Play Fallout 76 because...

I just don't know much about the Survival genre, I posted release dates because you said there was a flood of survival games and I misunderstood which games you referred to. My bad. I tried to browse Survival on Steam just now but it appears they've apparently taken away or moved the ability to view all games in a category. I just went to Store -> Tags -> Survival -> Browse all 1,189, but it redirected me to this page:

Browsing Survival
Browse the newest, top selling and discounted Survival products on Steam
Showing 1-15 of 43 results

There's no view all button on that page either, just four tabs that say
New and Trending Top Selling What's Popular Upcoming

Very frustrating..
 
Just tried it myself got very similar results. So that would mean there are about 1,000 or so games with the survival tag but the real question is how many of those games have a survival tag and aren't commonly accepted as survival games?
I see one on there I've played more than anything else on my Steam records which is Dead by Daylight. That is not a survival game. Sure the point of the survivor team is to survive and the killer team is to kill but that's not the genre of the game. It's a asymmetrical game and that's about it, I wouldn't even know how else to describe it.

Pretty much to me, a survival game is resource management heavy. Probably has food/water/sleep/etc needs and similar systems like infections or disease but these aren't as necessary.
 
Norzan said:
I always laugh when they use the time argument in both ways. First they say you barely played the game so you can't judge it and when you say you played the game for a while, they claim you must like the game because you played for so long.

Some people really try so hard to discredit any critical argument.
Click to expand...
Fallout 76 is a special case in my opinion though. You can not play the game and also not like it. And no one should have any argument against it. I mean it's like with cancer. You don't have to get it to know that it's shit.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Fallout 76 is a special case in my opinion though. You can not play the game and also not like it. And no one should have any argument against it. I mean it's like with cancer. You don't have to get it to know that it's shit.
Click to expand...

So, you're comparing a video game that you personally don't like...to a disease that has claimed countless lives on this planet. You're saying both are objectively shit and no one should be able to argue otherwise.

Ignoring the questionable comparison, I'll play your game: true, you don't have to get cancer to know that it's shit, but you'll never fully understand it the same way someone who's actually experienced the disease can.

Similarly, you can form a superficial opinion about Fallout 76 based on secondhand things you see, hear, and read, but your opinion will always be less informed than someone that's actually played it firsthand. Agree/disagree?
 
Last edited:
mannawyadden said:
Similarly, you can form a superficial opinion about Fallout 76 based on secondhand things you see, hear, and read, but your opinion will always be less informed than someone that's actually played it firsthand. Agree/disagree?
Click to expand...
not really. my understanding of how bad fallout 4 truly is was about the same before and after i played it. only difference is after i played i understood the nuance of how bad it is. how and why things clash and don't fit. the game was bad whether i played it or not so what did i really gain from playing it?
 
having a better understanding of why something is bad isn't any more useful or necessary than already knowing its bad. either way you get the gist. what now i can explain to others why its bad? what good does that do when they say "lol its just a game" or "lol nostalgia goggles much"

i don't have a review channel on YT or anything like that so literally what good does it do?
 
You're right, understanding something in greater detail doesn't have any inherently have any value or purpose. Getting a deeper understanding of cancer by actually having it doesn't do you any good, unless you're trying to write a book about it, go to cancer survivor meetings, or do research on the subject.

My girlfriend refuses to play Final Fantasy X-2 because she thinks it's an abomination compared to Final Fantasy X, but she's never actually played the game, so

1) There's a slim chance that she might change her mind about the game if she plays it
and
2) I don't respect her opinion on the game as much as I would if she'd tried played the game first and then decided she hated it

If she were trying to make me respect her views on X-2 more, or if she were trying to argue about why X-2 is bad on a Final Fantasy forum, then it would be worth her time to play the game. But she doesn't care about either of those things, so for the past 12 years she hasn't played the game.
 
mannawyadden said:
My girlfriend refuses to play Final Fantasy X-2 because she thinks it's an abomination compared to Final Fantasy X, but she's never actually played the game
Click to expand...
Your girlfriend is right... I fell for it and bought it back in the days and the damn game is an abomination...
 
Don't need to play this game to know it's garbage. Many reviews already went into its extreme detail that playing wouldn't make a difference.

And yes, Final Fantasy X-2 is absolutely terrible.
 
Reviews can often be biased and convey misleading or false information, so I don't think they're a substitute for firsthand experience. The only way to maximize your hatred to 100% is to play the game.

As for X-2, clearly you gentlemen aren't sophisticated enough to appreciate the emotional depth of scenes like this one:



Just kidding. I'd give X-2 a 2/10 compared to X's 9/10. I know they had some prologue cutscenes to try to explain how Rikku got Yuna to strip away her clothes and her personality, but...meh.
 
lol i have X and X-2 and i haven't touched em.

too busy admiring how cute Prompto is to get around to it.

1482811083409.png

i just wanna hug him. i wanna feel his chest against mine. i wanna be inside him. i want him inside me. i wanna taste his fluids. no homo tho.

also have copies of VII, VIII, &, IX (all greatest hits versions unfortunately)

also have a copy of XII but it gave me star wars prequel vibes with its art direction so i bailed out pretty quick.

the cruel irony is once you're old enough to get a job and have money to buy shit you don't have time to like... enjoy it.

mannawyadden said:
The only way to maximize your hatred to 100% is to play the game
Click to expand...
well maximum hatred is pretty fun...
 
Last edited:
mannawyadden said:
Similarly, you can form a superficial opinion about Fallout 76 based on secondhand things you see, hear, and read, but your opinion will always be less informed than someone that's actually played it firsthand. Agree/disagree?
Click to expand...
There is something fundamentally wrong with conceptualizing an MMO that is set in a depopulated radioactive wasteland. In the original Fallout, you had to walk two weeks to get to the next town, and during that time you might (maybe) encounter someone on their own way to somewhere else—or suspiciously loitering in the middle of hell; strangely waiting for something.

As I read it, FO:76 is bereft of NPCs, and the core gameplay seems intended to be PVP. Now you can't have a PVP game go for weeks without contact with other players... but you can't have a Mardi Gras crowd in the aftermath of the biggest nuclear war in their history. It's a credibility issue; a Lose/Lose situation, because the setting is anti MMO, or anti Fallout; each is the bane of the other.

Of course the game is crap. It's like a Delos theme park with only the guests.
 
Last edited:
mannawyadden said:
You're right, understanding something in greater detail doesn't have any inherently have any value or purpose. Getting a deeper understanding of cancer by actually having it doesn't do you any good, unless you're trying to write a book about it, go to cancer survivor meetings, or do research on the subject.

My girlfriend refuses to play Final Fantasy X-2 because she thinks it's an abomination compared to Final Fantasy X, but she's never actually played the game, so

1) There's a slim chance that she might change her mind about the game if she plays it
and
2) I don't respect her opinion on the game as much as I would if she'd tried played the game first and then decided she hated it

If she were trying to make me respect her views on X-2 more, or if she were trying to argue about why X-2 is bad on a Final Fantasy forum, then it would be worth her time to play the game. But she doesn't care about either of those things, so for the past 12 years she hasn't played the game.
Click to expand...
I guess you like Fallout 76? Or am I wrong? Look, I could make the argument that you're biased. I know I am. But with good reason. See what Gizmo said about it, and he's spot on.

If you don't like my analogy, go and try it with food.

See Bethesda is a manufacture of cheap fast food - at least with Todd Howard as Chef that is. Now there is absolutely no problem with fastfood. Some people love it. I enjoy it sometimes too. Other people love very fancy and more expensive food. I do enjoy that as well sometimes. However, if you now take a fancy and high quality dish and turn it into fast food to sell it to the masses, is it really a surprise that the previous consumers will not like it? Even if it would be, let us say, the best fast food you can get. It's still not the same experience. I do not have to always try sometimg to know that it's not my taste. And in the case of Fallout 76 all you have to do is just to watch the people playing it and see how it's ridled with bugs and bad gameplay mechanics. I mean yes, some review could be biased or wrong, but nearly all of them? And with all that shit storm around the game that we saw? Please.

Just because you change something, doesn't mean it's 'better' or improved.

monalisa_tour_America.5.jpg


I am sure some people prefer the image on the right as well. But that doesn't make it the 'better' image.
 
Last edited:
BIAS! BIAS! BIAS!
Yeesh, it's like people can't have bias and still have weight in what they say? The power of critics comes from their consistency. If there were three different Fallout 4s and they were all essentially the same game but with the plots being a trilogy and I said I rated the first two a 9/10 and suddenly the third one a 1/10 there's some major inconsistency there. Even if the conclusion to the trilogy was ass, I should like it more than a 1/10. I've lost power as a critic to a lot people through this. I have to be able to explain what I like without ever saying it explicitly. If you learn that I find arena shooters favorable but not military shooters favorable over time, what can you expect from me in future?

Everyone's got a bias. Humans are emotional beings and we make decisions as such. There's objective fact but we're inclined to tell it in subjective ways. Every reviewer is biased mate.

If I dislike a certain genre or design and I play a game that is of that genre or uses that design, you ought to expect me to dislike it. That's not bias (or I guess it is, but at least it's consistent and you know what to expect). If I prefer a game's aesthetic or certain game design and I play a game that has them, you ought to eventually realize this and see that's going to have an effect when I say the game is great.

A few examples: I hate 2D platformers and I've reviewed tons of them poorly. Makes sense I don't like them. Don't be surprised at me for saying Mario games are shit when you've realized I don't like Mario games. I love turn based combat in RPGs. You might expect me to find RPGs with turn based combat more favorable than RTwP. It's consistency, it works with other media too.
If I dislike action movies why would I say Mad Max was good unless it was an outlier? If I hate sci-fi/science fantasy why would I find Star Wars, Stargate, and Star Trek favorable pieces of work?
 
Last edited:
Yeah lots of words here ... anyway, but objectively speaking Fallout 76 is a steaming pille of shit. Doesn't mean you can't like it.
 
With 76, it's about managing expectations. Nobody seemed to know what the game is supposed to be, due to horrible advertising.

Gizmojunk said:
There is something fundamentally wrong with conceptualizing an MMO that is set in a depopulated radioactive wasteland.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but Fallout 76 isn't an MMO.

Gizmojunk said:
As I read it, FO:76 is bereft of NPCs, and the core gameplay seems intended to be PVP.
Click to expand...

Fallout 76 actually does everything it can to discourage people from engaging in PvP, short of removing the option from the game completely. The core gameplay actively steers people away from PvP.

And it can't be called a true survival game, because the survival and base building aspects of it are laughable compared to true survival games.

So if it's not an MMO, it's not an RPG, it's not a Survival game, and it's not a PvP/Battle Royale/Rust Clone...what is it supposed to be?

I believe Fallout 76 is just a multiplayer exploration game. It's basically a walking simulator with combat and notes, recordings, and computer terminals.

I think the game is online because it's not intended to be played alone. You're supposed to play it with at least one good friend who enjoys Bethesda Fallout games so much that playing 76 won't send them into a rage.

I myself got pissed and and ragequit when I encountered Super Mutants and notes containing Brotherhood of Steel references. Neither of those things should be in the game. I was only able to keep playing by lying to myself and pretending that the in game year is 2281.
 
Last edited:
I knew exactly what it was going to be. Fallout 4 was the game I had the wrong expectations for.
Lots of people don't like it because it's not what they wanted. Plenty of Bethesda fans and non-Bethesda fans of the series alike would have rather had a different game than what this is. I don't think it's fair to imply that people didn't know what to expect rather than they didn't want this. Even if you did you ran into crashes, bugs, poorly designed systems, etc.

They said no NPCs, PvP somewhat optional systems, showed off the perk card system, showed that it was mostly Fallout 4 but kinda different, movable settlement building, etc. These things were known. They weren't hidden away and told us that it was the next Fallout 2 or Tactics or something ridiculous.
 
Crni Vuk said:
I guess you like Fallout 76? Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...

I like some things about it and greatly dislike others. I want to finish the game before making a final opinion. Most of my enjoyment has come from the person I'm playing with rather than the game itself, but the game is what's providing that space for me to play in, so it still gets some credit.

Squadcar said:
I don't think it's fair to imply that people didn't know what to expect rather than they didn't want this.
Click to expand...

It's fine if people don't want the game. What I meant is that the game was poorly advertised and news outlets were saying for months that 76 was a "Rust Clone" and speculated on a battle royale cash-in. I thought it was an MMO when I bought it. Gizmojunk just posted about the game being PvP centric so he doesn't know what the game is supposed to be either.

I was trying to answer the topic title (even though the topic was a troll) - "Play Fallout 76 because..."

"Play Fallout 76 because you and at least one other friend want to play a walking/exploration simulator set in Bethesda's Fallout universe with clunky combat, gameplay bugs, and almost no story, quests, or NPCs."

or,

"Play Fallout 76 because you want to experience the horror of how bad the game is firsthand."

If either of those sentences sound good to someone then they could give the game a shot.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top