I agree on all point, COX ruined me also for any MMO. I made who i wanted without the worry of gear the sheer number of costumes in COX was amazing. I want that same feel of making a new character the way i want With COT. Costumes shouldn't have a affect on gameplay and thats what i loved about COX. I also never got into WOW for this reason. I really miss the community i made so many friends with COX miss my supergroup.

Wait, this is still coming out this tear and hasn’t been pushed back yet? Wow

Halae wrote:

bythepowercosmic wrote:

Wait, this is still coming out this tear and hasn’t been pushed back yet? Wow

MWM has been dedicated from the start to the concept of "if we say it, we mean it" far more than any other development team I've ever seen.

The flip side is that they keep their information close to their chest and are conservative about making promises, so it seems like not much is going on, until you get an update that surprises you with how polished and well done everything is.

Paragon Studios were masters of this. "No, we can't do Ancillary Power Pool Color Customization, the code doesn't support it," "no, there will never be Ancillary Power Pool Customization, sorry," "NEXT ISSUE: ANCILLARY POWER POOL COLOR CUSTOMIZATION!!!"

Wh... what? 0.0 ssssSSSQqqqqEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

...and then NCSoft cancelled the game... but still!

Boy I can't wait to play this which will most definitely have great updates instead of every update is just advertising another PTW Bundle of garbage. I'm so done with those

Isn't Destiny a FPS?

I'm surprised no one here has yet mentioned [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_76]Fallout 76[/url] as a MMORPG being released in 2018 (specifically November 14, 2018). I understand why it wasn't included in the original article this thread was based on but that's only because the game was just publicly announced on May 30, 2018.

The reason it ought to be included is that it's going to launch as a multiplayer game. I say "launch as" because they claim they will eventually offer players the chance to have "private servers" which will let people invite whoever they want into their game, including "no one else" which would effectively let you play it as a single-player game if desired. This actually sounds roughly similar to MWM's eventual plans for private servers for CoT.

Even as a multiplayer game Fallout 76 will likely be a relatively lonely place. They claim they are only going to allow something like 30 or 40 people per "server" and the map is going to be 4x the size of Fallout 4 so that's going to be a huge area to spread out into. There will technically be PvP involved, but they are making it very "care bear" in that there's no death penalty, no corpse looting and even bases you create cannot be permanently destroyed/looted. Also if you decide to "gank" someone who didn't want to PvP you'll be targeted with a bounty so that all the other players will be out to get you. Seems pretty "safe" to me and that's saying that as someone who doesn't generally care for open-world PvP.

Frankly I'm planning to play Fallout 76 regardless of CoT's plans - I've been a Fallout fan since the 90's. :)

TheInternetJanitor wrote:

76 is just a bandwagon attempt to cash in on the battle royale craze that is going on lately. Suits that make decisions in publishing companies go through this every so often when they see a game that does well and they all throw money attempting to copy it (and generally fail terribly). This has happened plenty of times, with the MMOs trying to build off the success of everquest in the 2000s (wow killed them all) the couch console FPS deluge around the same era, the swamp of DOTA copies, and so on.

76 isn't going to be an mmorpg in any sense. It doesn't really have anything to do with fallout, they just slapped the name on there because it has some brand recognition now. You mentioned the original RPG games and this is very far removed from that. Not only in terms of gameplay of course, but also writing and setting.

I've seen other people criticize Fallout 76 as just an attempt to jump on the battle royale bandwagon craze and I'm not even going to bother to argue against that idea. For all we know that's been Bethesda's prime motivation behind a game that's been in development since BEFORE Fallout 4.

But if we are to assume that this is Bethesda's attempt to create their own version of Fortnite they are certainly going about it in a very strange way. For instance like I said they are only going to be allowing like 30 or 40 people per server in a game area that's like the equivalent of half the size of West Virginia. It's going to be pretty hard to ever see more than 1 or 2 other people running around let alone organize constant PvP combat. Also they've already mentioned that they are going to make it very easy to HIDE from other players so again it doesn't sound like their prime motivation is the PvP.

I can understand why some people might see Fallout 76 as an affront towards previous Fallout games but frankly this "version" has the parts I always liked about the Fallout games in spades - an utterly gigantic area to explore and the added ability to build bases [b]anywhere[/b] you want (not just in predesignated spots like in Fallout 4). And to be honest I always avoided finishing the "main quest" in the previous Fallout games because that always signaled the "end" of the game to me. So yes, as a never-ending survival sandbox this game sounds like a load of fun to me. YMMV of course.

TheInternetJanitor wrote:

I'm sure it will be fun. It just seems like a clone of Ark, Conan exiles, pubg, fortnite, and the thousand of other survival / battle royale games.

Also I'd take that "the size of west Virginia" thing with a hefty helping of skepticism. You can walk across all of skyrim in what, half an hour? Bethesda has always been good at making relatively large open worlds but especially good at making them *feel* much bigger than they actually are. Which is generally a good thing. Climbing up a real mountain would be more struggle and time than any player is interested in investing. Shrinking and squeezing gameplay and the worldspace not only makes development more feasible but allows the player to feel a bit more heroic.

Basically I'm sure it will be fun (Bethesda does like money after all) but don't believe anything Todd Howard says.

Where do you get the battle royale element from? Only thing I can see even relating to that is the enforced PvP but otherwise it has no elements that are specific to the battle royale genre.

TheInternetJanitor wrote:

So yes 76 has a great deal in common with the genre. Build a base, shoot someone else, steal their stuff, repeat, eventually get nuked. It has power armor instead of dinosaurs or zombies or conan swords and sorcery but the core game is very recognizable.

Except you can't corpse loot or steal anything from another person's base in Fallout 76. You can "blow up" another person's base but it's supposed to be almost trivial to repair it 100%. Also all you need to do to avoid PvP completely is to drop into stealth mode. Also if you get killed when your "PvP flag" is not enabled your killer will get a huge bounty placed on his/her head and he/she [b]cannot[/b] hide from other players until he/she's been ganked themselves.

So please keep telling us how Fallout 76 is going to be an easily recognizable "exact clone" to all those other Battle Royale games. At this point Fallout 76 would have to make quite a few huge "180s" in terms of design to get anywhere close to a Fortnite, et. al.

TheInternetJanitor wrote:

When I mentioned Howard it was because he is known for exaggerating or outright lying about games when he hypes them up for Bethesda.

I suppose. Of course in this day and age the millisecond he were to say anything about Fallout 76 that proved to be a willful lie both he and Bethesda would be instantly tarred and feathered for it (at least virtually speaking). I really don't see any advantage for them to be telling us outright lies about these things just a few months from launch. The details can always evolve but based on everything I've read/seen so far this game would have to be seriously redesigned to make it a "clone" of a typical Battle Royale game.

Remember as I mentioned Bethesda has announced the specific public goal to eventually provide "private servers" for Fallout 76 that would effectively allow single-player play. Why would they promote single-player play at all if their -primary- goal was to create a Battle Royale clone? The "marketing math" of that simply doesn't add up.

TheInternetJanitor wrote:

All that aside I'm looking forward to 76.

It'll definitely be a "different" game at the very least. It'll be interesting to see if the elements they are stressing in this game will work. I'm not automatically assuming it'll be a perfect game, but it's also far from likely it'll be a complete flop either.

Phararri wrote:

Lothic wrote:

Frankly I'm planning to play Fallout 76 regardless of CoT's plans - I've been a Fallout fan since the 90's. :)

Usually prefer the modded out FO due to the superhero mods, or things based off of popular media culture, but 76 looks interesting so far. Seems Ark-ish, to me at least. Without the taming.

They have mentioned supporting player mods for Fallout 76. Not quite sure how that'd work on one of their "multiplayer" servers but it seems likely they'll figure that out at least in the "single player" server mode.

This could actually be a practical reason for limiting the "total server pop" down to around 30 or 40 people. If the game allows all those players to load in a bunch of their own personal mods the network bandwidth could get overloaded pretty quickly.

To chime in on the Battle Royale discussion; for a game to be a Battle Royale game it requires a shrinking arena and some form of last man standing approach.

Otherwise it's just an arena shooter.

Lothic wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

To chime in on the Battle Royale discussion; for a game to be a Battle Royale game it requires a shrinking arena and some form of last man standing approach.

Otherwise it's just an arena shooter.

If "Battle Royale" games strictly follow those rules then Fallout 76 will not be a "Battle Royale" game by definition. And I would consider a game area roughly half the virtual size of the state of West Virginia with only maybe 30 or 40 people in it to be pushing the meager definition of an "arena" pretty far to its limit as well.

It's just a really really big arena.

Honestly the way Fallout 76 seems like it's going to operate seems similar to something like GTA Online rather than any sort of Battle Royale type game.

Project_Hero wrote:

Lothic wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

To chime in on the Battle Royale discussion; for a game to be a Battle Royale game it requires a shrinking arena and some form of last man standing approach.

Otherwise it's just an arena shooter.

If "Battle Royale" games strictly follow those rules then Fallout 76 will not be a "Battle Royale" game by definition. And I would consider a game area roughly half the virtual size of the state of West Virginia with only maybe 30 or 40 people in it to be pushing the meager definition of an "arena" pretty far to its limit as well.

It's just a really really big arena.

Yeah but with scaled "area vs. population" ratio of something like randomly tossing out 40 ants into the Roman Colosseum and hoping you'll get constant ant warfare out of that. Again I think you're being super-generous calling something like that an "arena". ;)

Project_Hero wrote:

Honestly the way Fallout 76 seems like it's going to operate seems similar to something like GTA Online rather than any sort of Battle Royale type game.

Well they've said they'll allow groups of up to four players to form teams. Given that there's no corpse looting and that there's going to be allowances to ensure your respawn point can't be camped and that bases can be restored instantly I honestly don't see the "ongoing appeal" for continued PvP existing in Fallout 76. I suspect people are going to be far more motivated to work together to launch the nukes that'll create temporary high level "blast zones" to spawn high level monsters and drops.

Lothic wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Lothic wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

To chime in on the Battle Royale discussion; for a game to be a Battle Royale game it requires a shrinking arena and some form of last man standing approach.

Otherwise it's just an arena shooter.

If "Battle Royale" games strictly follow those rules then Fallout 76 will not be a "Battle Royale" game by definition. And I would consider a game area roughly half the virtual size of the state of West Virginia with only maybe 30 or 40 people in it to be pushing the meager definition of an "arena" pretty far to its limit as well.

It's just a really really big arena.

Yeah but with scaled "area vs. population" ratio of something like randomly tossing out 40 ants into the Roman Colosseum and hoping you'll get constant ant warfare out of that. Again I think you're being super-generous calling something like that an "arena". ;)

Project_Hero wrote:

Honestly the way Fallout 76 seems like it's going to operate seems similar to something like GTA Online rather than any sort of Battle Royale type game.

Well they've said they'll allow groups of up to four players to form teams. Given that there's no corpse looting and that there's going to be allowances to ensure your respawn point can't be camped and that bases can be restored instantly I honestly don't see the "ongoing appeal" for continued PvP existing in Fallout 76. I suspect people are going to be far more motivated to work together to launch the nukes that'll create temporary high level "blast zones" to spawn high level monsters and drops.

I'd probably just use the online features to just play with a handful of friends on a private server/room/game. Much like I do on GTA Online and most any game with optional online play.

OathboundOne wrote:

A huge portion of my mods are for character creation, settlement objects, and armor/weapons/clothes, so don't really impact the actual gameplay much at all. I just like to look good while I'm at it. =P

Yeah most of the Fallout 4 mods I played with were cosmetic in nature (alternate body models, costumes, object textures, etc.) with a handful of GUI mods to make some of the actual "playing of the game" nicer. I usually stayed away from the mods that would let me overtly "cheat" the fundamental game rules (like various god-modes or infinite bullets and such).

It'll be interesting to see how it works as far as Fallout 76 goes. I guess even if they limit mods to "private servers" there's still going to have to be some way they officially organize that (i.e. via a new Bethesda managed mod service?) so that everyone on the server has equal access to the mods.

Lost Deep wrote:

The comparison I heard for Fallout 76 is ARK: Survival Evolved or Rust, though I haven't really kept up with the Fallout 76 news. It makes more sense to me; a cooperative (or pseudo-cooperative) survival and building game does seem to fit in the Fallout universe... save that there's already a lot of those around and this isn't really a thing that's in Bethesda's wheelshouse. Personally, though, I feel it lacks the framework of an MMO and so doesn't really count in this case.

I guess that depends on how "strict" your definition of a MMO is. We do know that Fallout 76 will be offering a number of "quests/missions" that would likely lead to instanced mission areas. We know the game will have the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. stat system and leveling mechanic like most RPGs. I suppose if you count the fact that the public servers will be very sparsely populated compared to other "standard" MMOs that might be one point against counting Fallout 76 as a full-fledged "MMO" in the classic sense.

Bottomline it's clear that Bethesda is trying something relatively new with Fallout 76 in that it's not going to be easy to "pigeonhole" it into any clear category. It's going to have some sandbox, MMO and PvP elements but it's not really going to be just an X or Y type game. Even when the "talking heads" try to describe Fallout 76 they are reluctant to label it with any specific labels. Whether that kind of marketing strategy proves to be successful or not for this game seems to be up in the air at this point.

Phararri wrote:

About MMO, anything which is social and contains multiple players playing simultaneously on the same server/world is an mmo in my book. However, that is my book, perhaps others are more strict. I would say Fallout 76 looks like a mmo, but I don't know too much about it.

Well it's been explained according to the Fallout Universe timeline that the Fallout 76 game is actually set at a point [b]earlier[/b] than any other Fallout game to date. With that it's technically a Fallout prequel.

As the story lore goes the earlier games have always been set like one or two hundred years after the big Nuclear War that blew up the world. That supposedly explained why there were plenty of "wasteland survivors" walking around in those games. But Fallout 76 is different in that it's supposed to be set in a time that's like only (IIRC) 50 years after the big war. This means that there hasn't been as long a time for the world to repopulate which provides the "justification" for why there simply isn't many people in this world (thus explaining the relatively low 30 to 40 player cap per server).

So yes Fallout will technically be a "MMO" game but only in the sense that it'll have (at least on the public servers) more live human players than just [b]you[/b] in it. Maybe instead of "MMO" they ought to call it a "SMO" as in a "Sparsely Multiplayer Online" game. ;)

Lost Deep wrote:

We can put it with Warframe in the 'really hard to categorize' category. I would say that Fallout: 76 does not seem to match the 'Massively' part of the description unless there's some way for servers to talk. 40-100 players on one server is hefty, by all means, but in most MMOs I know of they really put the "Massive" thing to work using a player economy or large group instanced content. If servers can talk between each other and either have visits or trade resources, that will definitely be new and strange kind of MMO. But I'm skeptical that will happen.

However, it would be pretty cool idea if done right.

Yeah I get the feeling based on what's been said that at best there [i]might[/i] be some kind of "game-wide" chat system (that spans all the active "servers") but I don't think you're going to be able to have characters that can freely interact or "jump" across servers in any way. It basically sounds like when you create a character that character is permanently tied to whatever server instance he/she was defined in. Also based on this I'm -very- sure there will be no cross-server economy of any kind in Fallout 76. At best you'll be able to trade (either face to face or via in-game vending machines) with the other players located on your current server. TBH, there are still a good number of "character management" details that have not been openly covered/discussed yet.

So yeah with server instances limited to a max of 30 or 40 players and those characters unable to interact in any way with characters on other servers this game could only really be called a "MMO" in the very loosest interpretation of that term.