Play Fallout 76 because...

[Gizmojunk]

Agreed, but Fallout 76 isn't an MMO.

What else would you call a game that supports 32 players in what is essentially a deathmatch level? At what point does the term 'massive' stop being relative?

Fallout 76 actually does everything it can to discourage people from engaging in PvP...

PvP doesn't have to mean killing, it can mean generic competition for supplies and resources; but most of what I have seen is just PC's getting shot at on sight.

...compared to true survival games.

I wouldn't know what that term means anymore; redefining terms is the pastime of our recent society.

IMO Games like Blood, DOOM, and Duke Nukem were true survival games.

It's basically a walking simulator...

That's basically any (and every) game Bethesda has made for the last 25 years.
It's a safe bet that their next one will be the same thing too.

 

[Norzan]

The pvp system makes no sense with the premise of the game. You are sent out to the world to rebuild civilization, why would people start killing each other? Shouldn't people cooperate to maximize the odds of this happening?

This same issue applies to the nuclear bombs you can launch. Why would you launch nuclear bombs to spread radiation if you want to rebuild civilization? These are very noticeable major issues that clearly shows Bethesda didn't give a shit about this game.

 

[Paladin Hank]

The pvp system makes no sense with the premise of the game. You are sent out to the world to rebuild civilization, why would people start killing each other? Shouldn't people cooperate to maximize the odds of this happening?

This same issue applies to the nuclear bombs you can launch. Why would you launch nuclear bombs to spread radiation if you want to rebuild civilization? These are very noticeable major issues that clearly shows Bethesda didn't give a shit about this game.

The most blatant issue for me is how everything's so lusciously green when bombs wiped the slate clean 20 years earlier. Meanwhile in Fallout 3 it's been 200 years and everything's grey and dead. Makes zero fucking sense, just like everything else in the game, to be honest.

 

[Cobra Commander]

Man, Blood is indeed a true survival.

Awesome, AWESOME game. Very hard too.

 

[mannawyadden]

What else would you call a game that supports 32 players in what is essentially a deathmatch level?

A multiplayer online game.

At what point does the term 'massive' stop being relative?

"A massively multiplayer online game is an online game with large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, on the same server."

PvP doesn't have to mean killing, it can mean generic competition for supplies and resources; but most of what I have seen is just PC's getting shot at on sight.

I haven't seen any competition for supplies or resources. In a worst case scenario, you hop servers.

but most of what I have seen is just PC's getting shot at on sight.

I've encountered 20 other players and none of them have shot at me. If they did, it would do almost no damage. You can't shoot people on sight in 76.

I wouldn't know what that term [survival] means anymore

"Survival games are a subgenre of action video games set in a hostile, intense, open-world environment, where players generally begin with minimal equipment and are required to collect resources, craft tools, weapons, and shelter, and survive as long as possible."

IMO Games like Blood, DOOM, and Duke Nukem were true survival games.

"Doom is a first-person shooter game"
"Blood is a first-person shooter game"
"Duke Nukem is a 2D platform game"

[A walking simulator is] basically any (and every) game Bethesda has made for the last 25 years.

I'll assume you don't actually believe that, and are just making a jab at their games.

The pvp system makes no sense with the premise of the game. You are sent out to the world to rebuild civilization, why would people start killing each other? Shouldn't people cooperate to maximize the odds of this happening?

If you're specifically asking about why Vault 76 residents would turn on each other, the computer terminals state that the residents of 76 kept getting in fights that had to be broken up. Aside from that, human nature I guess. Not everyone is going to see an apocalypse and decide to be a team player.

This same issue applies to the nuclear bombs you can launch. Why would you launch nuclear bombs to spread radiation if you want to rebuild civilization? These are very noticeable major issues that clearly shows Bethesda didn't give a shit about this game.

You're right, the nukes shouldn't be in the game. They put them in for the "cool factor" without caring about the fact that nuclear bombs are going off.

The most blatant issue for me is how everything's so lusciously green when bombs wiped the slate clean 20 years earlier. Meanwhile in Fallout 3 it's been 200 years and everything's grey and dead.

The lush plant life bothered me a lot at first. But because of Fallout 3's setting, I assume it took the most severe nuclear damage. I think the Capital Wasteland being excessively dead is the exception, not the rule. Look at Point Lookout, plenty of thriving plants.

 

[R.Graves]

But because of Fallout 3's setting, I assume it took the most severe nuclear damage.

again obviously incorrect considering how nearly all architecture is mostly intact.

 

[mannawyadden]

again obviously incorrect considering how nearly all architecture is mostly intact.

I'll admit I dont know anything about how nukes work or the effects of nuclear fallout. I should've said "DC could've been heavily targeted in the war". Maybe it was some chemical weapon that poisoned the ground for hundreds of years.

The point I wanted to make is Fallout 3 is not the indicator of how many plants are supposed to be alive. Fallout 1 and 2 have more plants than 3 and they're in the desert right?

 

[Gizmojunk]

A multiplayer online game.

Uh huh. Right.

"A massively multiplayer online game is an online game with large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, on the same server."

32 players is massive, and so is 320, and so is 3200. I have played MMOs where I didn't encounter 20 players in the whole session. As far as I am concerned 32 (or less) qualifies as MMO if it's online; especially if there is no single player aspect to it.

I haven't seen any competition for supplies or resources. In a worst case scenario, you hop servers.

Metagaming? That's pretty sad.

I've encountered 20 other players and none of them have shot at me. If they did, it would do almost no damage. You can't shoot people on sight in 76.

This makes their case even worse... A Fallout themed game where you cannot damage other people; and trying is both discouraged and inconsequential.

"Survival games are a subgenre of action video games set in a hostile, intense, open-world environment, where players generally begin with minimal equipment and are required to collect resources, craft tools, weapons, and shelter, and survive as long as possible."

"Doom is a first-person shooter game"
"Blood is a first-person shooter game"
"Duke Nukem is a 2D platform game"

Firstly, anyone mentioning Duke Nukem, along with other FPS games, and other Build engine games most certainly means Duke Nukem 3D, and expects it to be understood. [it's true]. Secondly those games all start the player off with minimal equipment in a very hostile environment, with very limited resources; with the intention that they survive as long as possible.
(and unlike modern FPS, there is a very real danger of running out of ammo, and other equipment.)

I'll assume you don't actually believe that, and are just making a jab at their games.

Of course I believe it; I own most of them. That's what Bethesda sells—they design pedestrian digital themed parks... and add a minimal bit of gaming fluff/story to spice it just above being bland as porridge. Their [business] game is to skirt the edge of mass tolerance; providing just enough elements to appeal to the majority of the gaming audience... even though those elements are often mutually exclusive. This is why their gameplay is d00med to being mediocre—on purpose. They don't want to risk a superb game that only pleases one (possibly small) segment of gamers; they want them all... and they get them with a signature "just tolerable enough" mixed slop [gameplay] that is served up in a truly beautiful place-setting. The ambiance tries to make up for it.

One cannot strike the bullseye of separate targets with one shot, but you can hit them all if they overlap. Their aim might be perfect, but their score suffers for trying to place in each contest, rather than make the perfect winning shot in just one.

Spoiler

This is why FO3 has vestigial RPG baggage that causes NPCs to shrug off 32 shots to the head. It makes sense in an RPG, but not in a shooter. The weapons in a shooter [stabber] are under player control, while those in an RPG are under PC control; and the damage is indicative of the PC's personal ability—or lack thereof. But the players see the barrel pointing center at the target's head. The net effect is that Shooter fans think the mechanics suck turds, while the roleplayers lament that the character's skills barely matter.

Bethesda doesn't seem to care; so long as both groups are happy—enough— to not quit in droves. What they DO seem to care about, is making walking sims that adulate, and do anything to hold the player's attention; doing nothing that might inconvenience or annoy them by not letting them have their way. This is polar opposite to RPGs; where the characters serve as the player's limits within the game. Bethesda's business is empowerment fantasy, not roleplaying... their characters are a pretense only, and are expected to get out of the player's way, and to be quickly forgotten about.

I see FO:76 as the expected next stage in their long standing pattern... but they made a mistake with [so greatly simplifying] FO4, and another by not learning from it before making FO:76; they just kept going with the plan.
IMO it's hubris.

 

[Black Angel]

The pvp system makes no sense with the premise of the game. You are sent out to the world to rebuild civilization, why would people start killing each other? Shouldn't people cooperate to maximize the odds of this happening?

It would makes sense IF there's a proper survival mechanic that would encourage players to start gathers supplies. And if they don't want to deal with rebuilding mechanic, then players could form a group of raiders and start pillaging other players settlements for supplies and necessities. Now THAT's a good implementation for survival PVP gameplay for the premise of a game like Fallout 76. Maybe even spice things up like how in Mount&Blade you can loot villages for supplies to sustain your party, but alas. That would require actually have NPCs to manage settlements when players are lollygagging somewhere, so it's Bethesderp's being retarded with the implementation.

 

[Norzan]

I'll admit I dont know anything about how nukes work or the effects of nuclear fallout. I should've said "DC could've been heavily targeted in the war". Maybe it was some chemical weapon that poisoned the ground for hundreds of years.

Again with the excuses about Fallout 3's setting. Fallout 3's setting wasn't hit by any special bomb or harder than anywhere else, just admit that Bethesda didn't give a shit about a setting that made sense with the time it's set on. Fallout 4 looks better than 3 and it's in around the same time and area and people are growing food and herding animals.

If you're specifically asking about why Vault 76 residents would turn on each other, the computer terminals state that the residents of 76 kept getting in fights that had to be broken up. Aside from that, human nature I guess. Not everyone is going to see an apocalypse and decide to be a team player.

Yeah, totally makes sense to have nearly no equipment when you leave the vault, see nothing but hostile stuff like Super Mutants and other mutated things, but suddenly decide to shoot the first human being you see in front of you. The only time it starts to make sense for people to fight each other is when people form factions with different ideologies and other stuff that differientate them. Which is not the case of Fallout 76.

 

[mannawyadden]

@Gizmojunk I've never seen a game with a server maximum of 32 be classified as an MMO, but I have played dying MMOs with only 5 people on the server, so I suppose we can call 76 an abortion of an MMO that immediately died upon its birth, especially since it got vomited out after Interplay lost the rights to make a Fallout MMO.

Metagaming sucks but I did only suggest server hop as a worst case scenario, i.e. there's a large group of griefers following and harassing you, trying to prevent you from playing somehow. Which can happen in any online game.

I know literally nothing about Duke Nukem except that people waited a really long time for Duke Nukem Forever to come out.

As for the rest of what you wrote, it was very well written and insightful, and I agree with it.

Fallout 3's setting wasn't hit by any special bomb or harder than anywhere else, just admit that Bethesda didn't give a shit about a setting that made sense with the time it's set on.

I know they didn't give a shit about a setting that made sense, otherwise they would've written a satisfying explanation for why everything is dead and included it in the game, or not made it so dead to begin with. Instead I have to make my own guess to explain what I see in game.

The important thing is he said Fallout 76 had too much plant life and referenced Fallout 3 as evidence, and I'm saying the ecosystem of Fallout 3 should never be used as a model of what the world's ecology is.

The only time it starts to make sense for people to fight each other is when people form factions with different ideologies and other stuff that differientate them.

Sometimes people will kill each other without ideological or faction related motivation, even in an apocalypse. Regardless, the game actively discourages PvP.

You seem to have an image in your head of everyone just attacking each other. The reality is that both players have to agree to a duel, otherwise the attacks do almost no damage. If one player does somehow murder another in spite of these restrictions or damages their base, they become a criminal and can no longer see other players on the map. But everyone else sees them as a big red marker. They become public enemy #1 and everyone can freely team up and attack them to collect the bounty.

Point is that players are supposed to play cooperatively, not competitively. Every interaction I've had with another player has been positive so far. The first person I saw waved hello, the second gave me items, the third asked for ammo, the fourth helped me kill enemies. None of this "shoot the first human you see" that you speak of.

 

[SquidWard]

Of course I believe it; I own most of them. That's what Bethesda sells—they design pedestrian digital themed parks... and add a minimal bit of gaming fluff/story to spice it just above being bland as porridge.

Agreed. You can find fun in these games but nothing as a whole experience. It's bits and pieces. It is a theme park. You have points of interest and everything else in between is busy work or walking just like a theme park or roller coaster park. The only difference is, if you need to revisit somewhere you can press a few buttons and wait in a loading screen to skip the walk back.

 

[mannawyadden]

It is a theme park. You have points of interest and everything else in between is busy work or walking just like a theme park or roller coaster park. The only difference is, if you need to revisit somewhere you can press a few buttons and wait in a loading screen to skip the walk back.

Isn't this superficially like Fallout 1 except without an Overworld map? What separates the two games for you - the content of the points of interest and the story that ties them together, the character and the gameplay?

 

[R.Graves]

Isn't this like Fallout 1 except without an Overworld map? What separates the two games for you, the content of the points of interest and the story that ties them together?

but that's the beauty of a hub based map. its designed to skip over fillery bullshit and get straight to that sweet sweet content. whereas open world games are filled with nothing or bullshit busywork where you spend 90% of your playtime running through the open world just searching for actual content so they can advertise "hundreds of hours of gameplay".

 

[Norzan]

Because there are actual consequences to exploring in Fallout 1. You waste time needed to complete certain timed quests (including the main quest), you can run into enemies far more powerful than you, nothing scales to you and you actually can get locked out of content. You are also not the center of the world.

When people call Bethesda games since Oblivion theme parks is that's because what they are. There is no danger that should come with exploring, no running into enemies far more stronger than you, everything scales to you and getting locked out of content is nigh impossible. The world only moves forward when you interact with it, instead of the world feeling like is its own entity. It's literally a theme park, where you go to each attraction with no resistance. You are also the center of the world and the only thing that actually matters.

 

[SquidWard]

Isn't this superficially like Fallout 1 except without an Overworld map? What separates the two games for you - the content of the points of interest and the story that ties them together, the character and the gameplay?

A lot. Specifically what Graves said but Norzan isn't wrong either.
You don't have to sit there and walk aimlessly, nor are you ever really encouraged to. There's not much reason to spend time in the overworld map in Fallout 1. You go to the place, only to spend a few seconds up to a minute traveling. Even less in Fallout 2 when you get the Highwayman. The only time you're stopped is when something of interest happens.
I get what you're saying though, it has a similar fit to the definition but I'd say it's not quite the same. Fast travel in the newer games is nice but it's a symptom of an unnecessarily large world. I haven't played Gothic games but from what I understand of them, I'd rather have the open world designed like that.

 

[mannawyadden]

I see, makes sense. Thanks for the detailed answers.

Edit: Regarding "The world only moves forward when you interact with it, instead of the world feeling like is its own entity", is this not also the case in Fallout 1 and 2? I can't recall any instances of the world moving forward without me except for the water chip and mutant invasion timers, the latter of which was patched out?

 

[Gizmojunk]

I see, makes sense. Thanks for the detailed answers.

Edit: Regarding "The world only moves forward when you interact with it, instead of the world feeling like is its own entity", is this not also the case in Fallout 1 and 2? I can't recall any instances of the world moving forward without me except for the water chip and mutant invasion timers, the latter of which was patched out?

[Somehow I missed where you mention the waterchip and invasion timers.]
_______________
The original Fallout had timed world events, including an invasion by the Unity army. It was possible to discover a town dead.

If the player hired a water caravan, that delivery would extend the waterchip quest's time limit, but [IRRC] would shorten the impending invasion of Vault 13, by showing the world where the vault was.

In Bethesda's games... in Oblivion, the city of Kvatch will burn forever until the PC solves the quest. AFAIK NPCs expecting to meet the PC will loiter indefinitely, and think nothing of it; the conversation picks up like it was only 20 minutes ago—even weeks or months later. Hypothetically [perhaps really] the PC can be chasing a pick pocket, and decide to go dungeoneering for a few days, then fast-travel back to town, and continue the chase... The games are for the most part, essentially timeless except cosmetically.

In Fallout, even the skills take time, and of course traveling takes time. It's noteworthy to mention that FO3 does indeed track time spent even through the so-called 'Fast Travel'; the clock will update. It takes about three hours to walk [via map-travel] from Rivet City to Vault 101... but AFAIK, the game doesn't use that information for anything but the game clock.

In Oblivion, the PC can cast a strength spell, load up with loot, and cross the continent to sell it—before the spell wears off. In Fallout, the drug benefits expire as the minutes pass by, whether on or off the world map. Weeks of walking [cold turkey] across the salt flats can cure a PC of drug addiction.

**Of course the nukes are timed; and I have played sessions where my PC was taken to the Master, and was unable to pick the locks in the cathedral on the way out, in order to escape the area before detonation.

 

[R.Graves]

Edit: Regarding "The world only moves forward when you interact with it, instead of the world feeling like is its own entity", is this not also the case in Fallout 1 and 2?

admittedly yes, though to a far lesser extent to your average modern ARPG. there are tons of instances where the player will trigger a sequence of events and if they don't rectify it entire populations die out (or just one guy). near as i can remember though there are only 4 or 5 instances of this across the two games at least in the vanilla versions.
honestly "the world waits for you" is not a criticism i find all *that* valid. i mean sure when its taken to skyrim levels its a stupidly distracting but as long as the setting has a fair amount of backstory to show that things happened before the PC showed up and has endings to show that things happen after (with or without the PC's influence) then i think that's a fine enough way to do it.

 

[Norzan]

That statement was directed at the fact both games have timed quests, which is something i think more RPGs need. Like i said, timed quests make it look like the world isn't completely waiting for you (as in, every single thing in the game only happens until you do something). I'm not asking for the entire game to be nothing but this, that would be annoying, but more timed quests and timed events (events that start counting down for them to happen at the start of the game and then you have X amount of time to deal with it) would improve the game in my opinion. Well, as long the time limit isn't too overbearing and strict.

I've been playing Atom RPG a lot lately.