Fallout 76

[Lean]

Fallout 1 and 2 are games that were very good during their time. I've played Fallout 2 (wasn't able to finish it and was stuck in front of Vault City) and while it does fall upon the "boring" category nowadays because of the slow-paced turn-based combat, I still loved the story and the lore around it. I feel like Bethesda is trying their best to capture the feel of the older games, but resented to their usual first-person RPG style of play because well that's what they have. And I believe that if they resort back to the isometric turn-based combat, casual gamers might turn it down. Fallout Tactics, however, gives you the option to switch off the turn-based combat.

I like Fallout 3 and 4. I haven't got the chance to play New Vegas but I did purchase it on Steam last month. What I like about 3 is how desolate everything was, but I didn't like how you can only end up with the Brotherhood of Steel. I also like Fallout 4 (mostly the side quests and the Far Harbor DLC), but I hate how most of the DLC's focused more on settlement and contraptions rather than new story-based content.

To each their own, I suppose. But if you ask me if I could go back and play Fallout 1 and 2, I might give them a pass.

[shadowgrin]

Jagged Alliance that is still one of my favorite games

[Andrew]

Fallout 1 and 2 are games that are very good during their time. I've played Fallout 2 (wasn't able to finish it and was stuck in front of Vault City) and while it does fall upon the "boring" category nowadays because of the slow-paced turn-based combat, I still loved the story and the lore around it. I feel like Bethesda is trying their best to capture the feel of the older games, but resented to their usual first-person RPG style of play because well that's what they have. And I believe that if they resort back to the isometric turn-based combat, casual gamers might turn it down. Fallout Tactics, however, gives you the option to switch off the turn-based combat.

I like Fallout 3 and 4. I haven't got the chance to play New Vegas but I did purchase it on Steam last month. What I like about 3 is how desolate everything was, but I didn't like how you can only end up with the Brotherhood of Steel. I also like Fallout 4 (mostly the side quests and the Far Harbor DLC), but I hate how most of the DLC's focused more on settlement and contraptions rather than new story-based content.

To each their own, I suppose. But if you ask me if I could go back and play Fallout 1 and 2, I might give them a pass.

Agreed, well put.

Fallout 3's story, at least as a premise and in terms of most of the beats, was fine. One of the main problems, as you noted, is that there's no real way to turn heel and side with the Enclave, despite there being some logical points in the story where it would definitely be feasible. You can infect Project Purity, and you can destroy the Citadel at the end of Broken Steel, but you can never truly ally with the Enclave. I guess you either become the hero of the Brotherhood of Steel, or you screw everyone over by the end. So yeah, there is an evil path - sort of - but it's basically the same as the good path, rather than its own branching arc.

Then of course there are the plot holes, many of which were resolved by Broken Steel (notably the ability to send rad resistant companions into the chamber instead, though you still get branded a coward instead of a pragmatist). I'm not saying the story is perfectly written, but I thought it played out pretty well in broad strokes. You can give the Capital Wasteland hope for the future, but you still lose your father, and some of the side quests don't have totally happy endings either. Tenpenny Tower is one such example, as is the entire Pitt DLC. There are issues, but it's still great overall in my book.

Fallout 4 leaned a little too heavily on the settlement building for my liking, especially since they made it part of a few quests. I've enjoyed it to some extent, especially now that I've finished the main quest, but I'm always leery of those mechanics. GTA: San Andreas and GTA: Vice City Stories with their turf wars and empire building respectively are other examples. They should be completely optional, but they get woven in to the story and are therefore unavoidable. Apart from that though, I thought the story was OK. Some interesting twists with Father and the decision of who to side with was an improvement over 3, though perhaps not as good as New Vegas. It is better than New Vegas in that there's post-ending gameplay, though.

[[Q]]

Jagged Alliance that is still one of my favorite games

[ Image ]

No clue how many times I've played Jagged Alliance 2, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were around 1000 lol

[Dee4Three]

FFF12321 wrote:
Games and franchises should be free to change. Is FF7 less of a Final Fantasy game because it didn't have a job system and had ATB instead of turnbased combat like the first few games? Or because it was a mix of sci go and fantasy that wasn't present in the earlier games?

Fallout is no different. FO3 and onwards were FPS instead of isometric turn based games. FONV basically scrapped karma in favor of faction reputation. FO4 added base building and dropped skills but way vamped the perk system and tried some different things with how it handled dialog. You may not like the changes, and that's fair, but FO4 is still a Fallout game. If you want to go play in older systems, then go for it. The rest of us that still enjoy the franchise will continue to play the new games and take them for what they are instead of expecting the same game with a new skin on it.

FF7 and FF8 are the two best games in the series, in my opinion. Final Fantasy 15 is dull and boring, and the cheesiest game in the series. Going the route of real-time battling as opposed to turn based or ATB sounded intriguing, but it wasn't well executed at all. The story is dead, the atmosphere is dead, the characters are forgettable, they went away from everything that made the series great. Final Fantasy 14 online is a cakewalk, it's a really easy game. Long gone are the difficulties of games like FF11 online, which was very challenging. I feel like a lot of these companies are dumbing down games, making them easier, which is why we have so many easy RPG's out there.

I've played New Vegas and Fallout 4, and yes... Fallout 4 does feel a bit more commercial. A bit more... "pretty" as opposed to "Immersive". That's how I feel about the Final Fantasy franchise as well, overall. I feel like they have gone the route of good looks, and lost the immersion along the way. It's also how I feel about 2K18 and the route 2K is going in general. It used to be about gameplay, authenticity on the floor, it used to be about basketball. Now it's about VC, the attempt to look great, while disregarding what made the franchise great to begin with... the gameplay.

[el badman]

I never played the original Fallout games, but I spent countless hours on 3, NV and 4, as well as Bethesda's TES games, so I would consider myself a big fan of their work in general, in spite of the obvious and major flaws that each of those games came with. Nothing is quite as addictive as their solo campaigns, that's why I'm very disappointed if it does turn out that this is in fact an online survival game. I don't play any MMO or any other type of online game, and I really wish they hadn't followed the trend on this (if it turns out to be true of course), although I suppose it was a just a matter of time before they give in to that.

[Andrew]

I never played the original Fallout games, but I spent countless hours on 3, NV and 4, as well as Bethesda's TES games, so I would consider myself a big fan of their work in general, in spite of the obvious and major flaws that each of those games came with. Nothing is quite as addictive as their solo campaigns, that's why I'm very disappointed if it does turn out that this is in fact an online survival game. I don't play any MMO or any other type of online game, and I really wish they hadn't followed the trend on this (if it turns out to be true of course), although I suppose it was a just a matter of time before they give in to that.

Definitely. As long as they don't abandon the main series, then I guess it's fair enough that they explore other ideas for games set within the Fallout universe. However, it's safe to say a majority of us wanted another solo campaign. I have friends who'd be up for playing it with me online if that's what it turns out to be, so I might still give it a try. It's definitely not what I was hoping for though, if that's what it is.

I guess it's still subject to confirmation at this point as I've read the alleged leaks and rebuttals to the alleged leaks, so we'll see at E3.

[Andrew]

phpBB [video]

Fallout 76 is the first multiplayer game set in the Fallout universe

Bethesda Softworks’ Fallout 76 is the first multiplayer game to be set in the Fallout Universe. Bethesda’s Todd Howard confirmed during Bethesda’s BE3 event that “Fallout 76 is entirely online.”

Fallout 76 is set in West Virginia, and includes locations pulled from actual sites throughout the state. Bethesda says that the playable area is four times larger than Fallout 4. The game serves as a prequel to every game in the series, taking place 20 years after the devastating nuclear engagement that turned the United States into an irradiated wasteland.

Apparently it will be possible to play it solo, but...I don't know. I'll need to wait for more details, but that's not the game I wanted.

[JaoSming]

Definitely watch the conference in regards to F76, I feel like they got everything needed out there to get an idea of the game.

[Lean]

Yeah, I'm not sold after watching the presentation. There's an option to play solo, but who's to say that a random asshole gets to troll you by nuking whatever it is that you built while you're offline, right?

I hope that when you do play it solo, you play it like any normal Bethesda RPG.

[Andrew]

That's what I'm hearing. Solo play is possible, but it's still all online. It's a cool concept in theory, but online gaming can be pretty toxic, and it's not the Fallout experience.

[Lean]

I'm probably won't get it, or wait if any of you guys do and give it a thumbs up. But admittedly, the announcement of Fallout 76 makes me want to replay Fallout 4 or give New Vegas a shot.

[Andrew]

I've been playing Fallout 4 lately and enjoying it. It has its problems, but I've warmed up to it after giving it a few chances. I can always go back to Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas, though.

[Kenny]

It would be pretty cool if you could have your own private map to explore and invite your friends to (like Minecraft, minus the procedurally-generated aspect). That would be the Fallout 76 I'd be hoping for. I could deal with waiting longer for Fallout 5 if it were like that.

[bowdown]

They should do people a favor and tag the game appropriately as they plan to sell it like RPG, MMORPG, etc. We can get a better understanding for what to expect that way instead of wasting time speculating but I am sure they want people to talk about the game.

Edit: Around the 3:15 mark it looks like some gameplay footage of Fallout 76.

phpBB [video]

[Andrew]

I'm leaning towards skipping it, but it is worth noting that this is a spin-off game and experimental concept. It's not the overall direction for every Fallout game from here on out.

phpBB [video]

All the same, as someone who would've loved to have this generation's New Vegas, and normally has a keen interest in any Fallout game that's coming out, it's a disappointment. I won't rule out trying it, but it may just not be for me.

[Lean]

Oh, this is an automatic pass. Although I've always wanted to just be a merchant in RPG games. Or a farmer. Or a scavenger. Just someone who doesn't want to be part of the grander scheme of things.

Looks like I'll just re-install Fallout 4, or continue my re-play of Witcher 1.

[Andrew]

I definitely hear you on that. I am leaning in that direction, and it's only the mere fact that it's Fallout and a few of my friends might be interested in playing with me that's keeping me interested enough to at least find out a bit more about it. No Day 1 pre-orders as with Fallout 4, though.

[el badman]

Likewise, I'm sure plenty of folks will be happy about this new direction (the younger generations?), but it looks like there's a large chunk of the Fallout fanbase who feels let down and concerned about what's next, just like I do. It was certainly expected that it would come to that some point, so it's no shocker by any means, but I for one enjoy my lone wanderer experience when it comes to Fallout games, and I see absolutely no point in playing with others, even if the majority will most likely not be the kind of trolls who will undoubtedly ruin it for everyone by being trigger-happy with their nukes...
Luckily the other Bethesda E3 announcements were much more positive as far as I'm concerned.

[bowdown]

Its something unique. I think its good we get a different way of playing in the Fallout world. The game may end up being good or bad but atleast they are making things interesting and I like it. Im sure Fallout 5 will be released too in the future. It hasn't even been 3 years since F4.

[Andrew]

Todd Howard has stressed that they're being mindful of griefing and are trying to work out how the risk/reward factor of an optional PvP system will work. Apparently gamers won't easily lose everything, either. All the same, it's not what a lot of long-time fans of the series wanted, though it's worth noting that Interplay were looking to make an online Fallout way back in the day as well. I don't think we've seen the end of the single player Fallout, we're just going to have to wait a little longer for the next sequel or New Vegas-esque canonical side game. It's just a disappointment because I'd say most of us wanted Fallout 76 to be just that.

[Lean]

They could've called it "Fallout Online" and I'm fine with not giving a crap about it from the get-go. With the backlash it's receiving, they could at least give Fallout 76 a real single-player mode.

[Andrew]

That's perhaps the worst part. If it was teased as Fallout Online from the beginning, people could've seen it, been disappointed, and moved on (to some extent). The ambiguity of the title left hope for a more familiar experience.

It is what it is, though I wonder if the backlash might lead to any changes.

[Lean]

The ambiguity of the title left hope for a more familiar experience.

Indeed it did. Calling it straight-out as "Fallout Online" would cause backlash early way before it's announced on E3.

[Andrew]

In that respect it was smart on Bethesda's part, though it only delayed the inevitable.