By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Fallout 76 Sucks.

Mordred11 said:
HintHRO said:

But what about the best part? The glitches of course. Nothing more fun than losing progress because you disappeared into the ground.

Losing progress? How? You don't even know the basic fundamentals of the game and yet here you are posting a cool dev letter and trying to make it look bad. And not to mention nothing even remotely close to what you described happened in the beta last night. So annoying how people hate on games without knowing a damn thing about them other than the title.

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



Around the Network
HintHRO said:
Mordred11 said:

Losing progress? How? You don't even know the basic fundamentals of the game and yet here you are posting a cool dev letter and trying to make it look bad. And not to mention nothing even remotely close to what you described happened in the beta last night. So annoying how people hate on games without knowing a damn thing about them other than the title.

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.



Terrible dev. I'm gonna send these clowns a message by staying at home on release day and dressing up like a clown.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

HintHRO said:

But what about the best part? The glitches of course. Nothing more fun than losing progress because you disappeared into the ground.

Sounds like they are releasing a game in Early Access and asking $60 for it. 



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.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."