Jump to content

Photo

Online Fallout: 76


126 replies to this topic

#121
taryl80

taryl80

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 325 posts

Starfield and the next Elder Scrolls game is announced to be single player games. They have say that in an interview and/or that /noclip thing.


Edited by taryl80, 20 June 2018 - 10:57 AM.


#122
zanity

zanity

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 494 posts

Starfield and the next Elder Scrolls game is announced to be single player games. They have say that in an interview and/or that /noclip thing.

Actual no they don't. They IMPLY, with weasel words, this, just as they IMPLY a ton of things that just are not true for Fallout:76.

 

Todd has two modes. Fact teller, and fortune teller.

 

So, for instance, Todd IMPLIES Fallout:76 has settlement building- it does not. But Todd honestly states many times that Fallout:76 has a CAMP system, with camps no larger than that seen in the release demo, where the camp is a concept to links to the player, instantly appears and instantly disappears at user request, when the player logs in/out, or when the map 'morphs' (nukes) and the camp finds itself in an 'illegal' place.

 

It's the same thing with Fallout 6 (Fallout 5 = Fallout 76), Starfield and the next Elder Scrolls. Listen to Todd and he makes it perfectly clear these will be in the mould of all the monetised addiction gaming experiments currently produced by Beth, but more advanced (thanks to time and experience). Todd is 'god' (a nasty little tin-pot god, but god nevertheless), and what he wants he gets.

 

Todd knows in his heart that he no longer wants the company to cater to the old-school fans, but like most bosses who benefited from industry evolutions, he has the HABIT of still talking to these fans as if he will continue to be their friends.

 

Todd has attended the despicable industry briefings by the psychologists and addiction experts and prophets of monetisation, and he has taken his experience with Fallout Shelter to conclude that every word said at these briefings is true. Many of these briefings have been leaked, but almost none of you here have bothered to read them. Thus old school fans are literally self-deluding, and Todd, when talking to old school fans, has no cause to burst the delusion.

 

EA is a big publisher at the cutting edge of these trends, and has been merciless to its long established IPs in retooling them with vile monetisation and addiction mechanisms. As a result current EA games are despicable, but highly profitable.

 

But let me take a far better example. Assassins Creed Origins from Ubisoft. Wdely described as a Witcher 3 rip-off, by the devs. Bigger world. Better land and cities. Better horses and boats. And in these mechanical ways, the game that brings us 1 century BC romanised Egypt does a fantastic job. But why then do I and 50% of discerning games think AC:O stinks, and is a terrible game?

 

I think it is even single player only, but maybe it has limited co-op- that certainly isn't the problem. No, what kills AC:O, and makes it a horrid joke compared to Witcher 3 is monetisation. All game mechanisms in AC:O have been coded to support monetisation. Oh you can play the game without spending a penny more, but your experience is chocked to death by the fact that every choice made in the game was made to extract more money from a certain class of gamer.

 

So, for instance, there are tons of cool new outfits for your character, but you'll never bother buying them for your ingame cash is carefully limited to being just enough to finish the game in as simple a way as possible. Surplus cash is for the gaming buying said surplus with REAL money. So you literally miss out on a ton of art assets present in the game because you skip 'buying' costume A or weapon B etc, in order to just focus on getting thru the dull experience as quickly as possible.

 

In GTA V there many have been the odd super-car with a stupid price tag, but even then you could probably find and steal one in the game world. In AC:O, all but the basic stuff is locked behind a paywall that game earnt currency is never enough to buy.

 

What happens next is that the big publishers promote the message "only peasants have to have a peasant gaming experience"- in other words 'real' gamers use real money to buy their way to the best experience.

 

Without a doubt the mighty Ubisoft put enough time, effort, money and tech expertise into AC:O to make a game every bit as good as The Witcher 3- but that's not how it ended up. And that was with an effective SINGLE-PLAYER, OFFLINE role playing game. Monetisation, addiction mechanisms and 'gaming as a service' (Todd's favourite phrase) simply ruin gaming. Todd intends to amp the worst industry greed based norms to the power infinity in all new major titles to follow Fallout:76.

 

In AC:O, I literally lost the will to live when I reached Alexandria, the first mega city. Googling around I was shocked to discover how many others said the same thing. Imagine reaching the first big city in Fallout or Witcher, and being so dissapointed with the GAMING experinece (not the graphics or engine) that you just want to stop playing. That's what happens in a game built around monetisation- even when it is single player.

 

When Todd says something factual, I do him the courtesy of believing him. This is why I know Beth has no intention of doing any more games in the design spirit of Skyrim or Fallout3/4. A monetised game will always prohibit you from having the optimal experience with the game without extra spending. And this cynicism, eschewed ONLY by CDPR, taints the entire game design process. Todd screamed as loud as he could at E3 that he has embraced the 'principle' of 'gaming as a service' and monetisation at all costs. What reason does anyone here have for thinking Todd a liar?



#123
jim_uk

jim_uk

    There's someone watching me, I can tell.

  • Premium Member
  • 39,326 posts

 

 

But let me take a far better example. Assassins Creed Origins from Ubisoft. Wdely described as a Witcher 3 rip-off, by the devs. Bigger world. Better land and cities. Better horses and boats. And in these mechanical ways, the game that brings us 1 century BC romanised Egypt does a fantastic job. But why then do I and 50% of discerning games think AC:O stinks, and is a terrible game?

 

I think it is even single player only, but maybe it has limited co-op- that certainly isn't the problem. No, what kills AC:O, and makes it a horrid joke compared to Witcher 3 is monetisation. All game mechanisms in AC:O have been coded to support monetisation. Oh you can play the game without spending a penny more, but your experience is chocked to death by the fact that every choice made in the game was made to extract more money from a certain class of gamer.

 

 

 

 

I didn't spend a penny on Assassin's Creed Origins microtransactions and finished it without issue, at no point did I feel the need to open my wallet, and yes I had plenty of outfits. The next one is going to be a full blown RPG with dialogue choices and a branching story among other things, are you going to miss out on that because they monitise a few things you don't even need? I really think you need to take a step back and calm down, what's the point in getting angry about this? if you don't like it keep your money in your pocket because money is the only language they understand. Think of the last Star Wars movie, you can bet Disney are busy rethinking things and rumour has it crazy Kathleen Kennedy is going to be replaced, it wasn't people complaining about things on the internet that caused this, it was people keeping their money in their pocket. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't like what Bethesda are doing and made my point when I posted this however I don't see any point in going on and on about it, if it's bad then it'll flop and we can point and laugh, if not then there are plenty of other games out there including the older Fallouts. 



#124
Moksha8088

Moksha8088

    Resident poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,342 posts

Don't get me wrong, I don't like what Bethesda are doing and made my point when I posted this however I don't see any point in going on and on about it, if it's bad then it'll flop and we can point and laugh, if not then there are plenty of other games out there including the older Fallouts. 

 

 

Bravo!  That link was the stuff of genius.



#125
MrJoseCuervo

MrJoseCuervo

    Old hand

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 620 posts

Starfield and the next Elder Scrolls game is announced to be single player games. They have say that in an interview and/or that /noclip thing.

 

Perhaps its time to try something else. No I don't mean Fallout 76 I am talking about something other than a Bleh-thesda Game. 



#126
Moksha8088

Moksha8088

    Resident poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,342 posts

I hope mod authors do not give up on Fallout 4 and Skyrim SE. 

Well, keep an eye out for the upcoming Project Valkyrie mod from the makers of Fusion City Rising and Outcasts and Remnants.  



#127
Moksha8088

Moksha8088

    Resident poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,342 posts

 

Well, keep an eye out for the upcoming Project Valkyrie mod from the makers of Fusion City Rising and Outcasts and Remnants.  

 

That sounds fine, but will it have scantily clad women, shiny new guns with cool sounds, and large paddle-like swords?   


Edited by Moksha8088, Today, 06:21 AM.




Reply to this topic



  


Page loaded in: 0.740 seconds