|
yeah i mean, subways are hardly distinct most the time to begin with, let alone in a game, so it's just stumble down a dark corridor with ghouls lunging out at you, get to raised platform that leads to exit then stand outside and look around to see if you're in the right place and then sigh as you make the same trip through another subway entrance to hopefully get to the destination that on the map looked like it was only a short jog away from where you started but blocked by rubble i don't think it killed the game but im guessing most people just wanted to walk around DC ruins instead of having to go up and down subway steps constantly
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:24 |
|
|
I played Fallout 3 so much I got stockholm syndrome with the metro. They're bland and featureless and I shouldn't have liked it, but once I'd actually memorised the entire layout of DC I found myself thinking things like, "OK, so I'm in rivet city and want to do the Reilly's Rangers quest, so I'll go to Anacostia, transfer through Museum, Central and Freedom St, and exit out into Vernon Square" which was kind of enjoyable?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:They were trying to destroy the Stanley R. Mickelsen Safeguard Complex which made it into the game as The Sentinel Site. I love the Hutterites bought that whole complex. It's such a fun story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
and yeah glowing sea was the site of a bunch of top secret government installations along with sentinel storage site for nukes and a nuclear plant so i think the idea is the whole area is some china syndrome event
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
In case it wasn't posted yet, Game Informer details on fallout 76 confirm everything i said would happen  https://www.gameinformer.com/2018/09/04/the-new-wasteland-what-to-expect-from-fallout-76
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
Donovan Trip posted:In case it wasn't posted yet, Game Informer details on fallout 76 confirm everything i said would happen tldr of what you said would happen?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
World of Falloutcraft.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Dalael posted:tldr of what you said would happen? The reviewer went left from the starting zone and encountered a group of enemies. He calls this a revolutionary gaming experience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
So a game reviewer does what game reviewers do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
quote:Thanks to a decade’s worth of exploration in these games, we know how to shield ourselves from ionizing radiation. What we don’t know is how to handle human contact, which may end up being the most unpredictable and hazardous element ever integrated into a Fallout game. A lot of words for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koV7ZZB2Ufw
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The reviewer went left from the starting zone and encountered a group of enemies. He calls this a revolutionary gaming experience. Senior VP of global communications, but you were close. quote:If you have the courage to investigate where the shot came from and it ends up being another player, you can use a chat wheel to communicate with them in a basic way, or if you have a headset, talk verbally if you are close to them. Chances are they mean you harm, but you don’t have to retaliate. If they shoot you, they’ll do minimal damage. “It’s like slapping someone in the bar,” Howard says. You won’t do much damage to another player until they fire back at you. When a bullet exchange is made, the duel is officially underway, and your next shot will do full damage. So fully consensual gun play only.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:My favorite thing about the glowing sea is how it's literally off the map. That was a good game design choice from a meta perspective, really made it feel like you were going some place strange and unnatural. I liked that and how the names of places get less descriptive as you go, because no one's surviving to rename them. By the end it's just stuff like "cave" with a lone dead raider.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
I dunno what bars Todd Howard goes to, but "slapping someone in the bar" sounds like it would likely lead to some non-consensual gunplay IRL.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
Just read this article. The more I read about Fallout 76, the better I feel about not having pre-ordered. In the end, I'll probably buy the standard edition, play a month or so and forget the game even came out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
It seems like a lot of words to describe what still doesn't really seem very dissimilar from any other online survival game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
Hav posted:So fully consensual gun play only. No, they can murder you all they want, it'll just take a while unless you shoot back. They get flagged for it, at which point all those white knights every online pvp game claims will be there for you will rush in and punish them for their sins. Also you need to be fast on the draw for your "pacifist flag" that you need to toss up if you accidentally shoot someone or else people are just gonna jump in front of you, get shot, then murder you penalty free.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It seems like a lot of words to describe what still doesn't really seem very dissimilar from any other online survival game. Yeah but literally all of the other online survival games have uninspired art direction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
Cyberpunkey Monkey posted:Yeah but literally all of the other online survival games have uninspired art direction. So Owlfancier is right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
Totally. I think this is going to be a Fallout online survival RPG and I am more than totally okay with that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
Cyberpunkey Monkey posted:Totally. I think this is going to be a Fallout online survival RPG and I am more than totally okay with that. The opportunity cost of 'hey they could have used the same exact budget and team to do an actual stand-alone RPG in Fallout 4's engine instead' makes me feel a little dead inside.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
The betas for Escape From Tarkov and SCUM seem to be middlingly popular so maybe they'll be able to latch onto that around the launch instead of the other more established titles in... whatever genre this is now? Maybe by some weird stroke of luck Bethesda managed to time this well enough to coincide with the emerging popularity of online eating, pooping and griefing simulators.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
The genre is called "games made for tweens to watch other people play on twitch"
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
scum is pretty much just fallout 76: croatia edition. Negative interactions with other players, the only npcs are zombies and robots that want to kill you, and you'll spend 95% of your time creeping through old ruins looking for wire nails and scraps of cloth to build your shelter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The genre is called "games made for tweens to watch other people play on twitch" I don't claim NOT to be a manchild, however I did watch Summit1g play SCUM for a couple of hours this weekend while I was playing Battletech, so it's not JUST tweens. It looks interesting, but not interesting enough to me until they implement building bases. Azhais posted:scum is pretty much just fallout 76: croatia edition. Negative interactions with other players, the only npcs are zombies and robots that want to kill you, and you'll spend 95% of your time creeping through old ruins looking for wire nails and scraps of cloth to build your shelter. See, this sounds awesome to me when you add in the fact that it will also have the overarching Fallout theme.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 22:30
|
|
|
To me it seems like a waste of resources when it's the sort of game that has been done - probably better - by garage studios. The Fallout brand holds no value on its own since two of the past three games were p. much trash.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
Feargus, go outside.deathbagel posted:See, this sounds awesome to me when you add in the fact that it will also have the overarching Fallout theme. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:To me it seems like a waste of resources when it's the sort of game that has been done - probably better - by garage studios. The Fallout brand holds no value on its own since two of the past three games were p. much trash. Im curious, how many hours did you play those absolute trash games?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
I played Fallout 4 for three hours according to STEAM and can confirm it was trash. So now you know for sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
I dunno. I think its an okay game. They could have done much better or much worse. I mean its bethesda. They could have done a lot worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
I spent about 100 hours hauling trash in Fallout 4...
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
Cyberpunkey Monkey posted:Yeah but literally all of the other online survival games have uninspired art direction. I mean, I agree that it will probably look much better, but that's not really enough to make me want to buy it. All of the others have fundamental gameplay problems I think and they aren't showing much ability to deal with that except by fundamentally neutering the multiplayer element. Like, if you want a multiplayer survival game then why would you play a game where you need consent to shoot other players and bases disappear when you log out. And if you want a singleplayer experience why would you play something where they ripped out the majority of the writing and balanced it around multiplayer participation? Just... they seem to be trying to combine two things without accepting that they are two very different types of game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
Cyberpunkey Monkey posted:I spent about 100 hours hauling trash in Fallout 4... My first playthrough i picked up everything for so long. On my current playthrough, 3 points in strenght is more than enough forvwhat i actually need to carry. OwlFancier posted:I mean, I agree that it will probably look much better, but that's not really enough to make me want to buy it. Not empty quoting
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean, I agree that it will probably look much better, but that's not really enough to make me want to buy it. consensual multiplayer that fucks over griefer assholes and leaves them frustrated and sad is a good thing Dalael posted:My first playthrough i picked up everything for so long. On my current playthrough, 3 points in strenght is more than enough forvwhat i actually need to carry. I took quite a few treks humping overloaded with literal tons of scrap.... In the end, I had some settlements that were dumping grounds and some that were for production and that's on top of everything I scavenged.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
Cyberpunkey Monkey posted:consensual multiplayer that fucks over griefer assholes and leaves them frustrated and sad is a good thing But that's the whole point of the genre. You build up bases and levels and loot and you use that to have a massive advantage over other people. The whole point of the online survival genre is that you build up power and grief people while having an ever present risk of losing it all. It won't leave them frustrated and sad, they just won't buy or play the game, and if people don't buy or play your multiplayer game, it's just dead. That's the other thing, those games live and die by their playerbase and I suppose in theory the lack of servers will help with that, but if multiplayer is such a secondary part of the game then that again begs the question of what it's in there for? It's like, if someone decided to a dark souls type multiplayer component, where it's just kinda bolted onto an otherwise singleplayer experience, except they took out a massive part of the singleplayer content in the process and kept saying that the multiplayer would really make a difference, while also saying the multiplayer is entirely optional... You can't have both. Like how does it scare anyone if they hear gunshots if you can't be properly hurt by anyone without consenting to it and there's no penalty for death? That utterly trivializes the multiplayer component. It relegates it to being a replacement for actual writing and NPCs, which, how can other players possibly be that especially when, again, you know full well they can never hurt you. Who looked at fallout 4 and said "we need this to be bigger, but replace all the humans with other players who can't actually hurt you unless you want them to, and remove almost all the plot." Who are they selling this game to?? What makes it anything but a badly implemented and gimped online survival shooter because they were too afraid to actually commit to that design, which would also have been a terrible idea anyway because those games are massively oversaturated and better art direction isn't the reason why none of them actually last. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Sep 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
Cyberpunkey Monkey posted:consensual multiplayer that fucks over griefer assholes and leaves them frustrated and sad is a good thing While I tend to agree with you - not every multiplayer game needs to be PUBG level cutthroat, and even EVE Online took steps to make sure your stuff couldn't be blown up while you were offline - I'm very skeptical that it will work. The whole "you do much less damage outside of a duel, and a murderer shows up to everyone and if they kill him they get his caps" seems like the kind of anti-griefing solution developers always come up with, thinking griefers are just normal casual players that like PvP, and they never work. A real griefer is just going to bring enough firepower to kill someone with the damage reduction and/or stalk them until they're at low health from fighting enemies and finish them off, then probably have a multiboxed account to hold all their caps while they go murdering so they don't lose anything. And that's assuming that a Bethesda game somehow doesn't end up with an easily exploitable bug they'll use to get around the anti-griefing measures. OwlFancier posted:But that's the whole point of the genre. You build up bases and levels and loot and you use that to have a massive advantage over other people. The whole point of the online survival genre is that you build up power and grief people while having an ever present risk of losing it all. This seems pretty obviously wrong. There's plenty of MMOs that only have opt-in PvP; a multiplayer game doesn't by definition have to be a PvP game. That doesn't mean Fallout 76 will be a good game, mind you - I'm very skeptical of it. Just that there's nothing wrong with the idea of a multiplayer game that isn't PUBG or its like. Bremen fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Sep 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
Also again, the entire point of the game it's apparently trying to be is that you are at risk, that's what separates it from a singleplayer game, you could die at any time because players are unpredictable and highly lethal. If they aren't lethal and the game tells you where everyone is when they open fire at you and also you don't lose stuff when you die, that's completely obliterating the gameplay loop. There is no threat. Nothing can actually harm you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
Bremen posted:This seems pretty obviously wrong. There's plenty of MMOs that only have opt-in PvP; a multiplayer game doesn't by definition have to be a PvP game. The alternative is that it's a multiplayer PVE game which is farcical, how can you possibly make a 1-24 player multiplayer PVE first person shooter game? Can you loving imagine the stupidity of bethesda bullet sponge enemies except scaled for 24 players? Why are you even playing an FPS at that point? Doing a multiplayer raid boss or whatever where I do nothing but shoot a minigun at its face for 30 minutes sounds fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
Its going to be like how I imagine destiny is where you have some item level and you have to have a high enough ilvl to do enough damage to do content
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The alternative is that it's a multiplayer PVE game which is farcical, how can you possibly make a 1-24 player multiplayer PVE first person shooter game? Yes, because I played Defiance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:24 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The alternative is that it's a multiplayer PVE game which is farcical, how can you possibly make a 1-24 player multiplayer PVE first person shooter game? What? So procing a macroable sequence of cooldown abilities is better because you press more buttons to win teh gaem?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 00:01
|
|