Quantcast
Fallout 76 Sucks.

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Fallout 76 Sucks.

Personally I’m super hyped for it and plan on getting it right when I’m done with RDR2. Loved Fallout 4, a MP Fallout sounds almost as good as a SOCOM II remake for me personally. Decided not to play the beta, going in fresh.



Around the Network
Mordred11 said:
HintHRO said:

Apparently you know more about my gaming experience than myself. Do you also know what I ate last night?

The moment you said you "lose progress" in fallout 76, it became clear you haven't played the beta. You don't lose anything on death in the game and you can re-spawn anywhere. Grow up.

I didn't play the 76 beta, but I did lose progress with the previous 3 Fallout games by falling into the ground or getting stuck between rocks. If they fixed that it would be nice. Still, by releasing that letter which says you have a chance of encountering ''spectacular bugs and issues'' then it doesn't sound they are releasing polished game and don't bother to fix them before release.



Madword said:
Sixteenvolt420 said:

Exactly how i feel, 3 is my favorite. New Vegas second. and 4 was meh, for me. I'm willing to give 76 a fair shot though. The less people that i have to run into the better. I'll avoid them as much as possible, as i did in the first Destiny game.

Me too.

3 Was fantastic, would lap up a remaster of that.

New Vegas I found harder to get into.

Fallout 4, that settlement stuff was just rubbish busy work and totally moved away from what's great about Fallout which is exploration. If they'd made the settlement stuff easier and less like Minecraft I think the game would have been much better for it.

Just not interested in 76, not a fan of MP games.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.  Fallout 4 had ten times the amount of stuff to explore and find than New Vegas.  More than that, actually, by a long shot.  I'd found and done everything New Vegas had to offer by level 50 but was nowhere close to finding everything in Fallout 4 by level 100.  Anyone complaining about "exploration" in Fallout 4 probably just played it like a linear game and went where the prompts told them and found a tiny fraction of the total content.  As for settlement stuff, all you had to do was not do it.  As simple as that.  Calling something "rubbish" that many, many other people love, and which is 99% optional, doesn't make much sense, either.  Leave that to the creative people, you can just ignore it if it's too hard for you.



pokoko said:
Madword said:

Me too.

3 Was fantastic, would lap up a remaster of that.

New Vegas I found harder to get into.

Fallout 4, that settlement stuff was just rubbish busy work and totally moved away from what's great about Fallout which is exploration. If they'd made the settlement stuff easier and less like Minecraft I think the game would have been much better for it.

Just not interested in 76, not a fan of MP games.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.  Fallout 4 had ten times the amount of stuff to explore and find than New Vegas.  More than that, actually, by a long shot.  I'd found and done everything New Vegas had to offer by level 50 but was nowhere close to finding everything in Fallout 4 by level 100.  Anyone complaining about "exploration" in Fallout 4 probably just played it like a linear game and went where the prompts told them and found a tiny fraction of the total content.  As for settlement stuff, all you had to do was not do it.  As simple as that.  Calling something "rubbish" that many, many other people love, and which is 99% optional, doesn't make much sense, either.  Leave that to the creative people, you can just ignore it if it's too hard for you.

May not make sense to you but it did to me.

Many people complained about the settlement stuff to be fair, so lets not just brush it under the carpet of I don't know what Im talking about. People didn't think 4 was as good as 3, I wasn't the only one in this thread and in the world that thought this.



Making an indie game : Dead of Day!

Madword said:
pokoko said:

That makes absolutely no sense at all.  Fallout 4 had ten times the amount of stuff to explore and find than New Vegas.  More than that, actually, by a long shot.  I'd found and done everything New Vegas had to offer by level 50 but was nowhere close to finding everything in Fallout 4 by level 100.  Anyone complaining about "exploration" in Fallout 4 probably just played it like a linear game and went where the prompts told them and found a tiny fraction of the total content.  As for settlement stuff, all you had to do was not do it.  As simple as that.  Calling something "rubbish" that many, many other people love, and which is 99% optional, doesn't make much sense, either.  Leave that to the creative people, you can just ignore it if it's too hard for you.

May not make sense to you but it did to me.

Many people complained about the settlement stuff to be fair, so lets not just brush it under the carpet of I don't know what Im talking about. People didn't think 4 was as good as 3, I wasn't the only one in this thread and in the world that thought this.

Doesn't matter to me which one you liked the most, I'm talking about what you said making little sense.  How can it have gotten away from exploration when it had more to explore than the other two games combined?  Why is settlement building so bad when you don't even have to do it?  The people who don't like it can simply skip it.  Meanwhile, many people love settlement building and have done some incredible things with it.  It's not "rubbish" just because you didn't like a feature that you can mostly ignore in the first place.

I don't care if you didn't like it, I'm just responding to the things you said which made no sense.



Around the Network

Well Fallout isn the game I would look forward anyway.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Slade6alpha said:
Fallout in general sucks.

Couldn't disagree with you more here. Fallout 3, Fallout 4, and Fallout New Vegas are all great, all 3 are in my top 50 games of all-time, and Fallout 3 is top 10 still.  



pokoko said:
Madword said:

May not make sense to you but it did to me.

Many people complained about the settlement stuff to be fair, so lets not just brush it under the carpet of I don't know what Im talking about. People didn't think 4 was as good as 3, I wasn't the only one in this thread and in the world that thought this.

Doesn't matter to me which one you liked the most, I'm talking about what you said making little sense.  How can it have gotten away from exploration when it had more to explore than the other two games combined?  Why is settlement building so bad when you don't even have to do it?  The people who don't like it can simply skip it.  Meanwhile, many people love settlement building and have done some incredible things with it.  It's not "rubbish" just because you didn't like a feature that you can mostly ignore in the first place.

I don't care if you didn't like it, I'm just responding to the things you said which made no sense.

Basically I didnt think the exploration was as good as 3... and base building was poor... if that doesn't make sense then I'm not sure how I can explain it...



Making an indie game : Dead of Day!

I know a number of people that enjoy the series, and that's great for them, but its just not for me.



I played the whole 4 hours on my Xbox One X and oh my... I just love it. This is probably going to be where I'll spend 90% of my gaming time for the next 3 months.
I am a huge fan of Fallout 76 and at first I was disapointed by the "multiplayer" aspect but finally, after playing it. It is Fallout.. 100% Fallout. The multiplayer aspect is just a plus and the game was really fun. Cannot wait for the next beta time.