What is good about Fallout 76?

Posted to Reddit by u/SammieSammy https://i.imgur.com/FGy3suw.jpg

There is a lot of negativity surrounding Fallout 76 at release. Eurogamer called it "a bizarre, boring, broken mess", the Metacritic numbers are remarkably low, and most discussions of the game include more people upset than satisfied. I'm being reminded of the release for Mass Effect: Andromeda. That game didn't deserve the reputation it quickly earned, and the same seems to be true for Fallout 76.

I'm finding that people who have played the game say things like, "I enjoyed playing it, but..." and that's a sentiment I understand. On the other hand, people I've talked with who haven't played the game are saying, "I've heard it's really buggy, so I'm not interested in playing it." I know that this isn’t a game everyone is going to like, and I do believe the game will get better with some time for bug-fixing, but I find that the discussion surrounding the game is so negative that it is turning many players away for good.

The thing is that I’m enjoying my time with Fallout 76 and, for all it’s flaws, I don’t want to discourage all players from giving it a try. All Bethesda RPGs of the last decade have been terribly buggy at launch. Bugs can be patched, and the game can be improved, but if the reputation is that the game is unplayable, none of that is going to matter.

https://s2.n4g.com/news/2220055_0.jpg

FO76 takes risks and tries something new

The fact is that it would be very easy to write a post about all the problems with the game, but I want to talk about Fallout 76 in a positive way because I do have a positive feeling about the game overall. In order to do that, I’ll need to overlook a lot of points. For integrity’s sake, I’ll make mention of them before I write down any conclusions, but please understand that I’m interested in discussing here only what is good about this game. Don’t expect this to be an even-handed review on its own—please look at what others are saying and weigh these positive points against those indubitably negative ones.

The first and most important positive point I want to make is that this game represents Bethesda taking a risk with one of their most beloved franchises. It would be easy to make and sell the same game again. I don't mean that it wouldn't take time, effort, and resources--I mean it would be easy from a "make something we know we can sell" perspective. That's working for the stockholders, and I would rather see Bethesda working for people who like to play games. The willingness to take on the risk of trying new things is vital to staying relevant in the gaming industry. Any developer doing otherwise is probably suffering at the hands of small minds wearing expensive suits. I'm making a soft point here, but it really is important to me that Bethesda made a Bethesda RPG that pushes the boundaries of  "The Bethesda RPG" without losing that identity. Through all the negative noise surrounding this game right now, it’s important that we as gamers take a moment to appreciate that.

The release of Fallout 76 reminds me of Mass Effect: Andromeda in a scary way. Andromeda wasn't perfect-- it suffered from myriad issues both technical and narratological--but it made an effort to expand and explore the Mass Effect franchise beyond the original trilogy. Now, the sequel to Andromeda has apparently been "shelved indefinitely". I'm not saying that Fallout is destined to die if Fallout 76 sees some bad press, but I am saying that the initial reception of a game creates a sentiment among gamers that can have real and lasting effects on a franchise. Andromeda was received in a similar way to Fallout 76--enjoyed by those who were playing it but critically panned for buggy gameplay and cutscenes.

Fallout 76 deserves more respect than its getting only if the next few patches do fix many of the bugs. If you're on the fence about this game, check out whether it's patched up by Christmas.

From "Fallout 76 multiplayer: How to unlock PvP and Wanted Bounties explained" at https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-11-15-fallout-76-multiplayer-pvp-5076

Proving the Multiplayer "Bethesda RPG"

Fallout 76 proves the hardware and the concept of a multiplayer Bethesda RPG. A Bethesda RPG can be explored without NPCs, and this frees the player from the quest-hub-centric gameplay of previous Bethesda RPGs. A world of FO76's size hosting over a dozen concurrent players is a promising prospect for the future of Bethesda's franchises. I'd like to see a hybridized version of the FO76 multiplayer and the Skyrim/FO4 single-player. In other words, the best of both worlds could be the next big Bethesda RPG.

With Elder Scrolls VI still distant on the horizon, I'm wishing to fulfill my dream from back in 2006 to play a game like Oblivion in a co-op capacity. I'd really prefer that future iterations forego the full-on "multiplayer" of FO76 in favor of a simplified co-operative gametype. All I want is to be able to play Skyrim with a group of friends. Is it possible to have multiple players share a persistent world that works for "drop-in/drop-out co-op"? If Bethesda keeps improving the systems they've proven in FO76, the next Elder Scrolls game could benefit tremendously.

From "Fallout 76 Best Perks - All Perks Cards, Perk Charts" at https://www.usgamer.net/articles/14-11-2018-fallout-76-perks-perks-list-perk-card-packs-special-mysterious-stranger-professional-drinker-lone-wanderer-everything-we-know

The Leveling System in FO76

Leveling up in Fallout 76 rewards the player in two ways. This works well because the first system serves the player as they level up, and the second serves the player who has reached a high level.

Leveling rewards the player with a S.P.E.C.I.A.L point to spend. Maxing out one or two stats first seems to be the way most players are going in order to gain certain skills that benefit their teammates. Leveling as a well-rounded character is reasonable, too, especially if you need to be a jack-of-all trades, but you'll miss out on extra information and/or loot. This serves the player as they level up because they can choose their path for progressing.

Leveling also rewards the player with access to Perk Cards. Perk cards are available for each S.P.E.C.I.A.L stat, each costs an amount of points depending on its level, and your ability to equip them is determined by how many points you have in the associated stat. This serves the player in the late game as they can spec (and re-spec) their character to have certain advantages.

These systems are introduced slowly so the player isn't overwhelmed with choices. At times some things aren't clear, but there is time to slow down and figure out what is going on. It's not terribly complex, but it is largely customizable--and those are both good things.

From "Fallout 76 Find Responder Caches Locations Guide" at https://www.gamerevolution.com/guides/456959-fallout-76-find-responder-supply-caches-locations-guide

Progress and Regress in FO76

Unless you're trying to grab all of the fast travel points right away, the game doesn't ramp up the difficulty too quickly. Staying near the early game areas is relatively safe, and journeying further away brings more challenging enemies. Staying around low level areas gives the opportunity to gather supplies in relative safety before continuing into higher level areas where those supplies are consumed more quickly. Games that scale enemy difficulty to player level don’t offer the player the opportunity to relax in lower level zones.

Progress is also guided by the main story quest. There is virtually no sense of urgency bestowed on the player, and so pursuing this part of the game is easy to put on the back burner for hours. By exploring the world, the player finds that they are near a quest objective and can grab that bit of progress while still pursuing other ends. Unlike other Bethesda RPGs, the multiplayer aspect can impart a different set of interests for the player and the emphasis on crafting and modifying gear means hunting for resources can provide more hours of distraction. As these varied interests develop, players might very well find that the negative, pessimistic things they thought they knew aren’t really true after all. For example, I hadn’t seen any Faction quests until I stumbled across a curious dead body in a dark alleyway. Only chance led me to it, but the ensuing quest led me to the pleasant realization that Factions were alive and well in Fallout 76.

I've had several up-and-down moments while playing Fallout 76. When I started making notes for this post I noticed that they were hot and cold. As I play more Fallout 76 and adjust to its shortcomings, I'm finding that there are more things to enjoy than I first thought. Still, those shortcomings are very real....

From "Fallout 76 Map Is Called Appalachia; New Sleeping, Trading Details Revealed" at https://wccftech.com/fallout-76-map/

The Negatives in FO76

Briefly and broadly, I need to point out some of the problems in Fallout 76. The single player experience is much worse  than playing with even one friend. The game is best experienced with a team, and that's a problem in a busy world. 

Leveling is more important than progressing, and progress gets locked away by level requirements more than any other game. In Skyrim, if you find a nice item you can have it. In Fallout 76, the coolest things you find have to be carried around until you can level up to their requirements. Currently, the game penalizes players for trying to hold onto items they aren't actively using (reportedly for technical reasons), so this is frustrating.

The world lacks the details of a full Bethesda RPG. It still shows touches, but there are more areas that feel empty and passionless. The size of the world in Fallout 76 was too much for the amount of development the game received. Bethesda can always fill a bigger and bigger world in their spectacular way, but that job grows exponentially with the world and Fallout 76 doesn't get there. The size of the world isn't a point that makes any impact on my interest in the game, and I think the only reason it still gets talked about is a competitive sense of one-upmanship driven by critics.

The PvP elements are haphazard and unsatisfying. They feel like they were an afterthought but there should have been a clear system in place from the beginning. I'd much rather not have these elements at all. They are neutered to avoid griefing, but there is so little point to having them at all that griefing is all they are good for. The game is meant to be played with a team of friends, and there isn't any place for a competitive element in a co-operative experience. Again, this is a feature that makes no impact on my interest in a Bethesda RPG, and Fallout 76 doesn't accomplish making this feature feel worthwhile.

From "Fallout 76 server crashes under triple nuke strike" at https://www.techspot.com/news/77496-fallout-76-server-crashes-under-triple-nuke-strike.html

              

Conclusion on FO76

Fallout 76 is a game that players will warm up to if they spend time with it and if they have the opportunity to play and make progress with friends. There are a few easy takeaways that I can share from my experience:

• Don't jump in yet, especially if you think you'll be playing solo. Wait until Christmas time and check in on this game again.
• Don't listen to the critics right now. By all means ask for someone's thoughts if they've played it, but withhold judgment on the game for a few weeks. Complainers are making a lot of noise because they are getting attention for it. That'll die down, and the game isn't what they're making it out to be.
• If you've got someone who wants to play the game with you, that's the best time to jump in. Whether that's now or later, the best version of Fallout 76 is the version you experience with friends. Don't expect the game to connect you with players that you want to play with.

In my opinion, Fallout 76 is the worst Bethesda RPG you could play right now. That being said, it's still a Bethesda RPG and if that's a style of game you enjoy, Fallout 76 is worth playing if you have a friend to play it with.

Happy Thanksgiving!

The Feel of the Game: War of the Roses vs. Chivalry: Medieval Warfare

Last night, I got to thinking about how "feeling" makes a game into what it is moreso than the mere facts of its description. To illustrate this, I present the examples of War of the Roses and Chivalry: Medieval Warfare. These are two games which look very similar on the outside, but feel quite different to the player playing them. While WotR feels rooted in history, Chivalry is really all about the action.

On it's Steam store page, Chivalry is described as "a fast-paced medieval first-person slasher with a focus on multiplayer battles" and it's most popular user-defined tags are "Medieval", "Multiplayer", "Action", "Melee" and "Gore".

User-defined tags for War of the Roses are very similar: "Action", "Free to Play", "Medieval", and "Multiplayer". But the game's description is less focused on describing the gameplay than it is on the historical aspects: "Battle online with up to 64 players through 7 historically inspired war zones as you experience the conflict between Lancaster & York first hand!"

But trying to describe their differences is inherently difficult. In both games you take on the role of a soldier. In both you choose between a variety of weapons, whether long-ranged or close, heavy or light. And in both games your ultimate goal is to slaughter the other team with superior skill and tactics. Getting more specific, both games ask the player to rely heavily on timing blocks and attacks, both try to inspire the player to see the match as a battle in a much larger war and world, and both use similar control and camera schemes. But the games become different as soon as you actually play them--once you actually feel them.

So, let me show you what I'm talking about.  Below are two videos of me playing each game. In Chivalry, there is a sense that buffoonery and ridiculous ideas have a place. It is more light-hearted than WotR, wherein a serious sense of historical accuracy is made dominant. Both games feature a wider variety of game types and weapons than I can demonstrate here, so my goal is to focus on what it is like to play an average match rather than explore the potential depth of the experiences.

What cannot be imparted through video or words is the way a game responds to the players inputs. This is an important part of the feel of a game, but short of putting the game in your hands it is not something I can show you. How well you are able to control a game makes a significant contribution to how you feel while playing it--are you in control or out of control?

What you are able to see in these videos is how pace and style develop the atmosphere, community, and sensations of these games. While WotR is slow and serious, Chivalry is fast and frenetic, and yet both games are trying to accomplish the same thing--an enjoyable, medieval experience.

In parting, I would be remiss not to mention "War of the Vikings", the next game from Fatshark and spiritual successor to WotR. I had a chance to play the game in its alpha-stage and, while avoiding saying anything specific, the game does a better job of accomplishing what it sets out to do. It has more in common with Chivalry in ways that don't make it unlike WotR and I feel that it will represent a step forward.

Loadout

Loadout is a new free-to-play, over-the-top, third-person action shooter. In addition to being a magnet for compound adjectives, Loadout is being touted on the virtues of its in-game customizablity. The game's developers, a company called Edge of Reality, have been in the game industry for over a decade, but this game isn't like most of the work they have done in the past.

Gameplay: Loadout doesn't innovate. You've played it's gametypes, you've fired it's weapons, and you've traversed it's maps. If I was going to forgive that, I'd say so about now, but I'm not. The biggest problem with Loadout is that it fails to stand out and try new ideas. When I think about the gameplay I'm reminded of another F2P game from last year called Renaissance Heroes that closed down last December. The games had a lot in common in terms of how they feel to play, and that was enough to keep me entertained for at least a few weeks. What sank Renaissance Heroes, in my opinion, was the exorbitant costs of the "micro" transactions. Loadout shouldn't have this same problem, but the fact remains that the gameplay has been tried and has failed.

If the customization options were truly deep, or if there was really much of an option at all, there would be more to say for this game. While the options are there for higher level or premium players, for most the game doesn't live up to its promise. Between a tech tree for new weapon options and experience points to spend upgrading and customizing your loadouts, the game has a capacity for depth that isn't realized until days and hours have already been sunk into playing it. The customization options should bemore readily accessible to new players if that's what this game is going to seel itself on. Without something special, without something to tell your friends about, Loadout doesn't stand a chance against the superior gameplay of its competitors. 7/10

Graphics: The graphical style of the game (reminiscent of Borderlands' "concept art style") is supposed contribute to that "over-the-top" sensation. Effectively, I've seen few players with the premium items and so much of the game looks repetitive. The maps are nice, but nothing special, and, while the projectiles are okay, the explosions don't make much of a visual impact. The animations are good and the way that damage shows on your character is downright admirable--easily one of the best parts of the game. 7/10

Sound: Loadout doesn't fail to utilize sound, but it does fall short of gaining anything form it. The clips of music and the beeping response you hear when you get a hit are effective at giving feedback, but they fail to add much to the experience. Sound hasn't been ignored in this game, but it has again failed to innovate in any way. 7/10

Value: As a free-to-play game, value is usually an easy win. Something for nothing is always worth it, and in Loadout you won't be overwhelmed by pay-to-win players (there just aren't very many of them). The premium currency reasonably priced, unlike it was in Renaissance Heroes, the F2P game I mentioned above, where a new weapon cost around $20. Moreover, daily rewards offer a chance at unlocking some of those premium items for free which is great. 8/10

Playing Time: Daily rewards area  great way to get players into a game day after day, but once you've gotten it there is little reason to stick around. For me, Loadout is a game I'll play for two or three matches (fifteen or twenty minutes) before I move on to something I enjoy more. I play a couple of matches, spend my experience, and move on. This is a game I'll play for a few weeks, and when I find something else I'll move on. While a game like SolForge has kept me playing with it's dailies, Loadout doesn't lend itself to quick sessions quite as well. All in all, I'll be done with this game before I really get a chance to enjoy it's customization options. 5/10

Overall: I'm not impressed with Loadout. The game is fun, but lacks anything to keep me hooked or to tell my friends about. There are no cool gimmicks or refined systems. It is too easily put down and too easily forgotten. I'm disappointed that I didn't have more customization options available to me at the start, and I feel that to be the first and foremost failure of the game. 68/100 F

Titanfall Beta Impressions

I was lucky enough to have the chance to play in Titanfall's multiplayer beta test this past weekend. The game's developers, Respawn Entertainment,are up against high expectations with their first game. The game studio formed in 2010 after Infinity Ward (makers of Call of Duty) fired Jason West and Vince Zampella (one of the Infinity's co-founders) for "breach of contract and insubordination".  Following the age-old playground tradition, Zampella and West started their own game--that's Titanfall, a game with a chip on its shoulder.

If you were doin' the Duty before it was just "cod", you know that the folks at Infinity Ward have had some pretty great ideas over the years. Besides being the "The Spiritual Successor to Call of Duty", Respawn Entertainment's Titanfall is an FPS made of equal parts speed and high-explosive. That's a recipe for disaster if the game isn't balanced, but, from what I've played, Titanfall is expertly balanced.

I had a great time playing the game. Multiplayer was exciting, challenging, and everything else a triple-A FPS title should be.  6v6 matches were just right for the maps and kept spawning players away from danger but never too far from action. AI-controlled "grunts" are absolutely a revelation to a genre which has stagnated as big names like Call of Duty and Battlefield begin to feel like are being manufactured on an assembly line. The constant presence of enemy targets keeps snipers sniping and CQB ninjas checking their corners.Their impact in the game has less to do with points and more to do with the experience of playing the game. Pointjockeys will still be better off hunting Titans than peppering the cannon fodder, but a players won't be able to ignore them, either.

Whether on foot or in a Titan, the matches maintained a sense of pace. Messages popping in from tacticians as well as chatter from the grunts filled the environments with a sense of purpose and kept up the pressure. Beyond filling the maps with action, AI grunts provide a thrilling contrast to real players, who in turn feel more like formidable opponents in a single-player mission. And, overall, the battles can feel like they are  on a large scale like in Battlefield 4 or Planetside 2 but with fewer players and on much smaller maps.

Besides the AI component, Titanfall's matches feel more like real battles because they have an ending. An epilogue sequence after the final points are scored brings closure to each match in addition to providing the opportunity to finish that last kill or rack some extra experience points. The effect that these additions have on making the multiplayer feel more like a narrative is astonishing. Titanfall is the best game I have played at making me feel like both  the single and multiplayer components belong in the story.

But there are still things keeping me from buying this game. For one thing, it's published by EA and will be played (on PC) through Origin. I really do not like the way EA behaves in the gaming industry, so giving them more of my money is something I try to avoid whenever I can. Still, the game looks and feels like a $60 game and I will have a hard time not buying it. 

Personal grudges aside, Titanfall is something of a fusion between Star Wars Battlefront and Call of Duty, but with much more from Call of Duty. Calling in Titans makes you tough and a tough-target for everyone on the battlefield, and I was reminded of spawning as a Jedi in Star Wars Battlefront, but the game looks like Call of Duty in so many ways. The menus, the challenges,  and the loadouts are all distinctly reminiscent of CoD, and I spent a good deal of time with them as there was more than a minute of waiting time between each match. I do feel that having a lengthy break after each match contributed to longer playing sessions, but it also gave me plenty of time to get distracted. 

There are still two things I want to hear about this game before I'm sold on it. One, that the single-player story is significant and worthwhile and, two, that the game has a powerful soundtrack. I realize that soundtracks aren't usually selling points on games in this generation, but, from what I've played so far, I feel it would be an unjustified shame if Titanfall didn't have some incredible music to accompany its stunning visuals--there's just something so evocative about a huge, flaming mech...

Finally, here's a great video from Rev3Games including Adam Sessler, Vince Zampella, and some gameplay video. It gets particularly good around 10 minutes in.