Fallout 76

[PunkBillCarson]

This is the truth. Fallout 2 is my favorite Fallout game personally, and it has several game-breaking bugs that were never fixed. I also love New Vegas, but the frequency of corrupted-save and stuck-terrain bugs in that game is absolutely infuriating. I know I've probably been one of the lucky ones with regards to Fallout 76 and the bug experience, but the honest truth is I've encountered fewer bugs myself in Fallout 76 than I have in Fallout New Vegas. People have turned a blind eye to the absolutely terrible technical development of that game for 8 years now simply because it's an Obsidian title, or rather because it's not a Bethesda title. Obsidian may have great writers (or, at least we'll see if they still do given that a bunch of their best talent, including Avellone, walked out the door) and game designers, but their technical side is every bit as bad as Bethesda's.

I'll tell you an interesting story:

Back in 2010, I bought Fallout: New Vegas. I wasn't aware of developers/publishers/rights or anything like that, I just knew it was another Fallout game. 3 was the first game I experienced and I'd loved it and played the hell out of it. Bought Fallout: New Vegas, got to level 18 inside a day, and then all of a sudden, my save corrupts. I'm pissed the fuck off. All that time, which honestly wasn't much but I'd done quite a bit in that amount of time, down the drain. I took it back, got Red Dead Redemption and didn't play Fallout again until 4 came out (that game is good, fuck all who disagree.) Fast forward to 2018. Red Dead Redemption 2 and Fallout 76 come out near the same period of time. Guess which one I go with, especially after fan outcry and all the PR problems it's had? I didn't even have to play 76 to know that I was going Rockstar YET AGAIN this time around.

 

[Xaios]

Hey, truthfully, if I had to choose (not that I wouldn't have just bought both anyway), I would have probably gotten RDR2 as well. Then again I don't own any current gen consoles, so it kinda removes that dilemma. However, in 2010 I did buy a 360 just to play RDR. To this day, I don't regret it, one of my favorite games ever. Oddly enough though, I know a few people who bought RDR2 on release day because they also loved the original, and none of them actually liked it. One of them actually said it was one of the biggest letdowns he'd ever had, gaming-wise.

 

[PunkBillCarson]

Those people are peons, peasants, and well... just terrible people.

 

[Grand Moff Tim]

I also love New Vegas, but the frequency of corrupted-save and stuck-terrain bugs in that game is absolutely infuriating. I know I've probably been one of the lucky ones with regards to Fallout 76 and the bug experience, but the honest truth is I've encountered fewer bugs myself in Fallout 76 than I have in Fallout New Vegas. People have turned a blind eye to the absolutely terrible technical development of that game for 8 years now simply because it's an Obsidian title, or rather because it's not a Bethesda title. Obsidian may have great writers (or, at least we'll see if they still do given that a bunch of their best talent, including Avellone, walked out the door) and game designers, but their technical side is every bit as bad as Bethesda's.

Yeah, it's amusing how people now seem to forget that New Vegas was a dumpster fire at launch. It was shat on all over the place when it was released, and only slowly developed its reputation as "one of the good ones" years later. It was actually a bit weird to see the tone with which people talked about that game shift from "lol it's just glitchy $50 FO3 DLC" to "It's great because Bethesda didn't make it."

Don't get me wrong, I loved FONV from the get-go, but clearly bugs don't dissuade me from enjoying Bethesda games, haha. It's just a bit baffling how incapable some people seem to be of doing even the most rudimentary self-reflection.

Anyway, the game seems mildly more stable after the most recent patch. Only mildly, mind, since I did still have one CTD and one server disconnect in one evening last night. They're also sloooooowly fixing some of the major stuff people have been complaining about, while also continuing to ignore some of the big stuff (It's nice that they made lockpicks weigh something more sensible finally, or that grenades don't auto-unequip when you sign out, but how about marking plans as read as unread, for fuck sake).

 

[TedEH]

Now that I think of it, I think I only really tried to play New Vegas once. I ended up not bothering to continue cause the game struck me as janky. Not in a buggy kind of way, but just the way the UI looked and felt, etc. I dunno how to explain it - it struck me as kind of thin or thrown together. I maybe would have a different opinion if I gave the game a legit chance though.

 

[wankerness]

Yeah, it's amusing how people now seem to forget that New Vegas was a dumpster fire at launch. It was shat on all over the place when it was released, and only slowly developed its reputation as "one of the good ones" years later. It was actually a bit weird to see the tone with which people talked about that game shift from "lol it's just glitchy $50 FO3 DLC" to "It's great because Bethesda didn't make it."

Don't get me wrong, I loved FONV from the get-go, but clearly bugs don't dissuade me from enjoying Bethesda games, haha. It's just a bit baffling how incapable some people seem to be of doing even the most rudimentary self-reflection.

Anyway, the game seems mildly more stable after the most recent patch. Only mildly, mind, since I did still have one CTD and one server disconnect in one evening last night. They're also sloooooowly fixing some of the major stuff people have been complaining about, while also continuing to ignore some of the big stuff (It's nice that they made lockpicks weigh something more sensible finally, or that grenades don't auto-unequip when you sign out, but how about marking plans as read as unread, for fuck sake).

I don't know how long it took, I recall seeing a growing and somewhat widespread opinion that it had a vastly better story than FO3 as early as when its DLC started coming out and was all good, but yeah. At this point it is looked back on like some unimpeachable classic while all the Bethesda ones seem to be largely scorned in the mainstream, and this whole 76 incident has enforced it that much more.

 

[KnightBrolaire]

Yeah, it's amusing how people now seem to forget that New Vegas was a dumpster fire at launch. It was shat on all over the place when it was released, and only slowly developed its reputation as "one of the good ones" years later. It was actually a bit weird to see the tone with which people talked about that game shift from "lol it's just glitchy $50 FO3 DLC" to "It's great because Bethesda didn't make it."

Don't get me wrong, I loved FONV from the get-go, but clearly bugs don't dissuade me from enjoying Bethesda games, haha. It's just a bit baffling how incapable some people seem to be of doing even the most rudimentary self-reflection.

Anyway, the game seems mildly more stable after the most recent patch. Only mildly, mind, since I did still have one CTD and one server disconnect in one evening last night. They're also sloooooowly fixing some of the major stuff people have been complaining about, while also continuing to ignore some of the big stuff (It's nice that they made lockpicks weigh something more sensible finally, or that grenades don't auto-unequip when you sign out, but how about marking plans as read as unread, for fuck sake).

I'll admit, I was one of those people who poo pooed the idea of FNV and didn't like how quickly it came out after F3. I thought it was going to be a half assed reskin of 3. Obviously it wasn't.
I hated the bugginess, muddy textures and frame drops in FO3 (i originally played it on x360) and FNV did nothing to rectify those issues. What it did manage to do was have a far more robust modification and crafting system, and far more morally ambiguous side quests (unlike 3 which had a lot of binary good or bad choices), along with an actually compelling main story (something that 3 and 4 failed to deliver imo). The DLC was actually really great (except for dead hearts), while F3 really didn't have any particularly amazing DLC ( i did like operation anchorage, but the Pitt was meh).

 

[Ordacleaphobia]

I'll admit, I was one of those people who poo pooed the idea of FNV and didn't like how quickly it came out after F3. I thought it was going to be a half assed reskin of 3. Obviously it wasn't.
I hated the bugginess, muddy textures and frame drops in FO3 (i originally played it on x360) and FNV did nothing to rectify those issues. What it did manage to do was have a far more robust modification and crafting system, and far more morally ambiguous side quests (unlike 3 which had a lot of binary good or bad choices), along with an actually compelling main story (something that 3 and 4 failed to deliver imo). The DLC was actually really great (except for dead hearts), while F3 really didn't have any particularly amazing DLC ( i did like operation anchorage, but the Pitt was meh).

Yeah this is still a heated ongoing debate between me and my brother; we both put about 200 hours into each game and I walked away with the impression that NV was way better while he walked away thinking FO3 was by far the better game.

I liked NV because I felt more immersed in the world, it felt more like an RPG to me. FO3 felt more like "here's the keys kid, knock yourself out." I also liked the aesthetic of NV a lot more, so that probably helped color my reception quite a bit.

Both were absolutely abysmal piles of garbage at launch, though. I got both pretty much right when they came out and had to maneuver around freezes, save corruption, infinite loading screens, and other issues. One of them actually caused my Xbox to RRoD, although I can't remember which one it was. NV was way worse in this regard (so it was probably this one), but for whatever reason, I can't recall ever getting too upset about it. At this point I had learned from FO3 and kept a backup of my save data, so it may have been that.

It's probably because of the brush gun.
It was definitely because of the brush gun.

 

[KnightBrolaire]

Yeah this is still a heated ongoing debate between me and my brother; we both put about 200 hours into each game and I walked away with the impression that NV was way better while he walked away thinking FO3 was by far the better game.

I liked NV because I felt more immersed in the world, it felt more like an RPG to me. FO3 felt more like "here's the keys kid, knock yourself out." I also liked the aesthetic of NV a lot more, so that probably helped color my reception quite a bit.

Both were absolutely abysmal piles of garbage at launch, though. I got both pretty much right when they came out and had to maneuver around freezes, save corruption, infinite loading screens, and other issues. One of them actually caused my Xbox to RRoD, although I can't remember which one it was. NV was way worse in this regard (so it was probably this one), but for whatever reason, I can't recall ever getting too upset about it. At this point I had learned from FO3 and kept a backup of my save data, so it may have been that.

It's probably because of the brush gun.
It was definitely because of the brush gun.

the guns in FNV were so damn good. I loved This Machine and Ratslayer. Those were 2 of my favorite guns (largely because I end up speccing a stealth sniper almost every time I play it )

 

[Lorcan Ward]

I just finished a full playthrough of NV today and did a full one of 3 a few months ago. Both games have their strengths and their weaknesses. NV's biggest one is that they had 18 months to work on it, parts of the game are so empty like freeside and Legion content. You can see they had ideas for a massive world but they were restricted by time. Still an awesome game with so many paths and endings.

I had a hard time accepting F3 because I was bitter about Van Burnen. It's easily one of the best open world games where you can just start walking in any direction and play for hours. The story was a rehash of 1, 2, tactics and parts of Van Buren but I can really see now how it appealed so much to newcomers of the fallout franchise.

Like the original 2 games they now feel quite dated on consoles. I'm not sure where the franchise will head now but why desperately need a new engine and a team working on bugs and stability well before the game is released.

 

[Xaios]

parts of the game are so empty like freeside and Legion content. You can see they had ideas for a massive world but they were restricted by time.

Gameplay wise, that was definitely my biggest issue with it. Well, that, and...

I did really love NV though, in spite of having to save my game every 3 minutes or risk losing hours of progress.

 

[Ordacleaphobia]

Gameplay wise, that was definitely my biggest issue with it. Well, that, and...

Man, I will never forget what those mega wasps did to me.
I was literally an order of magnitude more terrified of those things than deathclaws. Deathclaws were a walk in the park.

Cazadores? Nope. They're almost as unsettling in real life, too.