Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fallout 76' started by Atomic_Spawned, May 7, 2019.
New Vegas is a new plot. FO3's plot is a mash-up of Fallout and Fallout 2—moved to the East coast.
As for use of the the engine... Obsidian has 18 months to make FO:New Vegas.
Here is a summary of quests:
New Vegas has over 186 unique ending slides. Fallout 3 and 4 have no more than 6 endings between them.
Almost. Just exchange complain to celebrate.
There was so much wrong with this. The water would be fine after 200 years unless they irradiated the entire water cycle and clouds ceased to travel. No one needs the water. Except for 3 bums. Seriously megatons water purifier is on the verge of total breakdown and not a single NPC is even vaguely concerned about it. The water gimmick angle was stupid and not well thought out. 1/2 get away with because they're literally set in a desert. Also setting up a purifier at the southernmost end of a river that flows south is a great way to ensure that the region you inhabit sees literally no benefit from your effort.
Yeah that was beyond retarded that the enclave would elect a random computer on the other side of the continent as their next POTUS. Even dumber that he can be convinced to kill himself with 3 sentences of moral high horsing.
Ah yes when dad's radiation machine emits radiation it shouldn't have and you die despite having the means to live (companions radaway or even PA) but Col autumn stood in the same chamber with the same radiation earlier and lived because...?
Welcome to the forums.
Others already commented on this, so I will comment in a different way.
Even if we couldn't compare the games in all the ways other people already mentioned, we can compare them as "just games".
When we look at ALL the PC games in the Fallout Franchise, Bethesda Fallout games are usually the lower rated ones. This definitely shows how players think that as "games", Bethesda's Fallout is inferior.
This is not just us here on NMA, this is the real opinion of PC Fallout players everywhere:
Blue will represent the game(s) with the highest rank and orange will be the game(s) with the lowest rank.
Rating from the players on GOG.com (goes from 0.5 ★ to 5.0 ★):
(Second last place only 0.1 higher than Fallout Tactics)
Fallout New Vegas
(Highest Rating, only 0.1 higher than both Fallout 1 and 2)
(It is not available on GOG.com)
Results for GOG.com:
Fallout New Vegas > Fallout 1 = Fallout 2 > Fallout 3 > Fallout Tactics (spinoff game).
Rating from the players on Steam (goes from 0% to 100%):
79% in the GOTY
(Second last place with only 7% and 9% higher than Fallout 4)
Fallout New Vegas
(Highest Rating, only 3% higher than both Fallout 1 and 2)
Results for Steam:
Fallout New Vegas > Fallout 1 = Fallout 2 > Fallout Tactics (spinoff game) > Fallout 3 > Fallout 4
Rating from the players on Metacritic (goes from 0.0 to 10):
8.6 in the GOTY
Fallout New Vegas
8.8 in the Ultimate Edition
Results for Metacritic:
Fallout 2 > Fallout 1 = Fallout New Vegas UE > Fallout 3 > Fallout Tactics (spinoff game) > Fallout 4 > Fallout Shelter (spinoff game) > Fallout 76 (spinoff game)
PC Players all over the world (and even on other platforms) rank the main series games like this:
Fallout New Vegas, Fallout 1 and 2 as the highest ranked main series Fallout games (those games are always in first or second places), third ranked Fallout game is Fallout 3, worst ranked of the main series is Fallout 4.
Players rank the Fallout spinoff series as follow:
Fallout Tactics as highest (on Steam FOT is even ranked higher than Fallout 3 and on Metacritic is higher than Fallout 4), Fallout Shelter as third, and the worst spinoff game is Fallout 76.
So this is not just the opinion on this forum, this is the opinion of PC players all over the world. Why did I focused this on PC players, because Fallout 1 and 2 only exist on PC. But I added the ranks/ratings for other platforms when they exist too, the results don't change anything though.
This has nothing to do with this discussion, but I felt like writing it anyway:
So, I should probably clarify. I didn't mean NMA as a whole, I meant the 76 specific forum. Sorry about the confusion. Regarding the other games, did you ever consider that they weren't supposed to be targeted at the old Fallout fans? The problem with the bashing of 76 on this site is the same thing Norzan accused me of on the "Can you really call yourself a Fallout fan if you liked Fallout 4" forum. Whether or not I played the games. I have played all of the Fallout games, and I liked and disliked different things about each one. Don't knock it till you try it.
My point isn't that they're better than the others, it's that they can be good too. You stated that Fallout 3 got a 4.0 out of 5, a 76%, and a 7.8/8.6 (Normal/GOTY) from these critics. That's not great, but that's still good. Not better.
But they ain't good. They're mindless fun at best. The video game equivalent of a game of tag.
I gotcha. I'm gonna bow out here. I'm not here to fight, and I'm sorry for the arguments that I kept going. I came here to discuss the games with like-minded people, not argue back and forth. Let's start over.
The idea of this forum was, like all other game-centered subfora, to provide a space for discussions around the game. Since very few people ended up playing Fallout: 76 regularly, it's kind of useless. So it's mostly just continuous complaining about the game.
@Hassknecht I gotcha.
I mean, who could have known Fallout: 76 would be THIS bad? Even Fallout 3, which was met with LOTS of animosity here, still got some normal and even positive discussion in its forum. But I guess with Fallout: 76 the multiplayer-only aspect of the turned a lot of people here off from even trying it, and the generally bad press did the rest.
The thing is that Bethesda said that Fallout 3 was for those who loved the classic Fallout games in interviews and even over at the old Duck and Cover forums.
They also said they were fans of the classic games and wanted to keep what made them great games on Bethesda's titles.
They said this when they bought the IP and while they were making Fallout 3. So yeah, I can say that they were aiming at the fans of the classic games when they started making Fallout games (unless they were lying, but that would be even worse).
Emil even reassured classic Fallout fans by saying that he slept with the Fallout Bible under his pillow:
And there are other interviews out there, from over the years, where Todd, Emil, Pete, etc. say how they loved Fallout and wanted to make Fallout 3 for the previous fans of the franchise.
So yeah... I do know Bethesda Fallout was supposed to be targeted at the classic Fallout fans.
Did Emil used the Fallout Bible as toilet paper and not an actual point of reference? Because that would explain all the plot holes and huge continuity and lore breaks the Bethesda Fallout games have.
And what makes it funnier is that they outright pick and choose which elements from the Fallout Bible they want, while ignoring most of them.
Tactics is a billion time better than Fo3.
The purpose of this Forum:
Hell, what is it that these assholes continually spout about Fallout? That's it's a series to let the player do whatever they want, that their actions have reprecussions, and the nuked-out-world is their Sandbox?
Where the fuck did that hogwash come from? It's vague as hell, as any good RPG might as well include a reactive environment that the player can influence from the getgo, and misses the mark of Fallout by missing a forest for a tree. Fallout is about how mankind as a whole is reacting to the post-post apoc of a drawn out weird zeerust Cold War Earth - and by "Mankind" I mean "Disconnected-from-the-past America". Do they try to rebuild the USA via expy? Try to evolve beyond human limits? Go back to a more 'robust' time? Etc, etc. The player just helps push out the boat to go on its course, really; the most influential the player has ever been was in 1, where the Master was put down to give the rest of humanity breathing room. By 2, I think the NCR and BoS could had beaten back the Enclave even without the player and civilization had emerged all throughout the continent by then, so it's not as much as a drastic conflict, though still vital because the Enclave would had kicked everyone in the nuts so hard that even if they lost, mankind would had reverted back a hundred odd years.
It's also wrong since essential characters exist and pacifist/genocidal runs are basically impossible from the getgo. In F1 and F2 and NV, if you killed everything, well, the game still ends, because hey! The conflict's over by default.
There is nothing wrong with this. But consider if what you liked most was (about all four of them) was something farthest from the intended experience. For instance: liking everything about Halo except for the Master Chief and its FPS gameplay; perhaps gladly endorsing a Halo 7 with no Spartans, no run-n-gun; just driving vehicles and exploring the detailed environments... Should a game like that be the official Halo 7? (Would it not be backstabbing almost the entire fanbase who favor and expect the core gameplay from the series to be present in its sequels? As opposed to spin-offs—which could be good games with different intents, but are not official numbered sequels.)
The problem I see with many here and elsewhere, is that they are entirely behind any changes that they happen to prefer—regardless of appropriateness to the IP. And when they hear this, the first thing they are likely to try, is to accuse the accuser of the same—but opposite bias... and then be dumbfounded when the accuser defends the likes of TES (and other games) on the appropriateness of their own elements despite not particularly liking them.
I cannot stand to play TES in first person; but alas most of them only half playable in TPP; and Bethesda was truly shocked when they learned that a large number of UK players preferred TPP.
But TES is attempting a fully reactive FPP sandboxed world that truly put the player inside it—to BE there. That's a main goal, and TPP is very detrimental to that. Sure they acquiesced for Skyrim, but I think it that was a mistake on their part; because it gives the PC more of its own presence in the game world—and that is counter to what they were trying to achieve.
The problem with FO3 and its ilk, is that they are merely copying their goals with TES, but in the Fallout game world; and that is not what Fallout is about. If done right, Fallout's world is depressing as hell... Bethesda tried that, and gave up. Todd mentioned gutting six months work and reducing the map size... and I can guess why: It's depressing (and tiring) to walk through all that aftermath & destruction—but which needs to be there. Fallout got away with it, because they included dark humor (that Bethesda cannot replicate), and by implied existence. In Fallout the PC walks a week through that desolation, but the player only sees the important parts of the trip, and the destination. But they still make the trip, and it leaves an impression.
* Also: In FO1, (the new team broke it in FO2), the engine simulated the terrain underfoot on the overland map. Anywhere the PC stopped, was depicted on a map that matched the current terrain.
Combat was the very first thing they designed [afaik]; even before the Fallout world setting was conceived of. If you look it up, you'll be shocked at what [became Fallout] was supposed to be about. And during Development they were pressured to make the game a Diablo competitor; with realtime combat. They managed to get around that, and they managed to even get around losing the GURPS license, to still release it mostly intact.
@Gizmojunk you say the Institute was the worst, but East Coast BoS and the Railroad are pretty damn bad.
It’s sad, because the Railroad is a cool concept poorly executed. Poorly executed to the point of retardation (there are some in the Railroad who want to liberate toasters. Yes. Like they didn’t even play Old World Blues). And then the Minutemen are just... useless. Kinda like the real life Minutemen going up against the Redcoats.
I like F4 for some dumb fun, but tbh NONE of the factions are good.