Fallout IX: Nuclear Cash Cows Go MMOoooooo!

[Squark]

So I finally decided to give Fallout 4 its fair shake and play it properly. Or like Noah Caldwell Gervais said: "Don't play Fallout 4 like you played New Vegas. Play Fallout 4 like you play Fallout 4. It makes more sense that way."

Overall once I have dismissed all expectations of engaging storylines or dialogues, the game is actually fun as a compulsional scrounger simulator.

Only thing that bothers me is the clunky interface of settlement design. So I am in the quest where I need to provide food for the settlement, but.. I panted everything i could (2 melons and 1 carrot) and assigned everyone I could, and I am still stuck at 50% quest completion. What gives?

The game doesn't supply you with enough crops to feed the settlers to start, although the Sanctuary settlers don't leave if the food is insufficient (for a while, anyway). You have a couple options;

1) Go out and harvest more crops to plant. There is a small farm nearby you can visit that has plenty of potatoes you can harvest (The locals are fine with it). Bring them back and plant them.

2) The plants you added, as well as a few pre-planted ones in Sanctuary (behind the house with the workbench), periodically spawn harvestables. These can be planted to increase your food supply

3) There's a general store not far where you can buy some more crops to plant.

[Cikomyr]

The game doesn't supply you with enough crops to feed the settlers to start, although the Sanctuary settlers don't leave if the food is insufficient (for a while, anyway). You have a couple options;

1) Go out and harvest more crops to plant. There is a small farm nearby you can visit that has plenty of potatoes you can harvest (The locals are fine with it). Bring them back and plant them.

2) The plants you added, as well as a few pre-planted ones in Sanctuary (behind the house with the workbench), periodically spawn harvestables. These can be planted to increase your food supply

3) There's a general store not far where you can buy some more crops to plant.

Ahhhh thanks!!

[Brookshw]

Looks like F76 finally got the message and is launching private worlds via Fallout 1st, private worlds you can invite friends to, unlimited stash, all the things that we would have wanted in a Fallout game from the get go. Okay, that's a step in the right direction. However, it's subscription based so you're paying for it. Ugh, one step forward, two steps back.

[Squark]

Looks like F76 finally got the message and is launching private worlds via Fallout 1st, private worlds you can invite friends to, unlimited stash, all the things that we would have wanted in a Fallout game from the get go. Okay, that's a step in the right direction. However, it's subscription based so you're paying for it. Ugh, one step forward, two steps back.

And no mod support for private worlds at launch

[Rodin]

$13 a month at that. That's in addition to the $60 people spent at launch. All for features that were promised to be free.

That price is the level you pay for an actual MMO subscription, where the price is high because they're supporting millions of players simultaneously and are paying GMs to actively monitor and manage the servers. I highly doubt Bethesda is going to be providing that level of service.

The timing of the announcement is also crazy. As Chris Avellone points out, the timing of the announcement could not be a better advertisement for The Outer Worlds than if Obsidian had actually paid Bethesda.

[Erloas]

I haven't actually read much on it, but they were talking about it on CheckPoint. Not everyone on the server has to have a subscription, so you can invite friends to play when only one person has the sub, but at least one person with the sub has to be online at all times or it will shut down the server. There was also some talk about an extra storage box you got with a sub, but items stored in it may or may not be deleted if you let your sub lapse.

The overall feel was that they do one or two good things, implement them in such a way as to alienate some people in the process, tack on a bad idea, and just completely ignore bug fixing.

[Brookshw]

Not everyone on the server has to have a subscription, so you can invite friends to play when only one person has the sub, but at least one person with the sub has to be online at all times or it will shut down the server.

I'm pretty sure they said the person w/ the sub could go offline and the world would stay up for players inside it. Then again, I was just skimming their post for it and could be wrong.

[Rodin]

I'm pretty sure they said the person w/ the sub could go offline and the world would stay up for players inside it. Then again, I was just skimming their post for it and could be wrong.

The press release stated otherwise - you need at least 1 person with the subscription to hold the world open. It doesn't have to be the creator of the server, but one of the players in it has to have a sub.

Even if that isn't the case, it's an 8 person server that shuts down as soon as there are no people in it. That makes it a virtual certainty that all 8 players will be offline at the same time, which would cause the server to shut down. This is especially true since it's Friends Only, and a lot of people will be playing with friends located close to them geographically. And once the server is shut down, the only person who can open a new one is the guy with the subscription.

As with everything else Fallout 76, it seems like a really weird implementation. Only 8 players per server when the main game is designed to allow up to 32. The server closes if not occupied, which to my mind kind of gets rid of the point of a private server to begin with. No way to control the settings of the private server. No way to mod the private server. A high possibility of the private server becoming unavailable to some of the players who want to play on it.

[Cikomyr]

So.. Sorry, I discover Fallout 4 at the moment, everything is brand new. I am kind of a newb.

What's the deal with the military guys on top of the highways. Why do they attack me on sight?

[Rynjin]

Because they're an NPC faction in a Fallout game.

That's basically it as far as I know. There is no canon explanation I know of for why the Gunners, a group of MERCENARIES, not Raiders, shoot everybody they encounter in the wasteland on sight. You'd think they'd at least wait and see if the person coming up to them has, y'know, a contract for them or something.

But nah, they're just Raiders with Combat Armor because Fallout 4 has hack writers.

[factotum]

I'm pretty sure they said the person w/ the sub could go offline and the world would stay up for players inside it. Then again, I was just skimming their post for it and could be wrong.

It seems--and why this should come as a surprise I don't know, but there you are--that the features in Fallout First are buggier than a very buggy thing. Apparently, we have stuff like:

- Putting the new tent down causes the game to CTD.
- There's a glitch with the Scrapbox whereby it will occasionally delete its entire contents.
- Anyone on the friends list of a "Private" server owner can connect to it, regardless of whether said owner wants them to or not.
- People have found already-looted items and dead NPCs in their newly set up private worlds, suggesting that Bethesda are just recycling the same private worlds to different people without resetting the contents.

I mean, it's traditional for an initial release of a Bethesda title to be buggy, but when they're charging this sort of money for additional features in an already existing game, you'd kind of hope they'd make sure they worked before release!

[Rodin]

Because they're an NPC faction in a Fallout game.

That's basically it as far as I know. There is no canon explanation I know of for why the Gunners, a group of MERCENARIES, not Raiders, shoot everybody they encounter in the wasteland on sight. You'd think they'd at least wait and see if the person coming up to them has, y'know, a contract for them or something.

But nah, they're just Raiders with Combat Armor because Fallout 4 has hack writers.

I remember actually dying to the Gunners the first time I encountered their base. I walked forward expecting someone to challenge me, maybe give me some Diplomacy check to get inside the base and talk to their leader. But no. They just riddled me with bullets. I eventually wound up looking online to find out what this massive base was about, thinking that I had accidentally lowered my reputation with them somehow. Nope! The only thing that leads there is a bunch of radiant quests.

This is a shame, because the Gunners seem like a perfect faction for a Neutral or Evil character to join. Not as one of the main ones, but as a side faction to do quests for like the Powder Gangers or the Kings from New Vegas.

[Cikomyr]

Because they're an NPC faction in a Fallout game.

That's basically it as far as I know. There is no canon explanation I know of for why the Gunners, a group of MERCENARIES, not Raiders, shoot everybody they encounter in the wasteland on sight. You'd think they'd at least wait and see if the person coming up to them has, y'know, a contract for them or something.

But nah, they're just Raiders with Combat Armor because Fallout 4 has hack writers.

Huh. That's a shame. Can I infiltrate their territory if I put on their uniforms?

Also, is their concept basically a mechanics about "highways can get you quickly anywhere in the commonwealth, but you have to fight Gunners along the way"?

[Triaxx]

Sadly, no F4 doesn't allow those kinds of shenanigans. Supposedly the story is that the gunners are being contracted by someone outside the commonwealth to do things in it, but like the Talon Company in F3, there's no further info.

[LuckGuy]

On my initial play through I thought F4 was building up the Gunners as an alternative to the Minutemen. If the Minutemen represent safety and freedom, the Gunners would represent safety and order, and the player would navigate between them via the settlement system to shape the commonwealth. I really thought that's where the whole Quincey thing was headed.

But no, they are just raiders with better gear.

[Brookshw]

The press release stated otherwise - you need at least 1 person with the subscription to hold the world open. It doesn't have to be the creator of the server, but one of the players in it has to have a sub.

Ah, got it. Well, by that I mean I'm not going to get it. Get it?

[Vinyadan]

Are New Vegas DLCs worth buying? Also, are they "isolated" from the rest of the game (like new areas) or do they add mechanics that change how the whole game is played?

[Haruspex_Pariah]

Are New Vegas DLCs worth buying? Also, are they "isolated" from the rest of the game (like new areas) or do they add mechanics that change how the whole game is played?

Each DLC increases the level cap by 5. This should kick in at the start of the game after the DLCs are loaded up. Each DLC takes place in its own separate zone. Taking perks from the DLC don't require you to go into the DLC, unless it's some kind of implant or achievement style perk.

In some cases non-unique DLC gear will become available in the main game vendors after you finish the DLC; I know this is the case for Honest Hearts at least.

As to whether they are worth it, it depends on what you're looking for but I lean toward yes. Each DLC has a distinct theme and tone, so you might not feel the same way about all of them. Each DLC has some lore connections to the main game, though some are more obscure than others. I'm really trying to not spoil anything here, if you can tell.

[factotum]

In some cases non-unique DLC gear will become available in the main game vendors after you finish the DLC; I know this is the case for Honest Hearts at least.

You can also usually take DLC unique gear out of the DLC and back into the main game, like the ED-E upgrades from Lonesome Road.

[SZbNAhL]

I find that most people like three of the DLCs but hate the fourth. The interesting thing is, there's no consistency as to which the fourth is. Personally I like Dead Money and Honest Hearts a lot, think Old World Blues is a neat concept with questionable execution and hate Lonesome Road with the passion of a thousand suns. Suns that are inexplicably passionate.

[The Glyphstone]

I find that most people like three of the DLCs but hate the fourth. The interesting thing is, there's no consistency as to which the fourth is. Personally I like Dead Money and Honest Hearts a lot, think Old World Blues is a neat concept with questionable execution and hate Lonesome Road with the passion of a thousand suns. Suns that are inexplicably passionate.

Truth. I absolutely adore Old World Blues, had mixed but positive opinions on Honest Hearts, and utterly despised Dead Money (never actually finished Lonesome Road).

[LuckGuy]

Good:
Dead Money
Honest Hearts

Fun once in a while:
Old World Blues

Bleh:
Lonesome Road

[Cikomyr]

So far, I have to say the mechanics of Fallout 4 gameplay is actually damn good. I love the weapon and armor mods.

It's a superbe shell with an empty core.

New Vegas DLC:

None of them were really good to my taste in term of quest line. But I hated everything about Dead Money.

The new perks they brough were neat. I grew very tired of Old World Blues by the end of it. Honest Heart was just a massive fetch quest. Lonesome Road was too arbitrarily difficult to my taste, and the main talker was mostly pointless meanders.

New Vegas is still my favourite Fallout by far.

[Rodin]

So far, I have to say the mechanics of Fallout 4 gameplay is actually damn good. I love the weapon and armor mods.

It's a superbe shell with an empty core.

Probably the best succinct description of Fallout 4 I've seen.

I will say that I liked the factions and companions of Fallout 4 the best out of any of the modern games. They're all pretty interesting and have good quests, and there's some genuine moral dilemmas about which to pick.

The hard part is making your way through the howling void that is the rest of the game to actually encounter that stuff.

[Cikomyr]

Probably the best succinct description of Fallout 4 I've seen.

I will say that I liked the factions and companions of Fallout 4 the best out of any of the modern games. They're all pretty interesting and have good quests, and there's some genuine moral dilemmas about which to pick.

The hard part is making your way through the howling void that is the rest of the game to actually encounter that stuff.

Can you imagine if Bethesda allowed Obsidian to do another "we take your new nice mechanics but build a real immersive rpg with it" with Fallout 4?

[LibraryOgre]

Can you imagine if Bethesda allowed Obsidian to do another "we take your new nice mechanics but build a real immersive rpg with it" with Fallout 4?

Time to reiterate my Fallout 0: Shady Sands.

You are the people of Vault 15. Your vault has just failed, and you need to make your way in the world. Factions within the group become the Khans and the Vipers, and the people of Shady Sands.

Using the F4 mechanics, and the more unforgiving land of California, you need to make your strongholds and set up to survive.

[Rodin]

Can you imagine if Bethesda allowed Obsidian to do another "we take your new nice mechanics but build a real immersive rpg with it" with Fallout 4?

Obsidian seem to be doing quite well without the Fallout license from what I've seen of Outer Worlds so far. At this point I don't know whether Obsidian would accept even if Bethesda offered.

[Cikomyr]

Obsidian seem to be doing quite well without the Fallout license from what I've seen of Outer Worlds so far. At this point I don't know whether Obsidian would accept even if Bethesda offered.

You are right.

Obsidian should just buy the franchise .

[Squark]

Obsidian seem to be doing quite well without the Fallout license from what I've seen of Outer Worlds so far. At this point I don't know whether Obsidian would accept even if Bethesda offered.

While it depends on what their new overlords at Microsoft say, I think their comments the past few years have hinted there's still a lot of people at Obsidian who have a strong attachment to the Franchise, and wouldn't turn down the chance if they got it.

[Rodin]

While it depends on what their new overlords at Microsoft say, I think their comments the past few years have hinted there's still a lot of people at Obsidian who have a strong attachment to the Franchise, and wouldn't turn down the chance if they got it.

True, I wasn't thinking about personal attachment.

From a pure business standpoint, it's a tough one. The Fallout name still definitely has the name recognition. However, the name grows more tainted day by day as Bethesda tries to piledriver the franchise into the ground with bad press. Obsidian would also be forced to use the current engine for Fallout, which is a bug-riddled mess. When it comes to picking an engine for a new game, Obsidian's engine wins pretty easily from everything I've seen/heard so far.

So it all comes down to whether or not the IP is worth it. The Obsidian devs love of Fallout is evident in their game, since it's basically Fallout with the serial numbers filed off and a Firefly coat of paint splashed over the top to hide the numbers. Is it worth all the hassle that working with Bethesda would entail just so you can show off that shiny serial number?

Speaking personally, I'm not attached to the Fallout universe. We've had 5 games in it (8 technically if you count 76, Tactics, and Brotherhood of Steel) and I feel the universe has been thoroughly explored. The games have all been enjoyable, but part of my ennui with Fallout 4 was that I feel like I've seen it all by this point. Branching out into a new IP feels much better than going over the same post-apocalyptic ground again.