 2 blowback threw a monkey wrench into their (Zenimax's) plans; It can't be a coincidence that perks are obtained via booster packs but cannot be purchased with atoms. They planned for a P2W model and didn't have the balls to see it through when even the behemoth that is EA decided to pull their P2W model entirely.

Now they have a busted game that modders can't fix with no real way to monetize outside of shitty cosmetics for a player-base that's shrinking. I will not be surprised if, as @RangerBoo predicts, they just jump the shark and present TESVI instead of Starfield. Too risky to try a new IP - better to stick to the bread and butter that they know nu-Fallout and existing TES fans will purchase.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"From where you're kneeling, this must look like a nylon bag full of bad luck. Truth is, Fallout 76 was rigged from the start."
DtUSQVWUUAAEBpt.jpg large.jpg
 
Last edited:
First post and all, but thought I might just jump in the deep end.
After listening to the interview Indigo gaming did with Julian Jensen/Lefay. The picture painted by that post of Bethesda's operation seems all that unbelievable.


nkchan16 said:
bleak01.png

Probably fake, but I know the CEO he's talking about...
jew_basic.jpg
Click to expand...
 
BigGuyCIA said:
Starfield @ VG award show. Straight up abandon ship and try to create hype for the next behemoth.
Click to expand...

Look... I'm not excited about this project at all, and this isn't because of the Creation Engine and it's patchwork pastiche, but because I'm not looking forward to the idea of Bethesda trying to do what a small collection of people did with No Man's Sky. Sure that game started out really badly, but a couple of years of due diligence, and they managed to iron out a pretty decent survival and exploration game that's worth its price of admission. Bethesda, on the other hand, is a massive studio that expects us, the consumer base, to consume the product, warts and all, and then later expects us to fix their mistakes using the Creation Club. A massive company that has multiple studios that span dozens, if not hundreds of staff that have thousands and thousands of hours of experience of coding and programming expect some code monkeys to cover their asses.

On the other hand... people are going to boo Todd Howard's ass Thursday night, and it's going to be great.
 
Cobra Commander said:


What you guys think?
Click to expand...


Considering I logged the entire experience of playing this thing, I know it's terrible, but if you had to point a gun to my head and said which was worse; POS or 76... I'm going to say 76.

POS, as horrid and lazy it was (it was a freaking Baldur's Gate copy-paste job, something I didn't know about during my playthrough!) has an endgame, was designed for a purpose (to try to make money to support Van Buren... by taking money away from Van Buren???, I dunno; ask Interplay about that one!), and was made from an era in which games were designed to be completed upon release (which isn't a compliment, but let's be realistic). The philosophy of video game design in 2003-2004 versus 2018 is like comparing the design of an outhouse versus a fully functional sewage system meant to tackle environmental changes for the next 65 years. In 2004, games were designed primarily to be fully functioning games that had everything in them, and their life expectancy would be limited based upon the culture surrounding said game, for the most part. Games today, if they aren't made by cheap shovelware companies (which still exist to this day that, ironically, adhere to the 2003-04 model of gaming still of just getting stuff out as quickly as possible), are designed with a goal of lasting as long as possible, with a life expectancy of a few years, given server usage, DLC, "events", and so forth. Fallout 76 was designed with the goal of lasting as long as possible with DLC and events to entice and further entrench people into playing the game.

And, honestly, another reason why POS hasn't been ported is due to the source code legality and also the music licensing; Bethesda isn't going to be paying a bunch of heavy metal bands royalties for a Fallout game when they firmly established that all music in Fallout is 1940s and 50s swing and big band music.
 
Brotherhood of Steel at least isn't retconning the original game with bullshit. It's a terrible game, but it's harmless. Fallout 76 is actively harmful because this game is outright retconning stuff from the first game by adding bullshit like BoS satellite and other stuff.
 
What makes this funny is that a lot of Bethesda fanboys are now bitching about how fallout 76 is ruining the lore with tons of retcons when Bethesda has been doing that shit since fallout 3. But they won't tell you that and if you bring that up they ignore you or straw man you as being as nostalgia fanboy. Fucking hypocrites.
 
Cobra Commander said:


What you guys think?
Click to expand...


Both are terrible but I much rather play POS like people mentioned here (it doesn't retcon FO1 and FO2). Brotherhood in Texas is questionable and the humor is quite terrible but so is Fallout 3, 4, and probably 76.

Bethesda fans are now in full "salvage" mode. "Fallout 76 isn't so bad, look at FOBOS."
 
I mean, FOBOS IS really bad. Likely worse than Fallout 76. But that doesn't make Fallout 76 (or Fallout 4 or 3) any better :D
So Starfield. If it's gonna be a SciFi/Space themed RPG, nice. I wonder if and how it's going to be compared to Obsidian's new game, probably called "The Outer Worlds", and possibly being based on Asimov's Foundation books.
Let's be honest here: If comparable, I have the feeling that Starfield might not be viewed favourably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top