Fallout 76. Worried? Excited? Both?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

A selfish rationale. Works well as a personal defense against disappointment, yes, but poisons the well of discourse. For my part, I'm not enjoying this conversation. I've seen funerals that were more fun. Which sucks, because I'm looking forward to seeing how this game turns out and the venue to discuss it is just venom.

Well, it appears as though most people in the discussion are not in the target market for the game. Maybe you are. Personally, I hope you enjoy it when it comes out.

My biggest problem? This could have been *HUGE*. Multiplayer could have been done in a non-toxic manner. You could've done like WoW, have some PvP servers, some PvE servers, and that would've been awesome. Multiplayer fallout with your friends? Awesome! Focus on settlement and world building? Amazing! Co-op Survival feels like a thing that has been largely neglected. You could BE the beginning of the Minutemen! And to challenge you are all the critters and NPC's. Get rid of the nuke codes, that's just a hard pass, and the requirement for said nukes for resources. You've got a solid base for a game. Think Minecraft.

Instead, they went for the lowest common denominator and made it strictly PvP. That's why I'm so salty. I saw the potential in what it could have been... if only they hadn't gone for the griefer demographic.

I give them credit for: Morrowind, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, and Skyrim. It seems to have died after that.

I wish planetside 2 never changed from 32 bit to 64 but. Somewhat less for mwo.

Morrowind FO3 and New Vegas are more than a decade old at this point. I'll respectfully disagree with Skyrim, but that's personal preference. But if you insist... fine. Nothing Bethesda has done in the last ten seven years has given me any cause to be optimistic.

Better?

[DigoDragon]

Yeah, it does feel to me like this was created for the fans. Before ESO, there was an insistent outcry for multiplayer in Bethesda games. Then ESO comes out and fan outcry was "We wanted multiplayer, not massively multiplayer!". So they created this, a smaller scale online game where a single instance doesn't have a lot of people to nail down that old end-of-the-world theme, but still enough to not actually feel dead. Personally, I would have gone somewhere more like Ark and Minecraft, where you can create your own ad hoc multiplayer sessions, but this could still work if done right.

Well, I suppose it isn't impossible to patch in an ad hoc option later if enough people clamor for it? I would go from tentative to definitely for buying the game if it will come with such an ability. Minecraft gives you the option to make LAN sessions, but still have a huge online community, so I want to be optimistic that Fallout76 could go the same way later.

I belive Todd Howard, in his E3 interview, said that players' locations would be marked on the map because otherwise you'd very rarely see one another. I'd have to go back to doublecheck when.

That would be useful. I wonder if, assuming everyone has a pipboy, you can share explored map locations with each other?

I give them credit for: Morrowind, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, and Skyrim. It seems to have died after that.

Well, NV was made by Obsidian Entertainment. Bethesda only did the publishing part. Skyrim is pretty good though. I did like the leveling method there (would be neat to see FO4 use that method).

[Calemyr]

Well, it appears as though most people in the discussion are not in the target market for the game. Maybe you are. Personally, I hope you enjoy it when it comes out.

My biggest problem? This could have been *HUGE*. Multiplayer could have been done in a non-toxic manner. You could've done like WoW, have some PvP servers, some PvE servers, and that would've been awesome. Multiplayer fallout with your friends? Awesome! Focus on settlement and world building? Amazing! Co-op Survival feels like a thing that has been largely neglected. You could BE the beginning of the Minutemen! And to challenge you are all the critters and NPC's. Get rid of the nuke codes, that's just a hard pass, and the requirement for said nukes for resources. You've got a solid base for a game. Think Minecraft.

Instead, they went for the lowest common denominator and made it strictly PvP. That's why I'm so salty. I saw the potential in what it could have been... if only they hadn't gone for the griefer demographic.



Morrowind FO3 and New Vegas are more than a decade old at this point. I'll respectfully disagree with Skyrim, but that's personal preference. But if you insist... fine. Nothing Bethesda has done in the last ten seven years has given me any cause to be optimistic.

Better?

There's PVP in Minecraft. And loads and loads of potential for griefing. It's just not defined by it. And 76 is explicitly not strictly PvP. They've made this clear in every interview. But supposition outranks explanation here, and a game is being being blasted for being something it has not proven to be and the creators are actively trying to keep it from becoming. Why? What is the point of actively defecating on something when all actual evidence is counter to your claims?

I'm not saying it's going to be superb, or excellent. I don't know if it's even going to be good. But when the developers outright say they don't want their game to be PvP focus, actively designing the game to minimize griefing, and want the game to be flat-out fun, why is this ignored for the assumption we're getting a For Honor with atompunk styling?

[Starbuck_II]

So in another topic, how long after Pre-ordering Fallout 76, should I expect code from Amazon so I can sign up for beta?

[Antonok]

Instead, they went for the lowest common denominator and made it strictly PvP. That's why I'm so salty. I saw the potential in what it could have been... if only they hadn't gone for the griefer demographic.

It doesn't matter if it's a PvE or PvP game. Griefers will still find a way no matter what. Take WoW and the endless battle against people using mounts to cover NPCs/objectives. Or using toys to cause havoc in various ways. Or kiting bosses to cities. Or any of the other myriad of ways PvE servers have had to deal with BS.

No matter the game, if people want to be jerks, they'll find a way. You can complain about the game not having single player, but there has been a large demand for a co-op Fallout or Elder Scrolls for a while.

[Serenity]

Because what they're saying does not match up with what we've been shown, and it's trivial to *claim* that PvP will not descend into briefing, and far, far trickier to actually implement it. Especially when a major mechanic is *nuking each other*.

[Calemyr]

Because what they're saying does not match up with what we've been shown, and it's trivial to *claim* that PvP will not descend into briefing, and far, far trickier to actually implement it. Especially when a major mechanic is *nuking each other*.

They showed that PvP exists. That's fact. They want the frisson of never knowing whether the guy you passes by is friend or foe. They also actively don't want PvP to play a dominant role, it's just there for flavor. The most you get for participating is a handful of caps that didn't belong to the victim in the first place. Nobody loses any gear or progress, and the loser can opt out of any followup encounters. They compare it to fighting a deathclaw: "Fight it and lose. Reload. Do you go after it again and keep trying 'till you win, or do you decide to find a different route that doesn't require fighting a deathclaw?"

They've also made clear that the nuke mechanic is A) Rare, because it takes a lot of effort to collect the codes, break into a facility, and fire it off; B) Subpar in PvP because ground zero is notified with enough time to pack up CAMP and get clear of it; and C) More useful for PvE because it creates a temporary high level zone to hunt powerful monsters and get valuable resources.

And yes, a limiting mechanic to PvP is indeed a tricky thing to create and implement. They say they have a scheme that works. This may be true, this may be more Howardash (like balderdash, just with Todd Howard). We don't know. But just because you don't know how they're going to do it, you shouldn't assume it's impossible. "Not a gamble worth my money", sure, but declaring it a botch before it comes out? I don't think it deserves that, not yet.

[Brookshw]

So in another topic, how long after Pre-ordering Fallout 76, should I expect code from Amazon so I can sign up for beta?

24-48 hours, apparently there was some issue with the codes being generated and sent out.

Why is everyone so intent on taking the most negative angle available on this topic?

Originally I was highly skeptical, but after watching the many interviews and letting it sink in for a while I'm now interested bordering on excited.

My thoughts:
Questing might be interesting, I can see robot remnants of the govt acting as quest givers similar to Ironsides in F4. More significant for me, questing is part of the story and in addition to the regular acknowledgements they've given to us that there are quests and stories, I also expect an interesting world with lots of environmental storytelling. That's something Bethesda has done really well in my view so I expect to be happy with this element in 76. I'm absolutely expecting there to be a quest to turn on the radio stations, maybe even go scavenge new music to add to them (though not import our own, that would be a licensing nightmare). It also looks like they've given a lot of though to some classic lore from the area which I think will help make for interesting quests and environments. I don't expect we'll get the well thought out multi solution quests we used to, but I can live with that. F1/2/NV are gone, alright, so be it. But I expect there will still be something entertaining in their place.

Crafting/Resources, resources in Fallout 4 - which the crafting system is based on - are acquired by scavenging the wasteland. This reassures me that there will be plenty of opportunity to salvage and less resource competition compared to a traditional MMO. Certainly it's possible that some areas may be better for farming legendaries, but that's not something I've ever bothered with so I don't expect to care or have it impact my game. We do know that there will be some areas that might be better, such as lead mines that were mentioned, but whatever, I don't think those will be really all that necessary to control/farm to get what you want. I liked the base building in F4 so scavenging new recipes and building a base should be fun. When things were "destroyed" in F4 it was trivial to fix them so I don't really care if PVP damages them somehow.

PVP - this is the big question mark. But the world is big and I don't expect it to be too much of an issue. Plus, if everyone is shown on the map you have an edge in avoiding people if you want. Finally, its clear from the many interviews and comments on the various forums that people are concerned with this and Bethesda is working to ensure it wont kill your game enjoyment. Honestly, I've played on PVP servers in other games, it's not such a big deal, but I also don't think this game is going to turn into a giant PVP fest, at least not until people get bored with exploring the world, and even then, with low server population I think this is being overhyped.

Monthly server fees: well, that sucks, but there it is. Realistically, for the amount of game play I expect to get out of this, compared to the alternative number of games I'd have to guy for that same level of use, the prices probably balance out. On the plus, they're going to release free DLCs as part of the server fees so that's nice.

Timing: I'm going to be swamped at the end of summer. If the BETA goes live before then, I'll probably preorder and check it out, if I don't like it I'll cancel the preorder. If the beta doesn't start until fall then I'll probably wait a while to pick it up, and hopefully by then they'll have private servers available (which, frankly, I'd prefer to play on I think).

Mods: I suspect this is going to be a nightmare, I won't hold my breath but who knows. I just hope through the Creation Club or some other mechanism (a quest if I'm lucky) I can get a dog companion.

Edit:

They've also made clear that the nuke mechanic is A) Rare, because it takes a lot of effort to collect the codes, break into a facility, and fire it off; B) Subpar in PvP because ground zero is notified with enough time to pack up CAMP and get clear of it; and C) More useful for PvE because it creates a temporary high level zone to hunt powerful monsters and get valuable resources.

They've also noted that setting off the nukes is how you kill off scortchbeast nests (temporarily I imagine) and is part of the end game quest. So there is an additional incentive to use a Nuke for PVE.

[Balmas]

There's PVP in Minecraft. And loads and loads of potential for griefing. It's just not defined by it. And 76 is explicitly not strictly PvP. They've made this clear in every interview. But supposition outranks explanation here, and a game is being being blasted for being something it has not proven to be and the creators are actively trying to keep it from becoming. Why? What is the point of actively defecating on something when all actual evidence is counter to your claims?

I'm not saying it's going to be superb, or excellent. I don't know if it's even going to be good. But when the developers outright say they don't want their game to be PvP focus, actively designing the game to minimize griefing, and want the game to be flat-out fun, why is this ignored for the assumption we're getting a For Honor with atompunk styling?

Games like DayZ, Rust, and Minecraft--that is to say, survival crafting games with a PVE and always-on PVP aspect--seem to attract different crowds based on what they enable you to do. Let's examine the distinction between Minecraft and Rust as examples of two extremes.

Minecraft allows for open PVP at all times, as well as building bases. You can choose a number of different ways to grief people, like TNT, redstone noisemakers, or simply going to their farms and jumping on the dirt until it's no longer tilled. However, there's far more support for the things you can build, and the focus in "normal" minecraft is almost always what you build with the massive toolbox given you. Most of the upgrades for your gear allow you to harvest materials more efficiently (so you can spend more time building), or to get different materials (for greater block variety), or to enable you to mine for materials in more hazardous conditions. Most blocks have about the same hardness as one another, with only visuals and the tool used to harvest to mark distinction. Building is thus a function of appearance, rather than being about "how well will this keep out invaders."

Rust also allows for open PVP at all times, as well as building bases. Like Minecraft, you can craft weapons and bases in Rust. You don't need much more than a bow or spear to deal with enemies, and a basic radsuit will enable you to visit irradiated areas with no problems. However, most of the upgrades are directly linked to improving your PVP performance. Better guns let you kill the waves of douchebags attacking your base more quickly. Walls and floors are upgradable to higher-level materials so you can better resist raiders. Traps that are useless against animals are nevertheless quite effective against people coming in to steal your things. Giving players these tools leads to an environment where PVP is almost inevitable.

So when I look at Fallout 76, I already feel nervous because of the tools presented. Two of the three videos focused on how you can deal with other players--by shooting them, or by nuking them. The third focused on a settlement system that's even more limited than the version in Fallout 4. Do you see where I'm going with this? They can say that they don't want griefing, but the tools they're giving us is telling a different story.

So in another topic, how long after Pre-ordering Fallout 76, should I expect code from Amazon so I can sign up for beta?

The Reddit thread through which I found the FAQ and beta link seemed to suggest 1-2 days, and that it would be distributed over email.

[Calemyr]

Monthly server fees: well, that sucks, but there it is. Realistically, for the amount of game play I expect to get out of this, compared to the alternative number of games I'd have to guy for that same level of use, the prices probably balance out. On the plus, they're going to release free DLCs as part of the server fees so that's nice.

Where did you get this from? I haven't been able to find any confirmation one way or another on monthly fees beyond pessimistic assumption.

[Brookshw]

Where did you get this from? I haven't been able to find any confirmation one way or another on monthly fees beyond pessimistic assumption.

Come to think of it, nowhere reliable that I recall. If they don't have any I'll be very surprised and happy. I will point out though that they're releasing DLC for free as part of their server/game upgrades/updates so I do think that suggests there will be fees.

[Antonok]

Come to think of it, nowhere reliable that I recall. If they don't have any I'll be very surprised and happy. I will point out though that they're releasing DLC for free as part of their server/game upgrades/updates so I do think that suggests there will be fees.

Depends on how well the cosmetic market does. They've stated the game will have cosmetic microtransactions (ala ESO) to support the servers. I would imagine solo play for modding wouldn't require a server to itself, but large private multiplayer servers would likely require a fee.

[Starbuck_II]

Depends on how well the cosmetic market does. They've stated the game will have cosmetic microtransactions (ala ESO) to support the servers. I would imagine solo play for modding wouldn't require a server to itself, but large private multiplayer servers would likely require a fee.

My predictions
I bet it will start free, but give it a year and then they might start charging a small 3 dollar fee that goes up every year (maxing at 15, the game lasts 10 years*). They will likely use argument that these things are more costly then they realized.
We get free DLCs so I won't take too much issue with that.

*In between Fallout 5 and 6 are released.
Fallout 5 is similar to Fallout tactics with multiplayer allowed also. Basically, they made the sequel after all. It is set in Canada, occurring 100 years after nuking, simultaneously as Fallout 3 happened. So, some news will be recycled but we get other news about canada. Due to extreme cold areas, you will have a warm meter as well, get too cold and you get stat penalties and lose health. Return on Enclave. Radiated moose and beavers.

Fallout 6 is set in Hawaii, similar to Fallout 2, you will go on a trial to prove yourself and honoring the volconoe gods before being ready to venture out into "wasteland". Mostly still a paradise, mutated fish that are now amphibians and raiders are main threats.
Also, radiated hogs are a threat. Coconuts are a new food that stayed unchanged. Hawaii wasn't nuked, but gets some fallout from mainland being nuked.

[Brookshw]

Depends on how well the cosmetic market does. They've stated the game will have cosmetic microtransactions (ala ESO) to support the servers. I would imagine solo play for modding wouldn't require a server to itself, but large private multiplayer servers would likely require a fee.

Well, I asked Amazon if they could confirm a monthly service fee. They said there was none but they didn't have a reliable source either. However, they did say that if preordered, that you could return the game for a full refund if there is a monthly service fee when it officially launched.

[Antonok]

My predictions
I bet it will start free, but give it a year and then they might start charging a small 3 dollar fee that goes up every year (maxing at 15, the game lasts 10 years*). They will likely use argument that these things are more costly then they realized.
We get free DLCs so I won't take too much issue with that.

*In between Fallout 5 and 6 are released.

I'm not sure on the release windows of Fallout 5 OR 6. With them branching out to new IPs(Starfield), we could see an increase in the time between releases. Entire reason why ES6 is just now started to be worked on when going by the old release window, it should be the game launching this year.

This is not a bad thing of course. And part of why I'm generally okay with Fallout 76 (questionable mechanics decisions notwithstanding). Something new, something different, something to experiment with. Wouldn't want the franchise to fall into CoD, Dynasty Warriors, or Assassin's Creed territory where they keep cranking out titles with little to no innovation to them.

Well, I asked Amazon if they could confirm a monthly service fee. They said there was none but they didn't have a reliable source either. However, they did say that if preordered, that you could return the game for a full refund if there is a monthly service fee when it officially launched.

The fee would be for private servers. They'd almost certainly keep a number of free servers running. Slapping a price on previously free servers would be an EA move, Bethesda fans would rake them over lemon juice tipped nails for a move like that.

[Brookshw]

The fee would be for private servers. They'd almost certainly keep a number of free servers running. Slapping a price on previously free servers would be an EA move, Bethesda fans would rake them over lemon juice tipped nails for a move like that.

Could be. They haven't really said anything about it yet that I'm aware of so I think we're in the realm of speculation here.

[Antonok]

Could be. They haven't really said anything about it yet that I'm aware of so I think we're in the realm of speculation here.

Pretty much is yeah. It even having private servers eventually is speculation based off of one sentence Todd said about mods being implemented at a later date.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

There's PVP in Minecraft. And loads and loads of potential for griefing. It's just not defined by it. And 76 is explicitly not strictly PvP. They've made this clear in every interview. But supposition outranks explanation here, and a game is being being blasted for being something it has not proven to be and the creators are actively trying to keep it from becoming. Why? What is the point of actively defecating on something when all actual evidence is counter to your claims?

Oh, you want to talk about Minecraft and PvP? Minecraft has ways and means of preventing PvP pretty heavily, starting off with whitelisting and private servers. Which won't exist at launch. Also turning off player damage as a server option. Which isn't the case here. Speaking here as not just a server admin, but as a mod pack developer and working with servers, launchers, and individual player as well.

Minecraft has the tools necessary to let everyone play nice together, and you have many positive communities who don't go PvP. And you can kick players who are rude or screw stuff up, then roll back the server to prevent damage caused, if it is extensive enough to warrant it. Fallout 76? Not so much.

All evidence currently points to PvP focused play, because those are the tools we have seen so far. I understand what Bethesda is saying, but actions speak louder than words, and those actions speak volumes about the PvP content.

I'm not saying it's going to be superb, or excellent. I don't know if it's even going to be good. But when the developers outright say they don't want their game to be PvP focus, actively designing the game to minimize griefing, and want the game to be flat-out fun, why is this ignored for the assumption we're getting a For Honor with atompunk styling?

Because that's not what they have shown in footage, that's why.

You can say "Oh, we don't want our game to be PvP focused, and we don't want griefing" all you want. But when the demonstrated mechanics are actively PvP focused AND conducive to griefing... well, that's what we have to go on. Maybe if they wanted to head this off, they should show actual footage or describe the mechanics which limits PvP/griefing. Because right now? There hasn't been any.

[Brookshw]

Fallout 76? Not so much.

Except none of us, yourself included know what tools are in place. Please, let's not confuse fear with fact.

All evidence currently points to PvP focused play, because those are the tools we have seen so far.

C'mon, "all evidence" in one breath, handwaving away evidence that doesn't agree with you in the next. That doesn't work. Just the other day you were drawing conclusions about lootable players even though the evidence you want to give preference to supported no such thing, and has been confirmed incorrect in the evidence you want to ignore.

Sure, I get reservations. I get skepticism. That's fine, commendable even, but there's a point where it ceases to serve a useful purpose. I certainly agree that I'd like more info and that seeing is believing, but we've seen so little there's just no way of knowing.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Except none of us, yourself included know what tools are in place. Please, let's not confuse fear with fact.

Sorry, but this time I'm standing on firm facts.

* FACT: Fallout 76 will NOT have private servers 'at launch'. Personally, I don't think it's ever gonna happen, but let's just take it at face value, right?
* Because there are no private servers, you can neither whitelist nor turn off player damage or mob griefing nor kick obnoxious individuals, as you can in Minecraft.

So no, please climb down off of your high horse. Every single tool I listed as being viable in Minecraft is explicitly contrary to what is definitively known about Fallout 76. Maybe after private servers are a thing, you might be able to do these things. But at launch? Not so much. As I said.

[Mando Knight]

Sorry, but this time I'm standing on firm facts.

* FACT: Fallout 76 will NOT have private servers 'at launch'. Personally, I don't think it's ever gonna happen, but let's just take it at face value, right?
* Because there are no private servers, you can neither whitelist nor turn off player damage or mob griefing nor kick obnoxious individuals, as you can in Minecraft.

So no, please climb down off of your high horse. Every single tool I listed as being viable in Minecraft is explicitly contrary to what is definitively known about Fallout 76. Maybe after private servers are a thing, you might be able to do these things. But at launch? Not so much. As I said.

"Fallout 76 probably will not have anti-griefing tools I am used to employing" is not remotely the same argument as "Fallout 76 will not have any successful anti-griefing tools and PvP will be the central focus of the game".

Bethesda is probably staying mum about what tools are exactly in place because they're still iterating on them (if the game was already gold they would have been shipping it today, not five months from now), and they may use the B.E.T.A. period to dial in the exact values of the anti-griefing measures (along with the rest of the testing and adjustments going on). We already know that they're planning on no penalty for dying (other than having to respawn somewhere), no lootable player corpses, a player's C.A.M.P. can be packed up and moved whenever (and only exists when the player is online on that instance), and nuclear weapons are both hard to access and have temporary effects that do not include actually destroying a deployed C.A.M.P. (making them extremely inefficient for griefing players--particularly if there are some areas like Vault 76's entrance that can't be targeted by the nuke).

[Erloas]

Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but the issue isn't really that they have one or two potential issues that can be tweaked. It is that they have many issues, and some that are at odds with each other. Some are small issues, but some are big, like to the point where however they are addressed, it has to be almost perfect. Close isn't going to be good enough.

It isn't that they've said any one thing that can't be done, they've just said a lot of things that are going to be hard to do right. I'm actually more worried that in the process of addressing all of the issues that they'll end up with so many compromises and patched on mechanics that while everything they've said is there, many pieces may as well not be because there isn't anything fun left in them.

[Brookshw]

Sorry, but this time I'm standing on firm facts.

* FACT: Fallout 76 will NOT have private servers 'at launch'. Personally, I don't think it's ever gonna happen, but let's just take it at face value, right?
* Because there are no private servers, you can neither whitelist nor turn off player damage or mob griefing nor kick obnoxious individuals, as you can in Minecraft.

Not really true though, for example both CounterStrike and WoW operate through public servers and at times have implemented "vote to kick" functions to deal w/ disruptive players. Of course, this doesn't preclude alternative ways of dealing with griefing, and they've definitely acknowledged they've addressed it somehow. I agree I'd like to know more but there's no reason to constantly speak of it as some insurmountable problem, that's just toxic behavior. If you have some thoughts on how you think they could successfully address griefing on public servers in such a way that you could enjoy the game, then please share.

So no, please climb down off of your high horse.

I have a horse? Neat!

[DigoDragon]

I have a horse? Neat!

I hope horses got tougher post-bomb because those poor creatures are so fragile that you gotta bubble wrap them. ^^;


I'd like to be optimistic that Fallout 76 will have anti-grief tools at some point soon after launch (probably through private servers). The fact that isn't going to be available at launch makes me think they are still working on the infrastructure for the server system and need to see how their public servers hold up first. I expect launch will have the usual connect issues many online only games have when starting out.

[GungHo]

I have a horse? Neat!

$10 and they'll put some armor on it for you.

[Calemyr]

Apparently one mechanic they have for PvP is bounties. The more you PK, the higher your bounty becomes, making the PKs more of a target in PvP than their victims - who may not grant any caps when killed.

I'm pretty sure they've said there won't be vehicles of any kind, so probably no horses. Granted, I know it was a joke, but you gotta admit West Virginia seems a perfect place for RadHorses to show up.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

"Fallout 76 probably will not have anti-griefing tools I am used to employing" is not remotely the same argument as "Fallout 76 will not have any successful anti-griefing tools and PvP will be the central focus of the game".

But that's not what I said.

I said, and stated, 'okay, let's talk about Minecraft's anti-griefing tools', and went on to compare and contrast. I didn't say there were NO anti-griefing tools. And I pointed out that it would be impossible, as currently stated by Bethesda, not having private servers at launch, to use the same tools Minecraft has, as a means of defeating the argument that 'Well, Minecraft has PvP and griefing'.

I'm sure Bethesda will have some means of grief-resistance. The degree and effectiveness of which we shall have to see once the B.E.T.A. comes out.

Anyway, I'm clearly NOT in the target demographic for this dumpster fire video game, so I'll just see myself out at this point.

[Rodin]

What I don't get is why you would want PvP to not be a thing.

From what we've seen, the game is entirely PvP focused. It's a Bethesda game world, but with the questing and story progression removed so that people can PvP with each other and build fortresses.

I am entirely uninterested in this, hence my disappointment. But taking the tack that "the game totally isn't PvP focused" seems a bizarre way to deal with the criticism. The intention is obviously to marry Minecraft to Battle Royale style gameplay, using Fallout's strong IP to bring in players.

Why back away from that in the face of frustrated single-player RPG fans? We aren't the target audience for this game. Trying to weasel the advertising so that some try it is only going to backfire spectacularly in the long run.

They're making Fallout Deathmatch, and should own that.

[Antonok]

What I don't get is why you would want PvP to not be a thing.

From what we've seen, the game is entirely PvP focused. It's a Bethesda game world, but with the questing and story progression removed so that people can PvP with each other and build fortresses.

I am entirely uninterested in this, hence my disappointment. But taking the tack that "the game totally isn't PvP focused" seems a bizarre way to deal with the criticism. The intention is obviously to marry Minecraft to Battle Royale style gameplay, using Fallout's strong IP to bring in players.

Why back away from that in the face of frustrated single-player RPG fans? We aren't the target audience for this game. Trying to weasel the advertising so that some try it is only going to backfire spectacularly in the long run.

They're making Fallout Deathmatch, and should own that.

For one, it's NOT, and I repeat NOT anywhere remotely close to being battle royal. It's a survival game first and foremost.

[Calemyr]

What I don't get is why you would want PvP to not be a thing.

From what we've seen, the game is entirely PvP focused. It's a Bethesda game world, but with the questing and story progression removed so that people can PvP with each other and build fortresses.

I am entirely uninterested in this, hence my disappointment. But taking the tack that "the game totally isn't PvP focused" seems a bizarre way to deal with the criticism. The intention is obviously to marry Minecraft to Battle Royale style gameplay, using Fallout's strong IP to bring in players.

Why back away from that in the face of frustrated single-player RPG fans? We aren't the target audience for this game. Trying to weasel the advertising so that some try it is only going to backfire spectacularly in the long run.

They're making Fallout Deathmatch, and should own that.

But they're not. That's not what they intended, it's not what they want. They're making a multiplayer Fallout. Not a deathmatch, a full game. Why is this so hard to follow? It's been explicitly stated that this evolved from a desire to figure out how to add multiplayer to FO4, and ultimately deciding that it needed to be its own thing to do right.

Fallout has always been about freedom. Freedom to do bad as well as good, in a setting where morality is so grey it's hard to tell one from the other. So, of course there's going to be PvP. It has to be there or the freedom is crippled out the gate. The game doesn't have to reward PKs, though, and Bethesda doesn't want to encourage it. It still has to be there.

I can understand people having doubts about the chances Bethesda can limit PvP, never underestimate the drive of a troll, but to claim they're building anything but a Bethesda game where you can be whatever you want (as they always try to do) is just willful at this point.

This isn't a deathmatch game.