Page 2 of 2 First 12
Results 26 to 47 of 47

  1. Post
    #26
    Gwarden wrote:
    You cynical old ****, what exactly has Todd lied about? Not touching you?
    https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoo..._tell_me_lies/


  2. Post
    #27
    yeahboiwahoo wrote:
    sounds like you are just keen for a sook

    what do you consider fallout tactics and bos?
    Every Fallout game has been a primarily single player game as opposed to MP-focused, which is different than going from FO2 to FO3, which was just a different type of SP game. People like Fallout for the SP experience, not because they want 'Yet Another Survival MP Game'.

  3. Post
    #28
    BURN_BABY wrote:
    Every Fallout game has been a primarily single player game as opposed to MP-focused, which is different than going from FO2 to FO3, which was just a different type of SP game. People like Fallout for the SP experience, not because they want 'Yet Another Survival MP Game'.
    Some people like fallout for the SP experience, not all. Plenty of people are keen to give the world a punt in multiplayer and see what happens. Nothing has been destroyed you can still go back and play any of the other games if you wish. You'll also note that the game is primarily driven and will be supported after launch by the austin studio not maryland.

  4. Post
    #29
    Lol I remember watching the hype videos over Radiant AI.

  5. Post
    #30
    yeahboiwahoo wrote:
    Some people like fallout for the SP experience, not all. Plenty of people are keen to give the world a punt in multiplayer and see what happens. Nothing has been destroyed you can still go back and play any of the other games if you wish. You'll also note that the game is primarily driven and will be supported after launch by the austin studio not maryland.
    I think it's fair to say everyone that likes Fallout, likes it for the single player content. Seeing as that was core to the Fallout experience. The MP side is a literal unknown for Bethesda. It may be a huge hit, it may not.
    There are a few arguments being merged into a single one here, and it's making things messy imo.

    The Fallout single-player experience is not being destroyed by this game. That's a given. The other games still exist, and more may come in the future. The issue is to when that may happen. BGS currently has a single main dev team, and some ancillary teams who provide either pre-production or post-release design/support/content. What this means is that a single-player Fallout title is a likely opportunity cost of this project. We already know the next two projects, which means Fallout at earliest will be the next after that. Likely at least six years away, likely more. While not the same as removing the SP games completely it does demonstrate a sizeable delay between games. There is also the risk that Fallout does become a MP franchise if 76 does really well. Because games as a service are more profitable. No one can say if that will happen, but it might. The support argument, and the "there will be more Fallout games" argument are problematic as the resources to make another game are limited and already earmarked for other projects.

    While I have had little to no interest in this game genre up until this point, I am a 21 year veteran of the franchise (purchased my copy of Fallout for my birthday in 1997) so it's very hard not to feel affected by this. So I've been a Fallout fan for half of my life. It may seem very melodramatic to you (and others) but this series is important to me. There is a sense of ownership being a fan for this long. And being left behind to appeal to a completely new audience feels bad man.

    That being said. I have no issue with this type of game. Gamers are a diverse group with diverse tastes. That Bethesda want to expand in this area is not only understandable its probably needed. The issue I have is in how it's being done.
    This doesn't "feel" very Fallout to me. Then again each of Beth's Fallout games has been demonstrably less Fallout than the previous "core" entry. So maybe I should not be surprised.

    This game might be great. It may do what it does brilliantly. It's also not the point as far as I am concerned. I want a core Fallout game. One way or another 76 is the reason there is none is sight. Not now, and for god knows how long.

    I do not begrudge Bethesda doing what they want wit a property they own. I however do not have to like it. Brian Fargo caused this whole thing years ago with his own incompetence.

    I honestly hope this game is not only amazing, but also a massive hit. More happy gamers is a good thing. I just wish I was one of those happy gamers.
    ______

    I am going to try and wrangle a code from Bethesda (beta and full release). As I am interested in what the game is trying to do. Who knows it may even convert me.
    Right now it's not what I want, and if I could choose I would want a SP game every time. Rich, choice driven narrative is what Fallout was. That's what I want it to be. This game is not that. Funnily enough if it was being made by Zenimax Studios (or any other) I probably wouldn't care anywhere near as much. Not saying I would be happy about it, but that extra level of separation would help.

    It may be that by the end of the year I am shouting the praises of 76. I hope I am. But nevertheless I will still lament the lack of a story driven single-player experience. I am the opposite of that annoying twat who constantly demands MP or Co-op in game X. Opposite in that I want something completely different, not that I am any less annoying about it.

    ______

    Todd Howard is full of shit, but he's hyping a game so overflowing faeces is to be expected. So many claims he's made have been outright lies. Where is my PC designed UI Todd?!?!

  6. Post
    #31
    You are wrong about how BGS only has one main team etc. There is info out there on how it is being run and where the resourcing has come for this.

    I think it's either going to be fun as **** or a dumpster fire. Neither of which effects anyone's ability to play the previous games (or fixes the mess I think fallout 4 ended up being in a lot of areas)

    Toddo mate has said plenty of bs over the years and bethesda has made lots of **** ups (the paid mods fiasco stands out) but the screetching about ruined franchises belongs with the sooking about wamens in bfv and the ruining of that.

  7. Post
    #32
    yeahboiwahoo wrote:
    Respond by being a cock
    If you're going to be a knob, you can gtfo. If you can't address people's legitimate concerns without being a dick about it you're just adding to the bullshit level.

    I am not wrong about the BGS team. Considering I know 2 people that work there in that team. just as I know people in Ubisoft, Hothead, and BioWare. NZ game devs are a small bunch and we keep in touch when folk move to new companies overseas.

  8. Post
    #33
    The Fallout single-player experience is not being destroyed by this game. That's a given. The other games still exist, and more may come in the future
    True, I guess my phrasing should've been more 'thrown out the window' rather than 'destroys' since I meant it more about FO76 specifically rather than the whole series.

  9. Post
    #34
    ChrisB wrote:
    If you're going to be a knob, you can gtfo. If you can't address people's legitimate concerns without being a dick about it you're just adding to the bullshit level.

    I am not wrong about the BGS team. Considering I know 2 people that work there in that team. just as I know people in Ubisoft, Hothead, and BioWare. NZ game devs are a small bunch and we keep in touch when folk move to new companies overseas.
    So is the austin studio and the maryland studio considered one large team? Everything has pointed to maryland washing their hands of it at launch and it being managed by austin from there on out (there was a line of dialogue in the making of talking about that) and maryland going onto/rejoining the starfield and then eldar scrolls 6. austin has had no real involvement with any of the others games so do you think without fallout 76 that another fallout game would have been first given there hasnt been another eldar scrolls?

  10. Post
    #35
    yeahboiwahoo wrote:
    So is the austin studio and the maryland studio considered one large team? Everything has pointed to maryland washing their hands of it at launch and it being managed by austin from there on out (there was a line of dialogue in the making of talking about that) and maryland going onto/rejoining the starfield and then eldar scrolls 6. austin has had no real involvement with any of the others games so do you think without fallout 76 that another fallout game would have been first given there hasnt been another eldar scrolls?
    'The tent pole games are all made by the same core team. 76 has additional teams helping/adding their expertise. But TES, Fallout, and Starfield are all made by the same team (give or take). That is why the games are spaced out as far as they are. This isn't Ubisoft that has multiple teams working on a franchise.
    The core BGS team makes their games from beginning to end. It's not as common as it once was, but Bethesda Game Studio has always worked this way. And it's been successful for them.
    Post-release support is irrelevant. The team have been making this game for years. Which is why there has been no other release since Fallout 4. Starfield will be next.... who knows when. Most likely the Pre-production, concept, and art teams have been full swing as soon as 76 went into full production, with other devs joining in as their core responsibilities in 76 were fulfilled.
    There is overlap within the studdio, and bandwidth to have multiple projects in some form of production, but only enough to fully develop a single title at time. Shit is expensive not just in terms of money but also time.

  11. Post
    #36
    ChrisB wrote:
    'The tent pole games are all made by the same core team. 76 has additional teams helping/adding their expertise. But TES, Fallout, and Starfield are all made by the same team (give or take). That is why the games are spaced out as far as they are. This isn't Ubisoft that has multiple teams working on a franchise.
    The core BGS team makes their games from beginning to end. It's not as common as it once was, but Bethesda Game Studio has always worked this way. And it's been successful for them.
    Post-release support is irrelevant. The team have been making this game for years. Which is why there has been no other release since Fallout 4. Starfield will be next.... who knows when. Most likely the Pre-production, concept, and art teams have been full swing as soon as 76 went into full production, with other devs joining in as their core responsibilities in 76 were fulfilled.
    There is overlap within the studdio, and bandwidth to have multiple projects in some form of production, but only enough to fully develop a single title at time. Shit is expensive not just in terms of money but also time.
    So when Todd in I believe the behind the scenes video (and probably at least a few interviews since) talked about being able to do multiple projects simultaneously now because they were larger that was an over statement?

  12. Post
    #37
    Working on does not mean in active production. Game development has multiple stages. And dev teams are made up of smaller teams. All the way from concept to post-release. Not all are done at the same time.
    There will be multiple projects being worked on. They announced both Starfield and TES6. Only one will be in full production right now. 76 is in QA/Beta. Most of the code is done, the design is basically done. Its all balancing, tweaking, and testing now. So core dev members are working on their next project Starfield. This is the main dev team. Programmers, scripters, writers, level/encounter/quest designers, animators, etc. The concept and design teams are likely already deep into TES6. Likely there are writers neck deep in there as well.

    It is not all or nothing.

    What exactly are you trying to say? That 76 didn't impact the time it will take for another Fallout game, or that it did not impact the release date for Starfield?
    Last edited by ChrisB; 18th June 2018 at 5:48 pm. Reason: was being a bit of a dick myself.

  13. Post
    #38
    I typed out a bunch but it got a mess, short version I dont think fallout 76 being made now took the place of a core single player game or had an impact more than a year tops. There is a huge amount of fallout 4 being recycled into it and it would appear from the interviews that a large amount of the time has been spent shoehorning multiplayer into the engine (there certainly hasnt been that much time on quests amirite fellas?). Assuming they didnt do fallout 76 then the wait order for the next game would still be after eldar scrolls.

    How much time do you estimate its stuck on to starfield? (im working on the assumption post starfield timeline remains the same) There was talk starfield is for current gen consoles so 2020 at the latest? Do you reckon it would have been 2019 without fo76 being made or this year?

  14. Post
    #39
    Truth is. It did. 1 main project is in active development at a time, by this I mean the core team is "building" only one game at a time. It's that simple.
    Others are in various stages of production, from concepting, to pre-production, and likely a lot of the core design work too. But they're not being "built" in any meaningful way.
    To use a semi-accurate analogy:Plans are written, building site is being cleared, or is cleared, maybe even core infrastructure is connected, but there are no builders on site, except for maybe a contractor prepping.

    You also need to look at what's in 76. World assets alone is a MASSIVE undertaking. Add in character models, monsters, quests, items, etc, etc, etc. The amount of work is huge excluding the MP aspects. Recycling is an interesting term to use. Makes it sound like its a simple process. Maybe don't comment on the complexity of game development if you do not understand it. I have a very basic understanding, but even I know it's not even remotely that simple. 76 was built from the ground up. A few models, meshes, and textures means very little. Hell even the scripting would need to change based on the new world, regions, and the fact that the world is not contingent on the location of the player. "uGrids" is no longer a thing as far as the engine goes. That is a fundamental change to the engine and literally affects everything in the game world.

    Quests are still a huge part of the game, we just don't know how large. Todd says its still a "Fallout experience" but we won't know until release.

    You also seem to be confused about dates. Starfield's release date was ALWAYS determined by 76. It's not a random project that just appeared one day. Games are planned out many years in advance.

    Time to let this one go. You're just wrong, but that's completely understandable.

  15. Post
    #40
    ChrisB wrote:
    I understand games and you don't
    I understand Fallout and you don't
    Todd Howard ****ed my girlfriend

  16. Post
    #41
    Gwarden wrote:
    [img]https://media1.tenor.com/images/3d1e06b74ff3cfdab23e87dcf8ee9549/tenor.gif?itemid=5875338[img]
    Being a douche again Gwarden. Congratulations
    Also this has nothing to do with what I think Fallout is. If you're not going to bother to actually address specfics, but instead try to undermine everything without making a salient point just or addressing what has actually been why bother at all? Is your adoration of Bethesda so extreme you can't even deal with people discussing it rationally?
    Sometimes some people know more about specific things than others. Stop celebrating your own ignorance. Your feelings are not facts as much you would like them to be.
    I do not think myself an expert, but I do know some specifics here. A few at least. I am not shit talking anyone, not knowing some of this shit is perfectly understandable. Which was the point I was making, but you just had to be a dick about it.

  17. Post
    #42
    lol just lol.

  18. Post
    #43
    ChrisB wrote:
    Being a douche again Gwarden. Congratulations
    Also this has nothing to do with what I think Fallout is. If you're not going to bother to actually address specfics, but instead try to undermine everything without making a salient point just or addressing what has actually been why bother at all? Is your adoration of Bethesda so extreme you can't even deal with people discussing it rationally?
    Sometimes some people know more about specific things than others. Stop celebrating your own ignorance. Your feelings are not facts as much you would like them to be.
    I do not think myself an expert, but I do know some specifics here. A few at least. I am not shit talking anyone, not knowing some of this shit is perfectly understandable. Which was the point I was making, but you just had to be a dick about it.

  19. Post
    #44
    Summing up the ChrisB vs Gwarden relationship


  20. Post
    #45
    ClavulanateV2 wrote:
    [img]https://i.imgflip.com/2ch5gc.jpg[img]
    Which has literally nothing to do whatsoever with what was being discussed here by me. Well done!
    Then again that would actually require you to read what was written wouldn't it.

  21. Post
    #46
    Oh shit, how could I forget one of the most blatant Howard lies... Skyrim is made on a new engine.

  22. Post
    #47
    ChrisB's feelings about Fallout mirror my feelings about Resident Evil, over 20 years and have seen my favorite franchise get run into the ground with action instead of staying true to the b-movie horror (this has changed recently, of course).

    Conversely though, I disliked early Fallout and have enjoyed the more recent titles so I guess I am my own worst enemy.