Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'NMA News and Information' started by TorontRayne, Nov 13, 2018.
"See that climber? You can mount that."
Oh boy. Gonna love this article. Oh boy.
After seeing the transition from Oblivion to Skyrim and Fallout 3 to Fallout 4, I don't know what I would expect of the next main entry in either series. I didn't think you could really scoop out more things of either series.
I think Risewild is right about the dialogue being something that they go back on. Todd Howard even said they didn't like how it was received or something to that effect. Everything else will continue on a normal path as far I'd be willing to believe. They likely won't bring back skills. If anything the next game will be more like Fallout 76 with SPECIAL and perks than it would even be like Fallout 4.
I don't know if we can summon it and then nuke it to destroy it, but apparently (if this is not fake) you can launch multiple nukes at once/short time:
"Fallout 76 - an online multiplayer take on the franchise - was not expected to sell as strongly as Fallout 4. Of course, any new game from Bethesda Game Studios is still a major release, yet this title has got off to a slow start. Fallout 76 debuts at No.3, and sales are down 82.4 per cent compared with the previous game in the franchise - 2015's Fallout 4.
Even so, due to its higher retail price, Fallout 76 was actually the game that generated the most revenue at UK retail last week. "
(from an article on UK vidya sales)
82.4% down is pretty damning. Fallout 4 sold something like 500,000 copies in the UK at launch (https://metro.co.uk/2015/11/19/fallout-4-has-sold-half-a-million-copies-in-the-uk-5512836/), so 82% less would mean its sold ~90,000 copies.
considering it seemingly generated a lot of revenue I doubt heads will roll, but this should be a wakeup sign for Bethesda. I think even the most cynical people expected it to do better than that, though admittedly its still #3 in the charts.
if I had to speculate why most consumers, excluding dedicated fallout fans etc, avoided the game, I'd probably put the blame on that pretty useless ad campaign (ie the live action trailer, which was cringy at best, and showed nothing about the game), possible disappointment from Fallout 4 (in 2015 despite some gameplay improvements etc. it still played and felt like a game from ~2010-2012), and also reports of bugs, and poor feedback.
And Zenimax, you should have given another Fallout for Obsidian to make.
How is 76 working for you now? You could have avoided that, and you know, don´t you?
Perhaps it is mentioned earlier in this topic and we already know from a gameplay point of view why there are unlimited ICBMs but lore wise it is explained that the silos manufacture their own missiles.
I find it really questionable and I think this is a lore addition that could eventually bite Bethesda writers in the back.
>it is explained that the silos manufacture their own missiles
I anxiously await for this to never ever come into play in future Bethesda Fallout games, even though an unlimited supply of nukes means that whoever controls West Virginia can basically win any conflict they get into.
I've been seeing this everywhere and it's funny as fuck they probably didn't think players would try this. If you give players the ability to attempt something in a game, they absolutely will eventually do it and if it's online expect it even sooner and more frequently. It's sort of a Murphy's Law for gaming.
Not only that, they also had ads with basketball teams, at basketball stadiums, etc. They were advertising to the population at large. Like what natural crossover occurs between video games about crafting and basketball have? Not any. Of course you can like both but the crossover doesn't occur naturally. Advertise at conventions and on Twitch, Youtube, etc.
Yeah that's a good point. They likely won't touch on it unless it conveniently fits whatever they do next. I think the addition of the nukes being made at the silos is silly. That's not needed for the game as things respawn all the time in online environments. Not that I could actually care much about what Bethesda Fallout lore is trying to do.
It's time for a DLC then.
Let's not forget autonomous AI that uses fully automated Vertibirds to patrol West Virginia.
I wonder why were they deployed in the middle of nowhere and not somewhere logical like super active Vertibird base at Camp Navarro.
"Well lots of people will say things happened one way,' and the opposite or something else could entirely be true. So there's no question that we've gone back to change things to fit what developers have wanted to do and not be beholden to something that somebody wrote 20 years ago even in franchises that we created like the Elder Scrolls."
Now back to serious bznz. I have another conspiracy theory for ya'll.
So it's been 5 days since the game hit and we barely have any reviews out for the game.
Now obviously, it is a shit game, and everyone and their dog is pouncing on it to tear it apart.
However, this is not the usual MO for Bethesda, so they will go back to making their typical games that take half a decade to finish.
Now, what if... Reviewers are opting out of reviewing the game in its entirety because if they do review it then they'll have to adress how shit it is and they don't want to be blacklisted from Bethesda in the future...
Like, you review the game and you give it a positive score just to score brownie points with Bethesda then it'll be transparent as fuck to everyone that you truly are nothing but a shill for major corporations.
You review the game and give it an accurate score then no matter how fair you try to be this game is a fuckup of royal proportions that you can't give it a positive score without your review being called into question. However, if you do release this kind of review you might not get your early copies, insider insight and free vacations on Bethesda's dime in the future.
And if you don't do a review at all then you don't have to be honest about how shit it is and you won't be a part of the score that did sink the game.
Now, when I look down on the metacritic critic reviews there are a bunch of reviews that are pending. You can still read them and all, but is it custom for the pending process to take such a long time?
Okay, so we have two other games, Spyro and Battlefield V.
I'll be doing Playstation for Spyro and PC for BFV.
Spyro released a day before F76.
BFV released a day after.
Spyro has a total of 42 critic reviews.
BFV has a total of 33 critic reviews.
The most reviews that have been properly reviewed and accounted for on any system for F76 is the PC version. Which has 4 critic reviews.
Something smells fishy.
Er... If that's a technology that actually exists in the Fallout Universe, that changes everything. Because it means that in the end, both Caesar's Legion and the Brotherhood of Steel were right all along. This kind of tech is just too dangerous to be left in the hands of anyone in the wasteland (The Enclave would have needed to secure one single silo to instantly win, for Pete's sake)
It creates a big problem in the overrall narrative. There's no more debate if these guys are right or not, if nuclear weapons are mass-produced by themselves and left to be found by anyone. Not that I'm surprised.
So... Caesar's Legion which is viewed as just being evil finally gets proper moral ambiguity courtesy of Bethesda due to consequential stupid new lore?
I don't know how to feel about that.
Most of the reviews I have seen seem to rate the game around 2.5 out of 5, 5(0) out of 10(0). A little bit more or a little bit less.
These are the reviews I found:
Metacritic PC version (other version don't have enough critics reviews yet): 56 out of 100
Gadgets 360: 5 out of 10
Attack of the Fanboy: 2.5 out of 5
Noob Feed: 55 out of 100
The Sixth Axis: 3 out of 10
Gamespot: 4.1 out of 10
Fortress of Solitude: 55 out of 100
XBox Tavern: 5.6 out of 10
Softpedia: 3 out of 5
Xbox Achievements: 65 out of 100
It seems like it is considered an not very good game. In the age of games that get 75 out of 100 being considered bad or weak...
I fucking hate that shit. A 75/100 to me is a pretty solid game. A 5/10 is a mediocre game, it's not bad and it's not great. It's right in the middle of the road. It does things right and it does things wrong all while never doing anything new or special. That's a 5/10. It mostly works, some people can find fun with it, and it breaks no new ground or ideas or even advances gameplay into the future. If all games used 5/10 as a very average, easy to miss game we'd have better review scores overall.
Kids get mad that I say Witcher 3 is a 7 or 8 out of 10 to me. And I liked the fucking game! But they act like I'm kicking it so hard in it's balls it won't ever be able to have children.
So, metacritic averages are 45 for the PS4 version, and 56 for the PC version
for comparison Fallout BoS had 65 or thereabouts
Bethesda have made a worse game than BoS
1/10 - complete iredeemable shit
2/10 - Terrible
3/10 - bad
4/10 - mediocre
5/10 - average
6/10 - decent
7/10 - good
8/10 - great
9/10 - fantastic
10/10 - phenomenal
This is my scoring system. 7/10 being mediocre is fucking stupid in my opinion.
bethesda's writing is so terrible it did full 360 and accidentaly became good
Guys, Legion despises technology because Caesar believes that it makes men weak, and he only cherishes the survival of the stronger.
That's why they use thermic lances, power fists, that mallets invented by BoS (I forgot the name now) and even energy weapons (the assassins uses PEM and Plasma grenades), because this tools are just another way of fighting, but they do not allow in any hypothesis robots (they replace the men in the battlefield) and chems (artificial improvement)
It has nothing to do with the responsibility of using this technology, just as BoS is supposed to be.