Fallout 4 Survival Mode Beta

[Deleted7103646User]

In response to post #36369340.

Revenooer wrote: Immersive-schimersive.

A raider having a mini nuke launched at his feet and surviving with half health? Worse, a legendary who simply morphs back to full health?

Being level 4 armorer and you cannot make an armor bench without level 2 leader perks?

Laser rifles with major kickback? WTF! Those are not immersive elements - they are game play restrictions and effects placed by the designers to control game play. The goal being to make mechanics that balance fun and enjoyment with elements intended to make the game 'immersive' like the kick of shotgun (not a freaking laser Beth!) or the slowness of large melee weapons that do more damage than smaller fast ones that do less.

I loved the mods for Skyrim that made the cold more cold and taking a dip in a lake a dangerous proposition. The need to eat and sleep periodically added to the experience. On the other hand, facing a *real* deathclaw or behemoth always gets me anxious and my blood pumping. Not being able to save on demand would make the game tedious rather than "fun" to me.

I like the water/food/sleep needs but do not relish the notion of walking into the wasteland where you get creamed and lose (possibly) a lot of progress because you were exploring and ran into a nasty situation.

agreed..

and the save mechanic is a bit of a cheap way to make some people feel anxiety when they encounter a behemoth or deathclaw, for me it's just the thought of being able to die from that encounter that excites me, not the fact that i haven't saved and need to play the last 30 minutes again.

it does make me cautious and sneak around it more often, if that was what they wanted to accomplish, then they succeeded, but it's the combat that's exciting, not the i cannot take that on now because i haven't slept so i'll sneak away from it with my tail between my legs.

that being said, i do enjoy the survival mode more then any other difficulty i played it on, just some stuff makes me mad sometimes, like having to play stuff over because i stepped on a invisible mine, or a CTD, or a molotov spam when i was clearly out of reach of the fire/blast (behind a wall).

I don't understand why molotov's explode anyway, they should only cause severe burn damage over time.
I have my chest piece modded to be invulnerable to fire and i still die from molotov's, kinda lame mechanics if you ask me, better to just make everything deep pocketed, that way you atleast have something that works. Edited April 6, 2016 by Guest

[Fatalmasterpiece]

You do not have to play survival mode. The other modes are still available for play.

[Macke]

There is a new version of F4SE for the beta update out now. :P

[xdustsmile]

In response to post #36264185. #36272420, #36280400, #36281620, #36294745, #36295480, #36307360, #36313620, #36340025, #36344490, #36347635, #36348020, #36368590, #36372830, #36372990, #36373850, #36382245, #36384055, #36384285, #36385985 are all replies on the same post.

MagnaBob wrote: I have zero interest in survival mode. When it alphas all our systems via Steam, are we going to have disable it somehow or will it be an opt-in type option? (I eagerly await the Wasteland Workshop.)

Eruadur wrote: Seriously....?

ApolloUp wrote: It's a legit question... No need to be prickly, just answer it.

Starke wrote: It's an optional difficulty mode.

That said, I've got no idea if this new mod lockdown is just a function of them trying to keep the beta clean or a sign of things to come.

Eruadur wrote: @ApolloUp

I'm not obligated to answer stupid questions.

popcorn71 wrote: What...? Why are you posting a commenting saying that you won't answer the question? Why not just ignore it and move on? There is no point being nasty about it.

Snowskeeper wrote: Bob, as stated--repeatedly--in the above post, Survival Mode is an optional game-mode, which is currently in beta. If you have not opted into betas via the Properties menu on Steam, you will not have access to Survival Mode at all until it is completed and released. Not sure what the Wasteland Workshop has to do with anything.

Eruadur wrote: @popcorn71

I was simply conmenting on someone who thinks he can tell me what to say or what to do.
Just like you are doing right now ....

It's called freedom of speech. As long as I don't break any of Nexus' rule I can comment on any post directed at me or answer ( or not ) any question as I see fit.
And there's nothing you can do about it popcorn71.

I suggest you ignore people's posts in here because commenting on other people seems to make you irritable....?
:)

MokChaoticran wrote: This isn't a democratic nation it's a website. Flaunting your "freedom of speech" is useless and saying that you can say something just because it's legally allowed doesn't make it either valid or worthwhile. Your comment was neither, by the way. You're being belligerent.

Eruadur wrote: Like I care ?
:)

jbMnemonic wrote: My "Beta" setting was automatically changed by steam to not opt in for the survival beta. Thanks steam, you saved me a lot of trouble.

I wish anyway that gamebreaking exercises like this is not released as "Betas" as it is not, it is "Alpha" at best.

EbokianKnight wrote: ... Its definitely Beta. An Alpha test is an in-house test, non-public. Beta test means it worked enough that they need to extend their data set. Also you will always default to opt out with steam unless you actively opt in, and you can just opt out if you try it and get tired of it. There's nothing weird about this, and certainly nothing invasive. Bethesda didn't disable mods for everyone, just those in the test, which is reasonable. So there is nothing to support the idea that they're going to "turn off your mods" when the system is actually launched. Relax.

Obituary wrote: What everybody fails to mention is that while it is an optional difficulty mode, you probably will be forced to use Very Hard max if you don't want anything the new Survival difficulty brings.

popcorn71 wrote: If you don't want every thing that comes in the survival mode package then just wait for the geck to be released and mod in the features you like. The greatest feature of any (modern) Bethesda games is not the game its self, but the ability to tweak it the way you see fit.

Kronos7714 wrote: Yeah, I believe the question was more like, "Do you have to use the new Survival Mode versus the old Survival Mode, or are you forced to use the new Survival Mode, period?".

I am also interested in the answer to this.

Also, Eruadur, it's not a "stupid question", if you can understand the English language.
You also appear quite child-like, with your "Like I care?", and "I say what I want" nonsense.

I literally haven't heard, or seen, the phrase, "Like I care?", since I was probably.. 14 or so.

popcorn71 wrote: Supposedly the new survival mod will remain optional. No idea about the old survival mode though. Not that it will matter once the geck comes out. There will be plenty of overhaul mods for the hard core gamer out there and in my opinion that exactly the way it should be. Bethesda should have never gated the new hunger/thirst/sleep mechanics behind higher difficultly setting.

Options, Beth, Options. Ditch the current 'difficultly' settings and just change it to a 'damage' setting then make the hunger/thirst/sleep/save-on-sleep mechanics have there own options.

Crimsonhawk87 wrote: One word popcorn....consoles! I have a feeling that this update was made as it was for the console versions, as they will probably not have access to the sheer amount of mods that are/will be available to the PC modding community (pure speculation, mind you, but I'm willing to bet that this is the case). Most likely quite a few of these "issues" that people are having will be modded by the community post-GECK.

Eruadur wrote: @Kronos7714

I can read and understand English ( not my native language but still ).

Though I really think you are trying to read more into his question than what is really there...
And all because it's exactly the same thing you wanted to ask....
Very convenient isn't it?

But seriously: I couldn't care less about when you heard that phrase for the last time.
:)

Eruadur wrote: @Kronos7714 :2

Ok, read this then ....
"I have zero interest in survival mode."

Here he states he doesn't want to use survival mode... Not "a survival mode" but "survival mode" he doesn't want options he just doesn't want survival mode.

"When it alphas all our systems via Steam, are we going to have disable it somehow or will it be an opt-in type option?"

What's 'stupid' about that question is that you are free to choose your own difficulty.
And as he clearly stated before he doesn't want 'survival' mode anyway....so why ask a stupid question about if something can be avoided if you have a choice of selecting it yourself or skipping it altogether ?

Now leave me alone :)

jomoe18 wrote: then dont. simple as that. but yet u still feel the need to comment

Seriously....?

Yes. Seriously. Edited April 6, 2016 by xdustsmile

[Deleted7103646User]

In response to post #36389965.

Fatalmasterpiece wrote:

You do not have to play survival mode. The other modes are still available for play.

you don't have to play at all, but that kind of comments are lame. Edited April 7, 2016 by Guest

[Ethreon]

 

In response to post #36389965.

 

 

 

Fatalmasterpiece wrote:

You do not have to play survival mode. The other modes are still available for play.

you don't have to play at all, but that kinds of comments are lame.

 

As someone that used Project Nevada and FWE for a long time, having a real hardcore mode is something I'm all in for. So I do want to play survival, just not the way it is right now, unbalanced and with features that have no place in Fallout.

[Deleted7103646User]

In response to post #36394870.

Ethreon wrote:

 

In response to post #36389965.

Fatalmasterpiece wrote:

You do not have to play survival mode. The other modes are still available for play.

you don't have to play at all, but that kinds of comments are lame.

 

As someone that used Project Nevada and FWE for a long time, having a real hardcore mode is something I'm all in for. So I do want to play survival, just not the way it is right now, unbalanced and with features that have no place in Fallout.

I agree on that.

I tried survival mode, played twice to level 30 and once to level 20 now to test it thouroughly, and while i'm pretty good in shooters and know the Fallout 4 mechanics like i'm born with them, i died multiple times after 1,5 hours of gameplay without saving.

3 times because i stumbled on a invisible mine, 2 times the game CTD'd on me, and a few times because of molotov spam, and actually once because of a single raider, because i never met a raider in the whole game that was actually very strong, i thought i could handle that easily without drugs or med-x, boy was i wrong, the raider actually chewed me up like i was nothing, and my Overseer's Guardian whilst having 50% adrenaline damage seem to do absolutely nothing on the raider, 153 dam on that gun.

So right now i can say that the game is immensely unbalanced at times, the raider encounter was when i was level 20.

Right now i'm so sick of the dying part without saving that i stopped playing Fallout for a bit, i do like the survival mechanics overall, i don't like not being able to save more often without having to go to bed constantly.

Dumb thing is, i creamed a Behemoth head on with ease with my Overseers Guardian like 5 minutes before that raider, so a raider like 20 times stronger then a Behemoth ???

EDIT: Just tried the new BETA and it doesn't even let me send settlers anywhere anymore, so it seems that they keep their reputation intact of breaking something new each update. Every single update i had for Fallout 4 introduced new bugs, the initial release was the most bug free.

Also they claim that the need for drinking and eating is reduced, but i have to use the exact same amounts of food and water i did before, and on top of that they took another 25Lbs carryweight off, so settlement building got even nastier, probably have to switch entirely to shipments, and then 1 single playthrough is probably going to take atleast 1000 hours if you want to build nice settlements. Edited April 7, 2016 by Guest

[Shadow of Serenity]

Hopefully there'll be an option (or a mod) to separate the survival aspect from the difficulty aspect, Hard hits a sweet spot for me and I have very little interest in slogging through anything higher.

[lux113]

In response to post #36297220. #36298815, #36299420, #36303765, #36306040, #36307275 are all replies on the same post.

Ethreon wrote:

 

 

 

In response to post #36250120. #36250875, #36253370, #36253890, #36255175, #36255675, #36255830, #36257015, #36257275, #36257890, #36257990, #36258140, #36258155, #36258325, #36258815, #36259625, #36263630, #36264205, #36273425, #36284645, #36285325, #36285380 are all replies on the same post.

Beantins wrote: Really looking forward to the new survival mode - but not the in-bed save system. So if I'm wandering the commonwealth and find a behemoth I need to leave and find a bed then walk back before taking it on or risk dying and losing a lot of progress??

I appreciate what they're trying to do but the glitches, bugs and irreversible player errors are too frequent for a checkpoint style of game-play.

I hope the Nexus community are able to come up with a workaround better than just a droppable bedroll, because real life happens and it's not always convenient to find a bed when you need to stop playing.

printerkop wrote: Exactly, don't take it on if you haven't slept shortly before, or you'll have to do everything again.

I had to replay an hour cause my game crashed, then i had to replay an hour because i stumbled on a brahmin with 5 mines around it, bethesda's little joke on us.

Don't worry, when the Creation kit is released these issues will certainly be adressed.

EDIT: the FOTM list has a mod that let you save now.

Beantins wrote: Case in point, just had a power cut! Hadn't seen a bed since I left my settlement over an hour ago. If you're in the countryside you're screwed haha.

I can see how it would ramp up the tension but the frustration wouldn't make it worth it in my opinion.

Like I said I'm looking forward to the other changes just not that one. Also I hope the console being disabled will only apply to the beta?

Baboo77 wrote: Last night I was taking the castle, I had avoided most of the fights on the way too the castle so my save was an annoying distance away, not super far but still a tedious run back when having to do it repetitively.
I set up a firing line and proceeded to lure the mirelurks out. Well, the stupid effin minutemen kept throwing their unlimited supply of molotov coctails at me instead of the mirelurks. I know it's unlimited cause I pick pocketed them empty on the 3rd try and they still had more to throw and I know it was at me they were throwing cause on the second try I was standing behind them and one turned around and chucked a bottle at me. After the 4th run back to the castle was quite annoyed by this so I got crafty. With some painstaking agro control and precise sprinting burst and a ton of chems to keep me alive I managed to get the minutemen killed by mirelurks and their own molotov coctails before proceeding to take the castle alone with Garvey.

Yeah, save on demand is pretty much a must in a game like this.

Castornebula wrote: I do hope the no save thing is as simple as changing a variable in FO4Edit or whatever they use now because I'd like to try this, but no way can I tolerate this save point idea.

It worries me that Bethesda are so blithely ignorant about how their game works, and the inherent instability of their own engine. At any moment I can get kicked to the desktop, not even an error message. The game will just randomly die.
The worst part about this is that the highest occurence of these CTDs happens when I approach settlements... otherwise known as PLACES WITH BEDS. Essentially guaranteeing I will lose the most amount of playtime in any given crash.

I could never play this game without saving on demand and that's all there is to it.

Scynix wrote: If your crashing was symptomatic across all players, yeah, they'd be stupid. I don't crash. Ever. Unless I install a ton of mods. I can name ten people who haven't crashed once. Maybe you should troubleshoot your computer?

Castornebula wrote: What a stupid thing to say. You don't crash therefore it's okay?
I crash, sometimes. Not always, but enough that saving on demand is better for peace of mind. Plenty of people have problems crashing and always have with Fallout 4, with Skyrim, with all the other Bethesda games running this engine. Mods or no mods.

Case in point: I've never had a single glitch, crash or performance issue with XCOM 2. But I'm not going to sit here and smugly blame other people's computers for the problems they've had to the point XCOM 2 is semi-notorious for it.

Czujny1982 wrote: So, you crash therefore something it's wrong with the game, yes? What a stupid way to think. And if you dont like no save on demand system, don't play survival mode. Simple.

Castornebula wrote: Something has always been wrong with this engine. It's never been known for it's stability. That's a simple fact. Try to actually read what I say before responding.

And let me explain this to you very simply. I want the features of survival mode. Just not this ridiculous save point system. It is nothing but an albatross around the entire mode's neck that is impractical for a myriad of reasons, the potential for crashing being merely one example.

Czujny1982 wrote: New save system is not ridiculous, it's more immersive.

Castornebula wrote: How the hell is it more immersive? Because you say so? Making a bed a save point is immersive? How?
Better yet, if you like it why can't it be an option? Why must this and the console disabling be imposed on all of us along with the features we actually want?

Hey I tell you what's immersive. No saving at all! Not even to quit. So you have to leave the game running. And if you die just once not only is your character erased but Fallout 4 is automatically uninstalled and removed from your Steam account.
How's that for immersive?

Baboo77 wrote:

So, you crash therefore something it's wrong with the game, yes? What a stupid way to think. And if you dont like no save on demand system, don't play survival mode. Simple.

So, deprive yourself of everything else survival mode has to offer because of a dumb save mechanic that doesn't need to be? What a stupid way to think.

How about toggles for save, console, and travel to provide everybody with the play experience they desire? Those looking for a real challenge can just exercise some will power and not turn those options on. Simple.

This isn't a MMO, multiplayer, or competitive game. It's a single player sandbox rpg, people should have the ability to customize their game to the way they like to play.

dikr wrote: Portable bed roll mods are a nice, realistic workaround to me. Being able to save anywhere, anytime to reload and retry indefinitely is in fact a big immersion breaker; the whole point of the survival mode is to create a much more exciting experience with incentives to be much more careful than you'd normally play the game.

Personally I'm for a survival mode with custom options. Where the base 'mode' determines the new difficulty settings + the realistic needs & diseases and the following options:

[x] survival mode

Fast travel preferences:
[ ] fast travel enabled
[x] fast travel only between settlements with supply routes (my pick!)
[ ] fast travel disabled

Saving preferences:

[ ] saving enabled
[x] saving only at beds, settlements & friendly towns
[ ] saving only at beds

Happy to say that the engine-gods are with me on this one though: bought a new system for this game and haven't ctd'd a single time yet.

Castornebula wrote: I would suggest that you exercise some self-control with regards to saving and reloading.
I know I can, and would use saves for peace of mind against crashes, glitches and needing to suddenly leave the game.

And I can't think of anything more unimmersive than using beds as savepoints, even with portable bedrolls. My character does not have narcolepsy.

Granted, options to tweak these "features" would be the best outcome for everybody. Hopefully if Bethesda stubbornly refuse to do so, modders will pick up their slack... as they always do.

printerkop wrote: It's immersively ridiculous.

Czujny1982 wrote: "Being able to save anywhere, anytime to reload and retry indefinitely is in fact a big immersion breaker; the whole point of the survival mode is to create a much more exciting experience with incentives to be much more careful than you'd normally play the game"

basically this...

but i already see that you are too much ignorant to understand this, Castor...

printerkop wrote: so if anyone doesn't agree with your point of view, he's ignorant ?
Think again, and again, till you get it right.

MagnaBob wrote: Remember Far Cry 2?

ShuraShmura wrote: I had an issue like that. It's might related to some .dll files that are missing or corrupted. Updating windows and your graphic card driver eventually will solve your problem. What you also can try is to very your game files.

Beantins wrote: Regarding immersiveness - the in-bed saving is not. The rest of survival mode is.
Dying and coming back to life is a game only concept anyway!
It will affect behavior in unnatural ways. Yes you might fear death a bit more but when death occurs instead of trying again from a point you chose yourself you have to go back to the last bed you were at. If there is something dangerous to do you will be forced to find a bed first then travel back from there.

Checkpoints work well in first person shooters that are well designed with only one path to follow, but not in an open world rpg.

Don't give me that rubbish about 'if you don't like it don't play it'. I do like the changes but not the saving system and I hope that it can be addressed by the modding community.

jbtheclown wrote: I modded in a sleeping bag (don't bother me about ruining the beta its a freakin sleeping bag ) and it works perfectly for me. I still only save rarely as im a fan of the concept but it makes things a lot simpler. Anyways after being in it so long my strategy has been a lot better. Set up safe houses and it works great, until the ck is out and we can customize it to our liking.

jbtheclown wrote: I crash maybe once every 2 weeks and that was because I had a bunch of mods on

You know about Dark Souls? Or, for example, DayZ? Or any game with permadeath? Fear of death makes things a lot more fun. I used to just run through hordes of enemies with my shotgun, now I have to use tactics and think twice before I even pull the trigger. For me saving at beds is just a nice game mechanic. For others it might be a pain in the arse. Mods are definitely going to help with this stuff.

 

 

 

Nope. It only does it for certain people, while certain other people see it as a bad thing and a hassle. I don't enjoy knowing that I can lose hours of playthrough in one second just because I don't have a quick way to save. You like it? Very neat, feel free to keep it. I don't like it and would enjoy having an MCM-like menu where I can customize the settings of the survival mode. I don't expect there to be any, but I can dream.

Brandy_123 wrote: Why don't they fix survival in the game by making your settlers actually defend the place in your absence. Over 400 defense and you still get complaints about 3 ghouls or a single green skin. Yes, there are synth implants. According to the institute, they want a seamless integration. Why does it matter if settlers are synth? They generate a random NON-institute encounter, so it should not matter at all.

Instead, we get more "add on" that will make your sanctuaries less and less a place you want to have a settlement, much less having a settler.

"Excuse me General, After you get over your Diphtheria, Hepatitis, Listeria and Gastroenteritis, go heal your Compound Fractured Tibia and Hip Dysplasia. There's a settlement, completely surrounded by a 10 meter tall concrete wall, with 200 turrets and 25 armed out settlers, that needs your help. It seems there's a ghoul, that lives across the map from them, that needs to be taken care of. I would do it myself, but I'm VERY busy walking in a circle around Sanctuary looking important. You should go find a bed so you can save this game or we may have this conversation again in 3 hours"

mwhenry16 wrote: Lol, spot on my friend, spot on!

printerkop wrote: ROFL !

Vicalliose wrote: @Brandy_123
Pretty much this.

The real problems I see with the mode are actually problems from the default game that are just exacerbated by all the new survival elements. Also that none of the new elements have an affect on anyone else, including all settlers and companions. The only added difficulty I've really had with companions is that they refuse to get their asses up until you jam a stimpak into them, which is probably the best use for stimpaks considering the things practically kill you but have no side-effects for anyone else.

Also, every time I hear someone mention Dark Souls when talking about a Fallout game, I just cringe. Comparing Fallout to any game that actually was properly designed around high difficulty or survival is just stupid.

Snowskeeper wrote: (Also: Dark Souls doesn't have permadeath. In fact, you don't lose any progress if you die--just your currency.)

Permadeath..

Closest thing to it I recall would be like 20 odd years ago - Ultima Online

You die - your screen turns black and white, the center of it anyway because now you just see in that part. You are a ghost - your belongings are there at your feet.. that sword you worked months to get - that armor... it will disappear forever in 15 minutes.

You can run to the city.. by foot - or hopefully run into a "wandering healer". The way you figure it, it will take about 5 or 6 minutes to get to town and get resurrected.. then the same time back - that only leaves you about 3 minutes to spare before your hard work at this game vanishes forever.

And even if you make it back in time - anyone could wander up and grab your stuff while you're gone. anyone. Hey, here's a player who looks like he's a Mage, maybe he'll resurrect me? Ahh, hell, I'm just wasting time and my stuff is going to disappear -- and as a ghost when you talk to a player it just says "OoOo OooOOo Ooo" .. so they have no idea what you are saying, but come on man, it's a ghost -- what do you THINK he's saying!

Anyway... that game gave a sense of serious repercussions for dying, and it was the last one that I recall really did before they dumbed down everything cause people whine so much about all the time they invested and it's just not fair losing that progress.

I LOVED the fear that that game with it's sub par graphics could cause in me because there was real risk involved. Now I'm spoiled like everyone else though, and I'm addicted to save points.. and if I have to go back through 10 minutes of gameplay I did before it's like it's the end of the world. What I'm getting at though... we lost something. Back then I would honestly get scared... shaking scared.... when I was 10 levels down in a dungeon and I knew there were no players anywhere around to resurrect me if I died... one screw up and I would lose weeks worth of gameplay. That was fun. Edited April 7, 2016 by lux113

[lux113]

In response to post #36179015. #36184145, #36187930, #36192500, #36192925, #36198740, #36201355, #36205410, #36206150, #36213925 are all replies on the same post.

bben46 wrote:

I see a lot of garbage here from kiddies that just want the game to work the way they demand the game to work and have never done any legitimate testing in their life. BETA testing is NOT the playable game and is NOT intended to be the playable game. It is for TESTING purposes only.

 

If you don't want to help test the BETA survival mode, then please just disable beta updates on Steam.

 

If you insist on playing the beta with mods ( and figure out how) and it crashes - please don't bother to whine because they will just laugh at you for being so dumb as to think a beta test version was going to work as well as a released game.

 

IF you throw in a bunch or random variables (mods) then the test is invalid - that means you wasted hours of testing time that will be tossed as useless. Meaning that instead of the beta lasting 2 or 3 weeks it takes them 3 months to filter through the garbage from people that demand the test allow them to use mods. The intent of the beta test is to get a useful analysis of what really needs fixing. And if you throw in mods - or the quick fixes that the console allows the data is no longer useful, but just garbage.

 

The sooner they get the REAL data, untainted by random mods and quickie console fixes that allow you to keep playing instead of stopping and submitting a useful bug report the sooner they will release the actual survival mode update. :thumbsup:

hivKORN wrote: By your words, i hope they will fix problems from main game too and not only the survival changes! ;D

printerkop wrote: true, but since launch day there are a bunch of bugs in the game, which i adressed at the bug submitting page at Bethesda with a lot of extra information on my rig and the circumstances in which they occur in and screenshots and as much technical information i could give, i even know what the problems are, script errors and shader errors, and they haven't either bothered to fix them to this date, so how are we supposed to test a survival BETA if all the bugs i encountered haven't been fixed yet and still occur to this date ?

I develop games myself, and atleast half of the bugs i encountered must be easy to fix for an entire team of developers, but they just don't fix them.

Instead, like with FO3 and FNV those bugs are probably going to be fixed by modders later on.

I agree that mods should not be applied to a BETA test, but making a BETA before all the other problems are fixed is just unwise.

Zzyxzz wrote: "Instead, like with FO3 and FNV those bugs are probably going to be fixed by modders later on."

Yep, thats how it works today. To be very honest. They released the eat/drink/sleep feature, but its so f*#@ing bad. It's not even close to realism. Don't say, but it's beta. They already had this feature in NV and they weren't able to just carry it over. I call that very incompetent. Also they keep adding things in beta, which is also not the purpose of a beta. A beta is feature complete and is for testing the system. What they run is an alpha

Yes, people who want to test with mods... no words... but i also don't believe that they get any valueable feedback. I have looked into the beta thread. It's a mess.
Now you can argue about disabling the console, because you can hotload with console, which would destroy their plan. But disabling is also dumb because there is already a way to load mods (surprise surprise).

With a console we would be able to test their system even better, because we can tweak values, find the best values and report them.

And saving with sleeping... srsly... i lost faith in them. Fallout 4 is only playable in a realistic way with mods from this beautiful modding community. We can just hope for a solid game frame, but thats it

Kkatman wrote: I originally signed up for the Beta because there are bugs in the base game that the beta fixes. Having opted out of the Beta now that it disables mods, I find myself struggling with the same broken features that I joined the beta to solve... none of the fixes that the beta has implemented have been carried over into the proper game.

printerkop wrote: all the bugs i've seen are still there in the BETA, LOD loading issues up close, shaders messing up completely giving a lot of meshes rainbow colored noise patterns, scripted errors that result in messed up gameplay, collision problems are plentyful.. and so on..

They should fix that before adding new stuff imo.

Eruadur wrote: @printerkop

nvm

printerkop wrote: No, one should never learn from his mistakes, you're right.

GrypNWryp wrote: @printerkop

"No, one should never learn from his mistakes, you're right."

Says the guy who (apparently) thought Fallout 4's issues would be different from previous installments to the series.

printerkop wrote: reply's the guy who likes trolling and being an ass.

printerkop

I think it's unrealistic for you to think Fallout 4.. or any other Bethesda game could ever be completely without bugs.

It's in the engine and also in the nature of the open world game(although mainly the engine) The collision issues happen in skyrim .. oblivion, hell, I don't even consider them bugs anymore. Sometimes I even see them as features.

And honestly, I wouldn't want Bethesda to go on the fool's errand of fixing all the bugs in fallout 4 before ever releasing new content. It would be 2025.

On a sidenote I find it funny that you think that your particular reported bugs should have been fixed rather than the long list of ones others have reported (and were fixed).