I'm convinced that the quote system is a basic form of illusion magic, as people get switched around all the time with long chains.
Yeah, I never got to play system shock when it first came out and I picked it up for the first time on GoG about 3 years ago. Without nostalgic feelings, it really hasn't aged well. The story and writing was perfectly fine, it was just a chore to play mechanically speaking. I do really like the Thief series though.
I'm convinced that the quote system is a basic form of illusion magic, as people get switched around all the time with long chains.
Yeah, I never got to play system shock when it first came out and I picked it up for the first time on GoG about 3 years ago. Without nostalgic feelings, it really hasn't aged well. The story and writing was perfectly fine, it was just a chore to play mechanically speaking. I do really like the Thief series though.
The first one has been remastered, which helps quite a bit from a interface perspective. I don't assume you are talking about 2, since it is fairly modern and intuitive all things considered. The first game however is very much a "DOS" RPG with everything that entails as far as control schemes go. System Shock was the next step after Ultima Underworld, and that game in particular is praised even today for having about as good UI as you can possibly expect from that time period. The auto-map and the ability to make notes on it is still the gold standard in that department. Doom and Wolfenstein 3D get all the credit (and they deserve it), but Ultima Underworld 1 & 2 and System Shock are far more impressive and important to actual game design, and were also technically superior in many ways as well. System Shock 2 has an interface pretty similar to Deus Ex. The first two Thief games are just, wow, I don't even have the words to praise them sufficiently.
This time period was so good. You had Bioware, Black Isle and Interplay. You had Looking Glass. You had Troika. You had New World Computing. You had Blizzard before Activision. All of them churning out classic after classic after classic from the mid-90s to the early-2000s. There isn't anything remotely like it today.
I signed it, not that I really expect it to do anything. Who knows, it might get their attention.
Fallout as you have known it is, essentially, dead. What you'll get with Fallout 76 is an amalgamation of the Survival Mode and the base building elements of Fallout 4. The world will be 4 times as large, but I'm guessing it will be wide-open spaces signifying nothing, as that space will be used by all the players to claim territory. I don't see how they can make a game 4x as large as Fallout 4, which was already massive, and make it legitimate content rather than just terrain. I don't even think this game is going to be making a pretense of being an RPG anymore. It will be a survival/shooter game.
As for the online element, we are fighting a losing battle. The only games that are going to be single-player exclusively anymore (more the most part) are going to come from crowd-funding and indie developers. Sure you'll get some legit single-player experiences like Uncharted. Some games like Dark Souls will have legitimately interesting and innovative PvP. But the most popular games in the world right now are sandbox shooters, MOBAs, and Call of Duty clones. I'm guessing most people here don't have much interest in any of that junk. But that is where Fallout is going, and it probably isn't coming back.
I signed it, not that I really expect it to do anything. Who knows, it might get their attention.
Fallout as you have known it is, essentially, dead. What you'll get with Fallout 76 is an amalgamation of the Survival Mode and the base building elements of Fallout 4. The world will be 4 times as large, but I'm guessing it will be wide-open spaces signifying nothing, as that space will be used by all the players to claim territory. I don't see how they can make a game 4x as large as Fallout 4, which was already massive, and make it legitimate content rather than just terrain. I don't even think this game is going to be making a pretense of being an RPG anymore. It will be a survival/shooter game.
As for the online element, we are fighting a losing battle. The only games that are going to be single-player exclusively anymore (more the most part) are going to come from crowd-funding and indie developers. Sure you'll get some legit single-player experiences like Uncharted. Some games like Dark Souls will have legitimately interesting and innovative PvP. But the most popular games in the world right now are sandbox shooters, MOBAs, and Call of Duty clones. I'm guessing most people here don't have much interest in any of that junk. But that is where Fallout is going, and it probably isn't coming back.
Part of the reason I backed Wasteland 3.
It has a multiplayer element to it, but the way it's done in a way that intrigues me. You can co-op with a friend (completely optional and single player's fully supported), and team up, but you can still play without them and affect he world. Potentially you could work for against each other. I might even play this as multiplayer if I can convince my friend to play it with me.
I just bought Conan Exiles earlier this year, and I'm assuming that's pretty much exactly what F76 is going to be like, except without dick physics. Then again, I don't really have any reference for multiplayer survival games besides that. But it features both survivaly stuff and base building.
I really hope that by "no npcs" they mean "no substantial npcs" and that we at the very least will still face human (or mutated human) enemies. Or that can work or guard your settlement.
Overall it's a strong wait and see for me. I'll probably not but it even if it seems good because of the multiplayer aspect.
* you don't lose anything for respawning (it's not an MMO, there's no XP/level/equipment loss) * serial griefers get a "wanted" rating - not quite sure how that works when there's no authority... maybe it's more of a reputation thing, but everyone will soon know who they are and will be able to "bounty hunt" them * you can easily move locations, and even servers, without losing anything if you do meet a serial griefer * there are quests, and they're trying to encourage players to cooperate on them rather than PVP * the nukes are designed as endgame content, and using it to grief players would a) waste it and b) be easy to recover from (apparently it generates an area of high-level loot (somehow) so the incentive is to get there first, not drop it on somebody else) * microtransactions are cosmetic only, there's no pay-to-win (like how it is in Elite)
I think the wanted level will dictate what server you get placed on. With a cap of 32 players per server, I’ll be easy to separate those who PvP to those who PvE.
I am still not 100% convinced about the story and game mechanics yet especially with the end game scenarios mentioned in the videos.
I was always under the impression that Fallout was about rebuilding civilization, not helping to destroy it further to obtain epic loot.
Yeah, well from what I got on it it's basically an experiment...what would you do if you spent 2 mil on the multiplayer license for Fallout? would you not make use of it and at least try it out? or think "Oh gosh, the fans won't like it so 2 mil wasted, tough luck". Also it seems some are under the impression that FO76 is a replacement for FO5, that is not the case...as a matter of fact, now is about the best time for this release...not too soon after FO4 but just enough, and before their upcoming updated releases (FO5, Skyrim, etc). And from what I have heard, they had to jump through some hoops to even get multiplayer to work with the engine. So I'm up to try it out, if I don't like it then it goes in the box along side Lego Clone Wars...The box with the games I never play *I keep it around just to remind me :P Oh..and IMO I don't think "Rebuilding Civilization" was really in the script... Maybe a beginning in this (especially with mods) but not in totality...who knows, maybe FO5 will have the ability. lmao
That doesn't change my opinion, I still want a single-player game, I don't want to meet other players in my game world. Game worlds mean being in control, for interaction, there's enough of that in the real world already.
That doesn't change my opinion, I still want a single-player game, I don't want to meet other players in my game world. Game worlds mean being in control, for interaction, there's enough of that in the real world already.
I'm going to reserve judgment for the various game modes and mechanics and online components until release bc nobody in the world knows how its going to play out with 10's of thousands of players on all at once on live servers but I'm excited for Fallout 76 bc every Fallout game I've played has been very memorable in some way (even the bad ones) and Day 1 Bethesda games have hilarious bugs and memes that are fun to talk about. I'm tempering my expectations by going in expecting "an experience" rather than a game I'll be good at that is fun to play. Somebody's got to be on the forefront of whether or not a game is good or not, so I'm fine being that person in the case of a Fallout.
Comments
Yeah, I never got to play system shock when it first came out and I picked it up for the first time on GoG about 3 years ago. Without nostalgic feelings, it really hasn't aged well. The story and writing was perfectly fine, it was just a chore to play mechanically speaking. I do really like the Thief series though.
This time period was so good. You had Bioware, Black Isle and Interplay. You had Looking Glass. You had Troika. You had New World Computing. You had Blizzard before Activision. All of them churning out classic after classic after classic from the mid-90s to the early-2000s. There isn't anything remotely like it today.
https://change.org/p/bethesda-keep-the-lone-wanderer-wandering-alone
I signed it, not that I really expect it to do anything. Who knows, it might get their attention.
As for the online element, we are fighting a losing battle. The only games that are going to be single-player exclusively anymore (more the most part) are going to come from crowd-funding and indie developers. Sure you'll get some legit single-player experiences like Uncharted. Some games like Dark Souls will have legitimately interesting and innovative PvP. But the most popular games in the world right now are sandbox shooters, MOBAs, and Call of Duty clones. I'm guessing most people here don't have much interest in any of that junk. But that is where Fallout is going, and it probably isn't coming back.
It has a multiplayer element to it, but the way it's done in a way that intrigues me. You can co-op with a friend (completely optional and single player's fully supported), and team up, but you can still play without them and affect he world. Potentially you could work for against each other. I might even play this as multiplayer if I can convince my friend to play it with me.
I really hope that by "no npcs" they mean "no substantial npcs" and that we at the very least will still face human (or mutated human) enemies. Or that can work or guard your settlement.
Overall it's a strong wait and see for me. I'll probably not but it even if it seems good because of the multiplayer aspect.
The Making of Fallout 76 - Noclip Documentary:
This one goes into more game play detail:
And now I just may have to try it out
* you don't lose anything for respawning (it's not an MMO, there's no XP/level/equipment loss)
* serial griefers get a "wanted" rating - not quite sure how that works when there's no authority... maybe it's more of a reputation thing, but everyone will soon know who they are and will be able to "bounty hunt" them
* you can easily move locations, and even servers, without losing anything if you do meet a serial griefer
* there are quests, and they're trying to encourage players to cooperate on them rather than PVP
* the nukes are designed as endgame content, and using it to grief players would a) waste it and b) be easy to recover from (apparently it generates an area of high-level loot (somehow) so the incentive is to get there first, not drop it on somebody else)
* microtransactions are cosmetic only, there's no pay-to-win (like how it is in Elite)
That's the TL;DW version.
I am still not 100% convinced about the story and game mechanics yet especially with the end game scenarios mentioned in the videos.
I was always under the impression that Fallout was about rebuilding civilization, not helping to destroy it further to obtain epic loot.
So I'm up to try it out, if I don't like it then it goes in the box along side Lego Clone Wars...The box with the games I never play *I keep it around just to remind me :P
Oh..and IMO I don't think "Rebuilding Civilization" was really in the script... Maybe a beginning in this (especially with mods) but not in totality...who knows, maybe FO5 will have the ability. lmao
Also, still waiting for a Fallout game set outside the Americas. Post-apocalyptic Africa, Europe, Asia or Australia deserve some limelight too.
That being said, it's not for everyone... I'm not sure it's for me either but I'll wait and see.
@Kamigoroshi I think they confirmed mod support will be a thing... and yeah, be nice to do Fallout in a different country to the USA for once!
Really well made and respectful video, but i still think Todd & Co. have issues with Fallout's lore and roleplaying philosophy.
@BelleSorciere @Vallmyr
Fallout New Paris.