Bethesda have surprise-announced a new FALLOUT video game.
Entitled FALLOUT 76, the game will be more formally unveiled at Bethesda's E3 showcase on 10 June. So far Bethesda have been coy on what the game will be like and about, but Kotaku has lifted the lid on what's going on (using the same sources who nailed everything about FALLOUT 4 months before the announcement).
What Has Been Confirmed
It's called FALLOUT 76 and is partially set in Vault 76. V76 was mentioned in both FO3 and 4 as a control vault, just a normal survival vault and not one of the weird experimental ones. According to reports in FO4, all other records of Vault 76 were expunged. The game is also apparently set in the year 2102, just 25 years after the bombs fell, making it by far the earliest-occurring FALLOUT game (FO4 takes place 185 years later, for example).
What Has Leaked
FO76 started life as FALLOUT 4's multiplayer mode (explaining the mentions of Vault 76 in FO4), but Bethesda cut it partway through development, preferring to concentrate on the quests and the settlement mechanic. When Bethesda cancelled BATTLECRY (an online shooter an external team were working on), they absorbed the team into BGS and gave them the multiplayer mode to play around with. FO76 is the result.
Apparently the game will use the standard FALLOUT setup: a wasteland environment, a Vault, a main story mission, side-quests etc. However, the game takes influences from DAYZ, RUST and ARK: SURVIVAL EVOLVED, with survival mechanics a key part of the game. This builds on FO4's optional survival mode. This makes sense as the setting means there'll be little or no civilisation around, making for a more primal, desperate environment than previous FALLOUT games.
The game will feature multiplayer but it's unclear what this means, whether multiplayer will be a core focus of the game and everything is built around it (like DESTINY) or if it's more of an optional co-op bolt-on to what is still primarily a single-player game (a la FAR CRY 5), or somewhere between.
The game is apparently still using the Creation Engine and a lot of FO4 assets, partially "cleaned up" to reflect that less time has passed for decay to set in.
The game will be released on 27 October 2018, ten years to the day (give or take 24 hours) after FALLOUT 3's release and on the same day the game begins. It's also the day after RED DEAD REDEMPTION 2 hits, which is ballsy for Bethesda (if this was FALLOUT 5 or ELDER SCROLLS VI, no problem, but a spin-off?).
Hopefully that means we can build refrigerators along with our power armor. I hate not being able to properly chill my personal physician Dr. Pepper and attorney Mr. Pibb, Esq.
Assuming the game doesn't suck eggs, of course.
Was hoping for Interstate 76 vibe with muscle cars, bell bottoms and afro growing super mutants.
~sighs~ Oh well. I guess we will have to wait until E3 to learn more.
Warcraft has soured me considerably on the Multiplayer experience, so I am hoping those aspects of 76 are not huge. Something about Multiplayer games brings out the worst in some people and I no longer want to put up with that
But a co-opperative Multiplayer where we work together to build settlements and tamn the land, battle against raiders, I could get behind.
As long as one can play single player still, I'm sold. I've been itching for more Fallout for a while, and starting so soon after the war and really leaning on the survival aspect sounds like it could be fantastic. My absolute favorite place in Fallout 4 was Far Harbor.
Was hoping for Interstate 76 vibe with muscle cars, bell bottoms and afro growing super mutants.
Few games need a remake as much as Interstate 76. I'm still annoyed that Interstate 82 was so poor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah the moment I read the words 'Online survival RPG' I lost any and all insterest.
*nods* "Online-only" is a sure-fire way to get me not to touch any game.
Are we late for the riots? We will need pitchforks, torches, and axes! Let's RIOT!!!
Over there. *points to the playtest threads*
Yeah the moment I read the words 'Online survival RPG' I lost any and all insterest.
For me it depends on if it is "online survival RPG" or "survival RPG with some kind of optional online element you can happily ignore."
The "survival game" thing made me uninterested, but playing SUBNAUTICA made me appreciate how far the genre has come along. It could be viable, if the online stuff is optional and does not interfere with the single-player gameplay.
I have a hard time believing a company which has championed the one-player movement to such a huge degree and put their money where their mouth is so often in the past would just 180 and make an online-dependent game. It seems illogical. Then again, maybe the underwhelming sales of DISHONORED 2, PREY and WOLFENSTEIN made them realise what that EA leaker said a few years ago, that tens of thousands of people online will declare singeplayer is king whilst millions of actual people go and spend money on online games.
Let's see...
Based upon existing Fallout lore...
No Super Mutants yet (not that they haven't wriggled around the origins for those guys before, but...)
Doubtful Deathclaws will have had time to emerge, or to go so far east...
Human raiders are, based upon Raul's stories from New Vegas, already a thing. Ghouls are a thing, maybe Radroaches?
Yeah, I get the feeling that in the name of having recognizable adversaries we will either-
1. See a game which more or less tramples on existing lore to make sure there are Deathclaws to run away from
or
2. Commit to the "Survival RPG" to the extent that you're NOT wandering around blasting monsters, in which case... wonder how they'll make it feel like Fallout as we know it...
Lots more radzombies?
Man, but E3 can't get here soon enough. If Fallout 76 is half as good as Fallout 4, then it will be worth the money. And for the record, Fallout 4 is my least favorite of the Fallout games, yet I have over 600 hours in it and I am not even done with it. Fallout New Vegas has over 2000 hours unmodded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah the moment I read the words 'Online survival RPG' I lost any and all insterest.
Given that's still entirely a rumor (no matter how much some folks swear by the sources), I would wait until the official announcement before writing anything off.
(Then if they announce it as something you would find something you don't like, by all means write it off as you see fit.)
I am a firm believer in not borrowing trouble when it comes to things like this. Some games get ruined undeservedly by unfounded speculation.
I am expecting based on the trailer something based on developing a life out of your vault.
Let's see...Based upon existing Fallout lore...
No Super Mutants yet (not that they haven't wriggled around the origins for those guys before, but...)
Doubtful Deathclaws will have had time to emerge, or to go so far east...
Human raiders are, based upon Raul's stories from New Vegas, already a thing. Ghouls are a thing, maybe Radroaches?
Yeah, I get the feeling that in the name of having recognizable adversaries we will either-
All of the following is total speculation:
If it takes place in West Virginia, the Fallout 3 Enclave Base Raven Rock would not be terribly far away, so its possible either Enclave-created mutants could be enemies or even just Enclave agents themselves. Deathclaws were government-created so with the Enclave nearby they could in fact be a thing, but if they are paying attention to the lore, they should be less refined than the version perfected by the Master (but they do predate the Master and go back to being engineered as infantry supplements for the War).
Ghouls would certainly be plausible, as would mutated monsters--radroaches, giant mole rats, yao guai etc. The location may allow for some creatures unique to the mountains (coyote mutants, for example).
Cazadores.
::rocks in the corner, weeping::
My friends liked to watch me play New Vegas because I freaked right the heck out every time there were any of them anywhere close. They're the biggest reason why I've never felt the itch to go back to that game as strongly as any other entry in the series. I can't take them with my phobia of bees/wasps/etc.
Though the damned burrowing radscorpions in 4 gave them a run for their money, that's for sure.
....would this be a bad time to bring up the spread of the Giant Asian Hornet outside of Asia?
:|
Could there even possibly be a good time?
Ghouls would certainly be plausible, as would mutated monsters--radroaches, giant mole rats, yao guai etc. The location may allow for some creatures unique to the mountains (coyote mutants, for example).Those can stay in Nevada with the f+#!ing Cazadores.
Clearly, more of you needed to carry an Assault Carbine. Cazzies are fun! And good eatin'.
|
Cazadores.::rocks in the corner, weeping::
My friends liked to watch me play New Vegas because I freaked right the heck out every time there were any of them anywhere close. They're the biggest reason why I've never felt the itch to go back to that game as strongly as any other entry in the series. I can't take them with my phobia of bees/wasps/etc.
Though the damned burrowing radscorpions in 4 gave them a run for their money, that's for sure.
*headpats*
Small consolidation, but there are perks you can pick up in Old World Blues that turns Cazadores into a joke to fight.
I never had issues with them.
Probably because Big MT is the first place I head to outside of the Vegas area.
It doesn't matter how difficult or easy they might be at any given time, just seeing them freaks me out. Even dead and lying on the ground they make my skin crawl. ::shudders::
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The cazadores are easily the freakiest monsters, because they look very real yet very big. And if you aren't prepared for them, they WILL f#%! you up. Or Veronica, as she valiantly tries to punch them all to death.
Deathclaws are scary but they are so OTT it's hard to be freaked out by them.
Ghouls don't freak me out at all with the way they just suddenly appear in front of you, tearing your arms off, and when I go to DC IRL, I do NOT walk around the Metro looking around in all directions just in case one suddenly appears from behind the escalator, because of course that would be ridiculous.
I think the only time I got genuinely surprised while playing fall out was when one of the broken down buses turned out to be a giant hermit crab. I did not see that coming. I think the praying mantis on the same island are kind of freaky the first time you see them but yeah nothing really that troubling.
Back to 76, I really hope that they learned something from the backlash over the dialogue system in Fallout 4. I much prefer knowing what's coming when I choose a speech option. I wonder whether they could make that a toggleable menu selection. Maybe default to the simple version, but at least have more descriptive as another choice. I also didn't mind the voiced protagonist... the first time. But it started to feel really weird when playing another, different character but with the same exact voice and expressions. In my opinion a game like Fallout, with its capacity to inspire many different playthroughs, either really needs to either have a silent protagonist, or they need a whole bunch of different voices to choose from. I would guess that the latter is prohibitively expensive, though it would be interesting.
Depends on if you are controlling a single person (I assume so from the trailer but you don't know) or something else since this is a sort of spinoff from the main franchise.
IIRC Bethesda did cop to the dialogue not working out as hoped for and so I hope they do indeed learn their lesson. I can also do without a voiced protagonist, but that seems so much of a "thing" these days in AAA games that if there is a single protagonist, we will indeed sadly be stuck with it. At least it gets a voice actor paid.
Official details come tomorrow, IIRC!
IIRC Bethesda did cop to the dialogue not working out as hoped for and so I hope they do indeed learn their lesson. I can also do without a voiced protagonist, but that seems so much of a "thing" these days in AAA games that if there is a single protagonist, we will indeed sadly be stuck with it. At least it gets a voice actor paid.
Far Cry 5 went back to having an unvoiced (and indeed silent) protagonist, so it might be that AAA will go with unvoiced protagonists where it makes sense. Of course FC5's excuse was that they couldn't be bothered to write and record dialogue for both a male and female protagonist, which Fallout 4 had already done, so that may not be an indication of anything (and FC5 was overall a very half-arsed game).
There was a FALLOUT 76 preview at the XBOX E3 event (main Bethesda event isn't until later on). It was just the trailer and a brief intro, so not a lot of new information, but a few points were confirmed:
Setting is West Virginia. Precise location is unclear. I think the State Capitol briefly appeared, which suggests Charleston may be part of the setting.
The game is a prequel to all of the other FALLOUT games.
No multiplayer or survival elements mentioned at this point.
The game world is FOUR TIMES the size of FALLOUT 4's.
Clearly the same engine as FALLOUT 4, just spruced up a bit further.
Ah, online now:
https://twitter.com/IGN/status/1005907507762495488
Locations I could identify (not knowing a lot about West Virginia):
The New River Gorge Bridge
The State Capitol in Charleston
The Greenbrier
Woodburn Hall, Morgantown
Point Pleasant (home of the Mothman, who seems to the inspiration for a monster in the game)
Going by that, it appears that the entire state of West Virginia will be in the game. Wow.
Here's the newest trailer, which includes some repeat shots from the first teaser, and what looks like some in-game panshots (though they may be filtered to look nicer).
The world is so colorful. I like this, I hated how dull everything looked in FO3 and FNV.
Something occurred to me... I remember noticing in FO3 and FO4... and seen others complain... coming across ruins that it seemed like no one had been there before you, the main character... when more sensibly often they were places someone else should have looted well before you showed up. But Bethesda liked depicting its untouched ruins so. So this is the perfect solution... actually make the game set only 25 years after the bombs fell, when your character really COULD be the first person to investigate since the War.
I am watching the Bethesda E3 livestream right now.
Doom 2 and Rage 2 look interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just stopped watching the livestream. Yep, Fallout 76 will indeed be an online game, each player is to be a vault dweller emerging from the vault.
Ah well, not for me, but I wish them well. At least I don't need to upgrade my computer now. :)
Release date is November 14 of this year.
They're also as of this minute releasing Fallout Shelter for Nintendo Switch (still free).
I shut it off as they were announcing something called "Starfield" which looked neat... but I need to go to bed.
Able to grief other players with nukes..
Oh, is that Goonswarm hovering around?
Able to grief other players with nukes..
Oh, is that Goonswarm hovering around?
~grimaces~ Yea. Not the best idea IMHO.
Able to grief other players with nukes..
I thought you were joking, and then I realized I'd just missed that part of the presentation.
Good grief indeed.
I'll admit, the "educational videos" and gameplay videos are fun to watch at least. But the last game this world needs is one where a bunch of idiots who can sit on their ass all day and play Global Thermonuclear war on each other (bearing in mind the server-worlds are tiny and support only a few dozen people at a time) while real human beings work and can't hope to keep up.
Looks like they've improved upon the settlement building at least.
(P.S. the link I sent says "full stage show" but it's just the Fallout stuff, mainly).
yep that's kind of what I was afraid of. Not for me. I will wait for a nice solo-player Elder Scrolls 6
FO76's rapid decline from "this looks good!" to "er, no" has been entertaining. At least those who read the Kotaku articles were prepared for it (not sure why people doubted them: they got blacklisted for having a source who confirmed everything from FO4 months before release, to Bethesda's fury). I feel more sorry for the people who saw the teaser a couple of weeks ago, which had zero indication this was anything other than another full FALLOUT experience, got hyped up for it and then discovered it was some kind of online-only BS. And Bethesda knew this was going to be a problem, which is why they early-announced STARFIELD and ELDER SCROLLS VI: PROBABLY HIGH ROCK to try to deflect some of the irritation from their core fanbase. When Howard said, "FALLOUT 76 is an always-online game," the deathly silence from half the audience was something to behold (the other half tried to make it up, but that didn't really work).
I shut it off as they were announcing something called "Starfield" which looked neat... but I need to go to bed.
STARFIELD is Bethesda's new IP. It's the open-world Bethesda FALLOUT/ELDER SCROLLS paradigm BUT IN SPACE. Apparently the setting is a massive space station (presumably the one in the teaser) and you do tons of missions on the station and occasionally fly off to planets to do side-quests and as part of the main storyline. It's basically MASS EFFECT if ME was a proper open-world game.
The question is if the other rumours about it (like it's set in the FALLOUT timeline, centuries later) are true, but I guess we'll find out.
Apparently there is a solo-play option for Fallout 76, but I don't know exactly what that means. Online appeals to me not at all, so I am hoping the solo option is worthwhile.
I don't think it is. It's solo play in the same way you can play WORLD OF WARCRAFT solo: you can do it, but you can't avoid bumping into other players and seeing other stuff going on. There isn't, as far as we know, an fully offline mode that lets you play without any other players around (like, say, ELITE: DANGEROUS). There aren't any human NPCs in the game apart from maybe the Vault 76 Overseers, so without them I can't see the game giving you lots of storylines or enough content to play a decent amount of SP.
Slightly annoying as the world looks amazing, the size of the world is impressive and there's actually a lot they can do with the setting (which you can already see with the Mothman stuff). A proper SP FALLOUT in West Virginia would be really cool.
Ah well, back to the Mojave for me...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently there is a solo-play option for Fallout 76, but I don't know exactly what that means. Online appeals to me not at all, so I am hoping the solo option is worthwhile.
If you watch the video, Todd Howard says, "you can play solo if you want," but the context is clear that you still have to log into a server to play, as the game is, direct quote, "Online only." "Solo play" just means that you're not teaming up with other people on your server to get your adventuring on. He adds that you won't get the most out of play unless you're working with other people. One example is the nukes--you need to find codes to make them operational, and you're more likely to get a complete code working with other people who have other pieces of the code. I suggest watching the video as you may get a better sense of it.
*nods*
Wondering if we're just getting Multiplayer or MMO multi player.
Again, watch the video (the presentation isn't that long). He says each server has "dozens" not "thousands or millions" of players. I.e., there's only enough people per server to feel like it's the population of a vault, not of the whole world.
I'd call it "medium multiplayer." It's not "massive," but it's not local multiplayer of 4-6 people either.
Werthead, it's not about doubting Kotaku, per se, it's about being a cautious and wise enough consumer who waits patiently for confirmed facts, rather than encouraging bad writing, dodgy and unethical journalism practices, and sensationalistic clickbait (however based in truth) designed purely to engender ad-revenue generating premature speculation, which I personally never find satisfying.
The impression I got from watching the video is that it's the same sort of multiplayer options as, say, the Borderlands games (including the option to play without a team if you want). I think I can live with that and, actually, have been wondering if there will be the option to play local multiplayer on consoles with split screen like Borderlands. I really doubt it, though. I think the Borderlands franchise can get away with it because of its deliberately cartoony art style probably puts a lot less demand on the system than the incredibly detailed world they were touting in the preview. But, still, it would be cool to be able to play it together with my wife like we do with Borderlands.
I don't think I have a huge issue with having to be always online in principle, but that's mostly just ignorance. I don't think I've ever played a game online that wasn't an MMO (the Star Trek one way back), so I have no real idea what such a play experience might be like. I never felt the urge to play Borderlands in any form other than solo or local multiplayer. I guess you could say I'm cautiously optimistic about it. That gorgeous world from the trailer makes we want to give it a try.
I think Borderlands also heavily goes for the 'shoot everything' style rather than heavy focus on crafting and base building. BL's world is minimally interactive while FO's has you able to pick up huge amounts of stuff so less comp power is needed for BL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-3X04jwJ0U&feature=youtu.be
"Can I play offline?"
"You cannot. Even if you're playing solo, doing quests, you'll still see other players in the game."
Also there are no human NPCs in the game, at all, and you get quests from robots and terminals.
There are ways of switching on and off PVP to reducing griefing, but they're still figuring out how that happens, if it's limited to certain areas or server settings.
VATS is still present but no longer slows down or freezes time.