Fallout 76...

[Dreez]

The joke of 2018 and just more proof how low Bethesda has fallen in terms of quality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZM18ZK9mOY

I honestly don't understand how some people will still blindly support and defend this company and the games they continue to
release with old, outdated engines, more bugs than an antfarm.. and constantly depending on the playercommunity to fix their
game by modding them to make up for the lack of content.

FO76 looks like crap, the gameplay is.. non-existant, yet Bethesda keeps preaching about it.

How can you defend a game like this, and not make yourself look stupid in the process ?.

[matthewfarmery]

I watched enough of the video to make my stomach turn, I also don't understand how the studio can keep on making ssuch broken and buggy games.

Just cringe worthy. and no doubt the final game probably will see many of those bugs or new bugs unfixed. so its not going to last long, plus been an MMO, which I think is total BS as well. Not amused at all.

[RegisterMe]

Just to provide a bit of perspective (I'm not playing Fallout 76) I picked up Star Trek Online again a couple of months ago. Whilst I am enjoying it I have to say it is the buggiest piece of software I think I have ever encountered in either my gaming or my professional life. Even as a player I am embarrassed by it. Here's a perfect example, they have a system called "Endeavours" where, if you meet certain criteria (kill x ships, do y amount of damage of type z, run this mission etc) you get a box with goodies. Fairly typical MMO type stuff. The current endeavour is to do a Foundry mission (STO's user created mission content).

Only you can't, because a dev deleted a file that the Foundry system is dependent on, and they haven't figured out how to recover/ restore it. A file that has been in place for.... ten plus years?

It's beyond a joke, it's beyond belief, and it's beyond crap.

[pjknibbs]

As soon as I heard the phrase "online only" I lost any interest I might have had in this game, so it doesn't bother me it's releasing as a bug-ridden pile of garbage. I just want Bethesda to learn the *right* lesson from FO76's failure, if it fails: namely, that no-one wants multiplayer Fallout, not that no-one wants Fallout of any kind.

[Antilogic]

As soon as I heard the phrase "online only" I lost any interest I might have had in this game, so it doesn't bother me it's releasing as a bug-ridden pile of garbage. I just want Bethesda to learn the *right* lesson from FO76's failure, if it fails: namely, that no-one wants multiplayer Fallout, not that no-one wants Fallout of any kind.

I would LOVE multiplayer Fallout.

Just not this, bug-ridden, wrong engine, bandwagoning multiplayer Fallout.

[Morkonan]

I had no illusions about this game...

It's obviously a cash-grab with little in the way of a dedication to create a real "game." As one reviewer said in the vid, it's basically Bethesda's version of Blizzard's "Diablo Immortal." Same motivation, same low-scale development, but with less polish than a Blizzard title, 'cause Bethesda doesn't "polish."

This is yet another "horse armor." Except, it's by the people that provided the origin for that meme... $60 for a Bethesda multiplayer title that is online only and doesn't bother encrypting anything, so everyone gets bare-naked IPs and packets can do whatever someone wants them to do. Gee, that's swell! That's exactly what a mulitplayer game should be! Why not just call the darn thing "Rape your neighbor" or something?

The vid showed classic rigging issues, incompatible rigs within the assets, crappy ass material work.. Anyone noticed some of the tiled textures that weren't seamless? Lolz... "Quick, find a wood texture! We gotta push this out the door today!"

No illusions. It's a Bethesda title and, unlike their normal stable of games, this is, according to them, a major multiplayer flagship game. Holy crap, while Bethesda titles can eventually be outstanding games, after a couple of years of community patches, how in the heck can Bethesda get away with releasing this in a multiplayer environment and dare to think it's going to be a hit?

[felter]

There were more than a few who had early access to the game who said, if you have pre-ordered the game then cancel.

Mr Sterlings honest and serious review.

[radcapricorn]

I would LOVE multiplayer Fallout.
Just not this, bug-ridden, wrong engine, bandwagoning multiplayer Fallout.

FOnline?

[pjknibbs]

Holy crap, while Bethesda titles can eventually be outstanding games, after a couple of years of community patches, how in the heck can Bethesda get away with releasing this in a multiplayer environment and dare to think it's going to be a hit?

Because they get a free pass on *everything*, that's why. Release Skyrim Special Edition five years after the original game without fixing any of the quest-breaking bugs that it had? Sure, that's fine, they'll sell millions anyway.

[Antilogic]

I would LOVE multiplayer Fallout.
Just not this, bug-ridden, wrong engine, bandwagoning multiplayer Fallout.

FOnline?

Let me add "Third person" to the list.

Honestly just let me play New Vegas style game in coop I'll be happy. (Because it's 4 billion times better then F04)

[Morkonan]

Because they get a free pass on *everything*, that's why. Release Skyrim Special Edition five years after the original game without fixing any of the quest-breaking bugs that it had? Sure, that's fine, they'll sell millions anyway.

That's the thing, isn't it? They make good games?

Granted, we all know that the "good game" they're releasing is going to have some bugs that will never, ever, be fixed by Bethesda... But, we buy the game, anyway, because it'll be "good." For myself, I buy them because I know there's an active and enthusiastic modding community that will not only eventually fix the bugs, but will make the game even more gooder. But, now they've stumbled into a multiplayer and online-only game mechanic where there isn't any community of modders to save them. They supposedly have partners, other game companies under their label, that have weighed in on this project. I wonder how many of them said "You guys probably shouldn't do this, since polishing code and dealing with bug patches in a timely manner is not in your repertoire."

It's like one of those companies that sells the crap being enthusiastically pushed on one of those extended-length television commercials. You know, some "food chopper" or some glue stuff that repairs cracks, is waterproof, and will perform an appendectomy by itself, in the dark, whether you need it or not. Could that company build a space shuttle? Probably not, no matter how great their sealant is. But, they'd be enthusiastic about doing it, anyway.

Honestly, all this stuff is so well known that it's moot - We know Bethesda and we have accepted their faults because they build good single-player games that other people end up turning into great single-player games. I think we all also know why they're doing this project, which is so far outside of their usual scope - Money. Bethesda wants "in" on the recurring microtransaction business model and hawking a Fallout IP is the way to do it. It's the IP that is best applied to that format and Bethesda wants to sell "hats" to as many players as will buy them. Did everyone notice the hats in the vid? They couldn't have been more blatant.

PS - It is worth noting that the improved Skyrim was free for those who already owned Skyrim on Steam. So, there is that in their favor. But, it was true to the original with its bugcount. :/

[esd]

As soon as I heard the phrase "online only" I lost any interest I might have had in this game, so it doesn't bother me it's releasing as a bug-ridden pile of garbage. I just want Bethesda to learn the *right* lesson from FO76's failure, if it fails: namely, that no-one wants multiplayer Fallout, not that no-one wants Fallout of any kind.

This. Health conditions and kids basically means if I cannot pause a game effectively, I won't be playing it.

Forza Horizon's latest is "always online", but none of the other players are able to touch you, AND you can pause (unless you enter a multiplayer race, which makes sense). It's amusing to drive along and find a car just hanging in the air because the driver has paused to take a photograph of their jump

[Mightysword]

Because they get a free pass on *everything*, that's why. Release Skyrim Special Edition five years after the original game without fixing any of the quest-breaking bugs that it had? Sure, that's fine, they'll sell millions anyway.

Maybe it's a matter of tolerance and perspective. According to Steam I have 630h in Skyrim, and never once I use those mega community patch fixes.

- I think in all those hours, I had to use the console to fix a quest once, neither I had really run into any gamebreaking bugs. The only breaking things that happens is usually from my end ... with mods.
- I look at those mega community patch notes and the gazillion things it claims exist and fix ... to be franks I don't recognize 99% of what listed. Now I'm not claiming those bugs don't exist, but if it doesn't affect and bother me to an extend that I can recognize, then it doesn't really matter.
- Overtime those patches tend to get bloat, and they usually move from "fixing things to work as intended" to "change things to how the patch makers think it should be".
- Sure, the game has stability issues, but given the excessive amount of auto-save it does, it has never really a detriment to me.

It's still one of the game that I sink a lot of hours of full enjoyment in. In fact, I don't think Bethesa's games is that different from Egosoft to be honest in a lot of things, if I can buy and enjoy Egosoft's game, which I have been, it's not hard to do the same with Bethesa.

[felter]

You have to remember and take into account that Bethesda, like ubisoft, EA, take two and all of the rest of them, they are no longer in the business to make great games, let alone good games, they are nowadays only interested in making as much money as they can for as little work as possible. They don't care if the game is crap and full of bugs and lacks any gameplay, so long as people are buying their games and handing over their cash, that's all that matters, money, money, money. At the end of the day they don't go look at the great game we made, instead they say, look at the amount of cash we made.

[pjknibbs]

Maybe it's a matter of tolerance and perspective. According to Steam I have 630h in Skyrim, and never once I use those mega community patch fixes.

In principle I don't disagree with you--it was always possible to ignore the bugs, even if you got affected by them, because the games were generally good enough to do that. The problem arises when they release a game which *isn't* very good (as the general opinion on FO76 seems to have it) which is also bug-ridden as heck.

[esd]

An absolutely scathing review at The Metro. Some juicy bits:

Although it is bizarre how much Fallout 76 looks like some sort of abandoned mod, made by first year computer students that got bored after a couple of weeks and never bothered finishing it. The irony being that Bethesda has a very strong mod community, who regularly make their games look better than they ever did at launch. But being an online-only game we assume they’re not going to be able to help Fallout 76.

Lest anyone forgets, Bethesda own Doom creator id Software and Wolfenstein developer MachineGames, which feature some of the best first person combat this generation; so how they could possibly think this is acceptable is beyond us

Even great games – Dark Souls is the obvious example – have suffered from poor technical performance but Fallout 76 is not a great game. It’s very obviously something that was originally intended to be an extra mode for Fallout 4 but was never finished and has now been press-ganged into use as a separate title.

And the summary:

In Short: A disastrous failure whose technical shortcomings may one day be fixed but whose design failings, and obliviousness to its own potential, suggests a game that is irrevocably broken.

Pros: The game world is the largest and most interesting of any Fallout title. And if you’re very lucky, and get it at the right angle, it can even look fairly impressive.

Cons: Dull, repetitive gameplay with tedious quests, horrendous combat, and glitchy base construction. Lack of non-player characters ruins the story. One of the buggiest games ever released.

Score: 3/10

Ouch. That's gotta hurt.

[Morkonan]

...
Ouch. That's gotta hurt.

The trailer looks good, though... Then again, most of the appeal is likely due to the music, since little of the implied gameplay in the trailer appears to be evident in the game. And, if it is, the only question of whether or not it's worthy of experiencing is whether or not the Beach Boys soundtracks are included or not.

Someone stepped on Bethesda's enema bottle and this is the result. Yay?

This should probably be dubbed over some particularly hilarious bug-infested '76 vids: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWJXTdCVsKI (Sloop John B)

[Mightysword]

In principle I don't disagree with you--it was always possible to ignore the bugs, even if you got affected by them, because the games were generally good enough to do that.

Just like X2 and X3

The problem arises when they release a game which *isn't* very good (as the general opinion on FO76 seems to have it) which is also bug-ridden as heck.

Just like X:Rebirth

Like I said, if I can love and tolerate egosoft, it's not hard to do the same for Bethesasoft.


I think overall I feel the reactions in this thread is a bit overdramatic . I think if you put into a perspective of all other openworld games on the market, most don't have even half as big of a world and often ridden with far more technical problems that make Beth game looks like a hand polished Roll-royce, you'll appreciate their feast more. Sure, FO76 maybe a big flop, but I don't think it really reflects the long term value of the company. They hold two long running and successful franchises and for the most part, has been consistently deliver and improve with each iterations. Maybe this is double reinforced by prejudice against MMO platform (won't be a suprise given the forum we're on).

Conspiracy hat on *

Who know, this can be Beth playing 4D chest. People have been howling them for a Fallout MMO, so may be this is a token effort so they can tell those people "hey look, we tried ok, it flopped bad so we'll just stick to SP from now on".

[eladan]

Just like X:Rebirth

Like I said, if I can love and tolerate egosoft, it's not hard to do the same for Bethesasoft.

Let's see. Egosoft:
1. Releases buggy games.
2. Fixes the bugs
3. Updates the games with huge (sometimes unpaid) expansions.

Bethesda:
1. Releases buggy games.
2. Doesn't fix a large proportion of those bugs.
3. Sells overpriced DLC which often contain considerably less content than Egosoft's unpaid updates.

Yeah, total equivalence there.

I like Bethesda games in spite of the bugs. They do great worldbuilding (but terrible stories... hey! You missed that as a similarity to Egosoft! ) But they really are an absolutely rotten company who deserve all the criticism they get, and then some.

[Mightysword]

Yeah, total equivalence there.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholders. You're not necessary looking at the comparison as the same lens as I do on a few things.

- Like I said, the bugs in Beth's game were never really of a problem to me. When I first got Morrowind I had no internet, I played that game for years with no patches nor mods, yet I still sunk hundred of hours in them. The same-thing can be said about Oblivion and Skyrim. Again, it's nice that the communities fix those bugs the devs didn't, but they were never something that's more then pesky annoyance ... at least for me.

- Can the same-thing be said about the bugs in the X-series, if we go back to Reunion or Rebirth? I got both at releases, I remember Reunion was ok if you play for the first 20 hours or so, but after that issues started cropping up to a point that it can brick your game. I got Rebirth at launch too, and I decided that, after 15hours I needed to stop playing until it's fixed, because I don't want to get to a point that I would hate the game. Because if I reach that point, I won't be able to go back to it even after it get fixed. That was just how frustrated it was for me.

So, in the former case (Bethesa) fixing those bugs would be a nice gesture commitment but ultimately does not interfere with the wholesome enjoyment of the games, while in the later case (Egosoft) I would argue it's more of a necessity that they MUST do it to stay in business. I think many of us 'fans' here wouldn't around if the games were left in their initial state.

Let's see. Egosoft:
.....
3. Updates the games with huge (sometimes unpaid) expansions.

Bethesda:
.....
3. Sells overpriced DLC which often contain considerably less content than Egosoft's unpaid updates.

Well, I think you preach to the wrong person, I'm not one of those gamers who like to wail on and on about "proper expansion pack" and "overpriced DLC". For me, it's the right of the developers, and it's my choice to vote with my wallet, complaining is so ... overrated.

- I play TERA, a free MMO. If you want to talk about micro transaction, this is the platform to look at. Yet ... I spent less than $15 in the 6months time I play. Not because they don't have things to buy, I just decide I don't need them. And I don't let their existence bother me.
- I play The Sims - from EA, which is another notorious example of micro transaction for both the franchise and company. Yet ... I never touch the stuffs I consider overprice. Things that I feel justified the dollar, I buy. Things that I like but think overprice, I wait for a sale. Again, I don't feel entitled myself to all the contents that are available.
- I play Bethasoft games (mainly the Elderscroll line, not a big fan of Fallout) ... and I never buy those cosmetic DLC people complain about. But each and every expansion pack that release for those games are all well worth the price. Hell, I think they're underpriced ... and if you want to compare ... I actually hope Egosoft's expansion pack one day can actually match the quality of Bethasoft's expack.
- Now, I got Home Of Light for free as a day one adopter of Rebirth, but I never really get into it much. I bought Teladi Outpost and I think I visited the sectors came with it less than a dozen of time, half of the reason is because the ship AI can't seem to navigate the gate properly. Frankly I already know I wouldn't get into it much before I bought, so it was mainly a sight to support Egosoft, and the content itself really didn't change my opinion.

So ... irregardless of the asking price ... which one you think gave me more entertainment?

See, here's the thing, I think practical and not philosophical. I'm not rich, but neither I'm poor. I pay money to be entertained ... hell, I just sunk $1000+ this week into my other hobby (fish keeping), and I'm willing to pay a premium if the content is right. If Egosoft can release high quality ... hell scratch that, not even high quality, but content that I want to play, I'll pay for them. In general, I have more money to buy quality contents then there is quality contents that is worth buying, and video game is still one of the cheaper form of entertainment you can pay for (a fact I think people tend to lose perspective on).

To be perfectly honest to you? I think the X fanbase are a bit too old school and I wonder if that's a good things. Those companies that you hate? They are able to grow because they monetize their resource better. It may be the wrong impression, but I have a feeling Egosoft has always walk a tight-rope ... at least financially. Now, the things you praised them for certainly is good for you, the players, but ... is it necessary good for them, your supposed beloved developers? So if anything I would like to see more micro-transaction from Egosoft if that means they can be more stable and able to produce better contents, within reason of course.