Fallout 76 Really Sucks. People Act Shocked.

  • Thread starter Thread starter TorontoReign
  • Start date Start date
Oh yeah, I guessed that shit from the start. MVPs usually do shit like that anyway. Minimal Viable Product. Cut all the shit out of the game and make it have just enough shit in it to sell it. Sell DLC/cosmetics/whatever while releasing already finished material so it seems like you're releasing new content. They probably had most of this shit in the game and a team came in and said "cut it out, not needed for release." Then they look at monetization strategies for that content that's already made.
 
Squadcar said:
Oh yeah, I guessed that shit from the start. MVPs usually do shit like that anyway. Minimal Viable Product. Cut all the shit out of the game and make it have just enough shit in it to sell it. Sell DLC/cosmetics/whatever while releasing already finished material so it seems like you're releasing new content. They probably had most of this shit in the game and a team came in and said "cut it out, not needed for release." Then they look at monetization strategies for that content that's already made.
Click to expand...

Yep. They are so transparent now, even the most die hard of fans (minus that mzldgrfal guy) are tired of it. This will change no doubt upon announcement of the next game lineup, but Bioware's latest flop is a sign of things to come.
 
FearMonkey said:
LTTP...again...

I haven't read all the posts, but video games can definitely be art. Just not Bethesda games.
Click to expand...

I've had some memorable moments with Morrowind last summer. Shame they didn't expand on it's fun parts.
cFqgmH4.png
 
I'm curious, despite the well deserved hatred and bad PR, was 76 profitable as an individual product?
 
Ediros said:
Repair kits and paying for them with atoms. Aka pay to win.

https://fallout.bethesda.net/en/art...the-vault-looking-beyond-patch-8-april-4-2019
Click to expand...
While I hate to defend Bethesda, this isn’t that egregious is it? I haven’t played 76 but if it’s anything like 4 I’d imagine stuff degrades slowly enough so that you never really need an on the spot repair, and you can fix your shit with all of the junk you pick up anyway.

Its more like paying for a minor convenience than paying to win.

Pay to win is smalltime shit for 76 anyway, its not as bad as literally lying to the customers.
 
It begins the defense for Fallout 4. It was going to happen sooner or later. And a feel good story caused by a fucking bug.

I also clicked on their listing of the Fallout games from best to worst and fucking Fallout 3 is above New Vegas. And the reason to put 3 above New Vegas was so fucking weak. New Vegas is worse than 3 because the Strip is worse than New Reno in Fallout 2. That's it. Not to mention, hardly praises New Vegas for anything besides the writing, and even it feels like the writer is basically saying (writing, who cares?). Reeks of one of those butthurt Fallout 3 fanboys that is tired of hearing and reading people say New Vegas is better than Fallout 3.
And of course, calling the intro to Fallout 3, one of the worst intros even made for a RPG, as one of the best. It's Kotaku alright, a bunch of morons who have no idea what they are talking about.

And then, for some reason, decided to read the comments and read someone say they like Fallout 3 more than Vegas because 3 is more "realistic". I had to held a big laughter.

Like 3 more than New Vegas all you want, but don't use such an idiotic, nonsensical reason for it.
 
Last edited:
Norzan said:
It begins the defense for Fallout 4. It was going to happen sooner or later. And a feel good story caused by a fucking bug.

I also clicked on their listing of the Fallout games from best to worst and fucking Fallout 3 is above New Vegas. And the reason to put 3 above New Vegas was so fucking weak. New Vegas is worse than 3 because the Strip is worse than New Reno in Fallout 2. That's it. Not to mention, hardly praises New Vegas for anything besides the writing, and even it feels like the writer is basically saying (writing, who cares?). Reeks of one of those butthurt Fallout 3 fanboys that is tired of hearing and reading people say New Vegas is better than Fallout 3.
And of course, calling the intro to Fallout 3, one of the worst intros even made for a RPG, as one of the best. It's Kotaku alright, a bunch of morons who have no idea what they are talking about.

And then, for some reason, decided to read the comments and read someone say they like Fallout 3 more than Vegas because 3 is more "realistic". I had to held a big laughter.

Like 3 more than New Vegas all you want, but don't use such an idiotic, nonsensical reason for it.
Click to expand...
While I disagree with their ranking (obviously) I actually think the intro to fallout 3 is decent. It checks all the boxes:
-a decent intro to this part of the world and some of the characters
-various options for different playstyles are available
-choice and consequences in the short and long term

When you consider the intro sections to the other games, it really doesn't look too bad. Fallout 1's intro does a great job of setting the atmosphere and tone of the game but is very rudimentary gameplay wise. Fallout 2's is a chore plan and simple. New Vegas' intro is just fetch/kill quest but it does do a good job of introducing the player to the mechanics and leading into the first real sidequest. Fallout 4's intro is just walking around killing radroaches.
 
Fallout 3's opening is too long, doesn't hold up on multiple playthroughs since it's so long and tedious, it forces you into a combat with the radroaches right away so it limits your playstyle options immediately, and it's too damn long. :P
 
Fallout 3 intro doesn't allow any roleplaying for you outside of being a 19 year old with a dead mother, a living father, my childhood friend is a girl and i had a bully. I can't be nothing outside of this, nothing. I can't be a 30 year old, a 50 year old, can't have a dead father, can't be a bully myself, nothing outside of what is established in the intro. I can't roleplay in my Roleplaying game outside of this. It would contradict everything in the intro. This is why one of the most popular mods for Fallout 3 removes the intro of the game.

Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas allowed me to come up with the backstory for my character. The majority of what my character can be is left up to me, the player. The Temple of Trials sucked gameplay wise but i still can come up with my backstory. Plus the Temple of Trials is nowhere as long as the intro of Fallout 3. Fallout 3 intro is too long and railroady. And the intro is a bunch of fetch and kill quests, don't criticize New Vegas intro for that and forget Fallout 3's intro is nothing but that as well.

Not to mention, nothing you do in the Vault matters, except for a quest later. One quest. What happens in the intro hardly matters for the rest of the game, it's like it not even happens. But it still does in the end, which makes it much worse.

This intro is so anti-RPG it baffles me people praising this crap as good. Besides allowing barely any roleplay, it kills replayability.

And yes, Fallout 4 intro sucks for the same reason. Can't be Nora the Soldier or Nate the lawyer and can't not be married.
 
Last edited:
Fallout: New Vegas held for long time the position of the black ship sheep of the franchise (nobody plays BoS or Tatics, lets be real). Not good enough for Interplay´s fans, not good enough for Bethesda´s fans.

Then Bethesda release that abortion that was Fallout 4, a game which failed to please the great majory of both groups.

People began to feel nostalgic with NV, with their choices and consequences. Did not you guys notice that AFTER Fallout 4, NV started being considered the best of the series?

And this started to spread through the internet, in the comments of youtube, articles, steam etc. It turns out that when a thing is repeated to exhaustion, it ends up irritating people. Just like the press of my country praising Neymar.

So what's the "right", easy, choice to write an article like that? The already expected Fallout 2 in first, followed by Fallout 3 ahead of NV.

I did not see the article. Fallout 2 comes first, right? I bet it is.

edit: That bad english XD Sheep, not ship
 
Last edited:
I do know people that liked Fallout 3 thought New Vegas was worse because you couldn't do everything in one playthrough and there wasn't loot in every location. Which is moronic, but whatever.

And yeah, Fallout 2 is number 1 in that list. Then goes 1, 3, New Vegas and 4. And even 4 got more praise than New Vegas, even though it's above 4.
 
Fallout 3's intro is good for a single playthrough.
Not only is it anti-rpg, it also goes against Bethesda's game design.

Bethesda and Fallout have both had iffy intros.
I didn't like the intro to Fallout 2, I feel it's too linear and if you didn't create a certain build, you're going to get your ass kicked.

1 and NV had oerfecp intros. With New Vegas being 'here's all the game mechanics, it's optional, but you get some caps if you do it, also, werew effect your ending too' while F1 is a pat on the back and a ''good luck buddy'

F2,3 and 4 have pretty bad intros, with each getting worse.
In fact, the only intro from Bethesda I've liked was Morrowind. I hate Arena's and Daggerfall for being way too hard at the start, and Oblivion's and Skyrim's are just kinda... Silly.
 
Millim said:
Fallout 3's intro is good for a single playthrough.
Not only is it anti-rpg, it also goes against Bethesda's game design.

Bethesda and Fallout have both had iffy intros.
I didn't like the intro to Fallout 2, I feel it's too linear and if you didn't create a certain build, you're going to get your ass kicked.

1 and NV had oerfecp intros. With New Vegas being 'here's all the game mechanics, it's optional, but you get some caps if you do it, also, werew effect your ending too' while F1 is a pat on the back and a ''good luck buddy'

F2,3 and 4 have pretty bad intros, with each getting worse.
In fact, the only intro from Bethesda I've liked was Morrowind. I hate Arena's and Daggerfall for being way too hard at the start, and Oblivion's and Skyrim's are just kinda... Silly.
Click to expand...
What's funny is some people criticizing New Vegas intro by saying your character has no reason to care about anything, completely forgetting you, the player, makes the character care or not.

These people clearly don't know what in the fuck is a RPG if they fail to grasp such a simple concept as giving your character their backstory and personality, the game has to force feed it to them for them to seemingly care. And New Vegas does make you care about what happened to you because you want to know why Benny even shot you.

It's just more and more evidence that butthurt Fallout 3 and 4 fanboys are trying to reach so hard to criticize New Vegas, with the same criticisms that would apply to 3 and 4 and even Oblivion and Skyrim. New Vegas fans have every right to criticize 3 and 4 because they are lesser games in things that matter in the genre.
 
Last edited:
Millim said:
Fallout 3's intro is good for a single playthrough.
Not only is it anti-rpg, it also goes against Bethesda's game design.

Bethesda and Fallout have both had iffy intros.
I didn't like the intro to Fallout 2, I feel it's too linear and if you didn't create a certain build, you're going to get your ass kicked.

1 and NV had oerfecp intros. With New Vegas being 'here's all the game mechanics, it's optional, but you get some caps if you do it, also, werew effect your ending too' while F1 is a pat on the back and a ''good luck buddy'

F2,3 and 4 have pretty bad intros, with each getting worse.
In fact, the only intro from Bethesda I've liked was Morrowind. I hate Arena's and Daggerfall for being way too hard at the start, and Oblivion's and Skyrim's are just kinda... Silly.
Click to expand...

I think 3's intro is ok, but NV's intro is far too long. It says an excessive amount that can easily be learnt in the first 20 minutes of playing and I even think it can bias players towards the NCR. Should've kept to the short formula; Bombs dropped, vaults exist, crazy mutant crap exists, then continue from the short basic character lowdown "You are a courier for the mojave express...".
Though dont get me wrong, I agree with you on all the other fronts. 4's intro was crap, 76 didnt even have one... Skyrim's is weak, and Morrowind's is, as always, probably the best example of anything Bethesda can do.
 
How is the intro of NV long? And you can skip it. Meanwhile, you are always completely forced upon Fallout 3's intro and that thing last upwards of 30 minutes and says nothing really. A lot of the stuff it teaches you could have easily been taught outside of the vault.

And if you are counting the Ringo quests, that's not part of the intro. The whole thing with Sunny is part of the intro and it lasts like 5 minutes and you can skip it.

The intro of New Vegas is setting up your character with Doc Mitchell and then do some tasks with Sunny, which you can skip the latter by the way. The Ghost Town Gunfight and Run Goodsprings Run quests are not part of the intro. Yes, it teaches you skill checks and the reputation system, but you can skip it.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I like 76's intro.
It's simple, you wake up and leave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top